,,ii  #aaith ,,congress  #ast ,session  
,s4 #gjh  ,,in ,,the ,,senate ,,of ,,the
 ,,united ,,states  ,february #be1      
#bjbe,mr4 ,coons 7for himself and ,mr4  
,cotton7 introduced the following bill2 
which was read twice and referred to the
 ,committee on the ,judiciary  ,a ,,bill
  ,to amend title #ce1 ,united ,states  
,code1 to establish a rebuttable        
presumption that a permanent injunction 
should be granted in certain            
circumstances1 and for other purposes4  
#a4 ,short title ,this ,act may be cited
 as the ,realizing ,engineering1        
,science1 and ,technology ,opportunities
 by ,restoring ,exclusive ,patent       
,rights ,act of #bjbe or the ,,restore  
,patent ,rights ,act of #bjbe4  #b4     
,findings ,congress finds the following3
 7#a7 ,securing effective and reliable  
patent protection for new technologies  
is critical to maintaining the          
competitive advantage of the ,united    
,states in the global innovation        
economy4  7#b7 ,the ,constitution of the

 ,united ,states empowers ,congress to  
grant inventors the exclusive ,right to 
their inventions in order to promote the
 ,progress of ,science and the useful   
,arts4  7#c7 ,the right to prevent      
others from making1 using1 offering to  
sell1 selling1 or importing a patented  
invention without authority from the    
inventor is the core of the patent      
right1 ensuring that an inventor enjoys1
 for a limited time1 the sole benefit of
 the inventor's invention or discovery4 
7#d7 ,congress and the courts of the    
,united ,states have long secured the   
constitutionally protected patent right 
through the traditional equitable remedy
 of an injunction4  7#e7 ,given the     
irreparable harm that is caused by      
multiple acts of infringement or willful
 infringement of a patent1 courts       
historically presumed that an injunction
 should be granted to prevent such acts1
 with a burden on defendants to rebut   
such a presumption with standard        
equitable defenses4  7#f7 ,recently1    

courts have ended the approach described
 in paragraph 7#e71 which contradicts   
the traditional1 historical practice    
governing the equitable remedy described
 in that paragraph4  7#g7 ,eliminating  
the traditional1 historical equitable   
practice of applying a rebuttable       
presumption of injunctive relief in the 
case of continuing acts of infringement 
or willful infringement of a patent     
has-- 7,a7 substantially reduced the    
ability of patent owners to obtain      
injunctions to stop continuing or       
willful infringement of patents2 and    
7,b7 created incentives for large1      
multinational companies to commit       
predatory acts of infringement1         
especially with respect to patents owned
 by undercapitalized entities1 such as  
individual inventors1 institutions of   
higher education1 startups1 and small or
 medium-sized enterprises4  #c4         
,rebuttable presumption that injunctive 
relief is warranted ,section #bhc of    
title #ce1 ,united ,states ,code1 is    

amended-- 7#a7 by striking ,the several 
and inserting the following3  7a7 ,in   
general ,the several  2 and  7#b7 by    
adding at the end the following3  7b7   
,rebuttable presumption ,if1 in a case  
under this title1 the court enters a    
final judgment finding infringement of a
 right secured by patent1 the patent    
owner shall be entitled to a rebuttable 
presumption that the court should grant 
a permanent injunction with respect to  
that infringing conduct4  4