# 119-hr-3160: PREVAIL Act 119-hr-3160, PREVAIL Act, is a 119th Congress bill sponsored by Rep. Moran, Nathaniel [R-TX-1] (R-TX); status introduced; PRIA reads it as touching household money (as of 2026-04-21). - Canonical: https://policyrisk.com/legislation/119-hr-3160 - As of: 2026-04-21 - Plain-text twin of the page above; the HTML and this file carry the same facts. ## Facts - Bill: 119-hr-3160 - Congress: 119 - Title: PREVAIL Act - Status: introduced - Introduced: 2025-05-01 - Sponsor: Rep. Moran, Nathaniel [R-TX-1] (R-TX) - Cosponsors: 2 - Policy area: Commerce - Touches household money: yes - Last recorded action: 2026-04-21 ## Summary **The PREVAIL Act would strengthen enforceable patent rights and curb abusive post‑grant challenges.** It tightens Patent Trial and Appeal Board procedures, raises evidence and claim construction standards, and would create an Innovation Promotion Fund to keep USPTO fees at the agency while expanding university and micro‑entity protections. - Patent owners: Requires minimum three‑member PTAB panels, a formal code of conduct, public records for panel changes, limits supervisor influence, and raises the unpatentability burden to clear and convincing. It also expands estoppel to discourage repeat attacks. - Petitioners and challengers: Creates a certification regime, treats financial backers as real parties in interest, and bars petitioners and their backers from pursuing the same invalidity grounds in parallel court or International Trade Commission actions. - Universities and small inventors: Expands micro‑entity treatment tied to higher education, allows license assignments and university patent‑holding organizations to access benefits, and orders Small Business Administration reporting on small business patent ownership. - USPTO users and public access: Replaces fee diversion with a new United States Patent and Trademark Office Innovation Promotion Fund funded by fees and requires free online public patent and trademark tools where licensing allows. - Litigation and procedure: Harmonizes claim construction with traditional standards, clarifies discovery and amendment rules, sets fixed timelines for rehearings and remands, and limits baseless or duplicative petitions absent exceptional circumstances. ## Cosponsors (2) - Rep. Ross, Deborah K. [D-NC-2] (D-NC), 2025-05-01T00:00:00.000Z - Rep. Suozzi, Thomas R. [D-NY-3] (D-NY), 2025-10-08T00:00:00.000Z ## Provisions PRIA read - More inventors qualify for micro-entity fees: benefit, medium. The bill would let more applicants qualify for reduced USPTO fees. You could qualify if your main employer is a college or university, if you assigned (or must assign) the application to a college, if you are the college, or if you are a 501(c)(3) that holds patents for a college to help commercial… - USPTO fund to keep services running: benefit, medium. The bill would create a USPTO Innovation Promotion Fund that collects patent and trademark fees. Money in the fund could be used without yearly limits to run USPTO services and pay obligations. On the first day of the first fiscal year after enactment, leftover balances from older accounts would mo… - Free patent and trademark search tools online: benefit, low. The USPTO would put online, at no charge, the patent and trademark information available in its Alexandria public search room. This would include search tools, databases, info pages, and training. Items covered by third‑party licenses that make free access not financially workable could be excluded. - Faster patent review decisions and deadlines: benefit, low. The Director would need to decide rehearing requests on institution within 45 days, with one extension of up to 30 days for good cause. If a court sends a case back, the Board or Director would need to decide remand issues within 120 days, with up to a 60‑day extension for good cause. The Office wo… - Higher proof and court-like claim reading: benefit, low. Challengers would need clear and convincing evidence to invalidate issued claims. Substitute claims would be judged on a lower, preponderance standard. Claims would be read like courts read them, using ordinary meaning and the prosecution history, and considering any past court constructions. Paten… - Stronger patent board panels and ethics: benefit, low. Appeals and patent reviews would be heard by at least three board members. Any panel change would be recorded publicly. Supervisors who are not on the panel could not try to influence the decision, and those who vote to start a review could not later decide it. The Director would set a code of cond… - One forum and fewer repeat challenges: mixed, medium. Once the Patent Office starts a review, a petitioner and its funders would not be able to also attack the patent’s validity in court or at the Trade Commission. The Office would block repeat petitions on grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised, with a narrow exception for late… - Tighter filing rules and funder disclosure: mixed, low. Before a review starts, a petitioner would need to meet one of four tests, such as being a qualifying nonprofit with no infringing funders, planning U.S. conduct that could infringe, having court standing, or having been sued. Anyone who pays for a petition would be treated as a real party in inter… - Time limit and funder disclosure for reexams: mixed, low. You could not request an ex parte reexamination more than one year after you (or your real party in interest or privy) were served with an infringement complaint. A request would need to list all real parties in interest and certify it is not time‑barred. The Office would usually reject requests th… ## Related bills - 119-hr-4669: FEMA Act of 2025 - 119-hr-3151: SHIPS for America Act of 2025 - 119-hr-2548: Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025 - 119-hr-1262: Mikaela Naylon Give Kids a Chance Act - 119-hr-842: Nancy Gardner Sewell Medicare Multi-Cancer Early Detection Screening Coverage Act - 119-hr-5349: TAS Act ## Sources - [119-hr-3160 on Congress.gov](https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/3160) ## Related - [119-hr-4669: FEMA Act of 2025](https://policyrisk.com/legislation/119-hr-4669) - [119-hr-3151: SHIPS for America Act of 2025](https://policyrisk.com/legislation/119-hr-3151) - [119-hr-2548: Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025](https://policyrisk.com/legislation/119-hr-2548) - [119-hr-1262: Mikaela Naylon Give Kids a Chance Act](https://policyrisk.com/legislation/119-hr-1262) - [119-hr-842: Nancy Gardner Sewell Medicare Multi-Cancer Early Detection Screening Coverage A…](https://policyrisk.com/legislation/119-hr-842) - [119-hr-5349: TAS Act](https://policyrisk.com/legislation/119-hr-5349) - [All bills in Congress](https://policyrisk.com/legislation) Source: PRIA, https://policyrisk.com/legislation/119-hr-3160 (as of 2026-04-21).