While Washington's endless drama dominates headlines, the Trump administration has been rewiring the foundations of American intellectual property (IP) policy. The administration's pro-patent stance could completely restructure the innovation ecosystem, changing where money flows and how competitive advantages form across every major industry.
One of Trump's consequential early moves was nominating John Squires for Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Squires served as former Chief IP Counsel at Goldman Sachs for eight years, and his reputation in the IP world combines a tough stance against patent trolls with a broader philosophy that favors strong patent protections. Another variable is Howard Lutnick, our recently confirmed Commerce Secretary and a prolific inventor with extensive business experience.
Several bills floating around Congress could practically overhaul our patent system if Trump gets behind them. A key focus of one bill, the Patent Eligibility Reform Act (PERA) addresses the confusion created by the Supreme Court's 2012 Mayo and 2014 Alice rulings—decisions which significantly restricted patent eligibility for innovations, particularly in software and medical diagnostics. If passed, PERA would restore the more straightforward threshold test for patentability under Section 101 of the Patent Act, limiting judicial exceptions and clarifying that useful processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter are presumptively eligible for protection.
The PREVAIL Act tackles procedural issues at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to reform how patent challenges are handled. This bill would require anyone challenging a patent at the PTAB to have been sued or at least threatened with a patent lawsuit. It would also prevent multiple challenges against the same patent, apply evidentiary standards favorable to patent owners, and ensure different judges handle the institution and final decision phases.
For innovation hubs like Boston, these reforms could have a massive impact. Massachusetts' biopharma sector contributes billions to the state's economy, and we saw clear signs of a rebound in 2024 with $7.8 billion in venture capital funding—the first year-over-year increase since the pandemic. Governor Healey also signed an economic development package that includes a $500 million investment in life sciences. With this renewed momentum, strengthening patent protections could further accelerate innovation in Massachusetts, a state that has historically led the nation in bioscience patents per capita.
For early-stage ventures seeking funding, this shift matters tremendously. A solid IP portfolio can make or break a company's valuation. Startups that develop strong patent positions see a 10x success rate in attracting investment capital and achieving successful exits, and the median acquisition exit value for patent-holding companies per year is 154.9% higher.
That said, these proposed reforms aren't without potential issues. There's a risk that these changes could increase litigation, including from non-practicing entities—the very "patent trolls" USPTO Director nominee John Squires has railed against. And critics of these reforms argue that strengthening patent protections could extend pharmaceutical monopolies and delay generic competition, potentially keeping drug prices higher for longer. Opponents of the PREVAIL Act contend it would limit the public's ability to challenge questionable patents through the more accessible PTAB process, forcing disputes into longer, more expensive federal court proceedings. And PERA critics worry about expanding patent eligibility to potentially include subject matter that was previously considered natural phenomena or abstract ideas. They fear this could allow companies to claim broader ownership over fundamental concepts or biological information.
We need to strike the right balance. Patent law is something of a trade-off: In return for public disclosure, inventors receive a government-granted monopoly, fueling future technological progress through shared knowledge. Take AI and biotech, fields that thrive on building upon existing knowledge. If we go too far with patent restrictions, we could slow down the breakthroughs we're trying to encourage. And globally, promoting harmonization with foreign IP offices can support collaboration and reduce legal uncertainty for inventors operating in a global marketplace.
The legal community—those of us working with innovators every day—must step up to help shape these policies. When we speak up based on real-world experience, we can prevent unintended consequences that might look good on paper but hurt businesses in practice.
Trump's first 100 days have laid the groundwork for what could be a dramatic shift in US IP policy. The stakes couldn't be higher. While we'll only see the full impact over time, the decisions we make now about protecting innovation will make or break America's competitive edge.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
