Advancing American Innovation Act
Sponsored By: Representative Schweikert, David [R-AZ-1]
Introduced
Summary
Prioritize protection of genuine U.S. domestic industries. This bill would refocus Section 337 at the U.S. International Trade Commission to protect real domestic production and to weigh public health, welfare, and the U.S. economy while speeding and clarifying investigations.
Show full summary
- Domestic manufacturers and patent holders would have stronger grounds to seek relief when substantial licensing investment leads to U.S. adoption and development of covered products. A complainant may not rely on licensees unless the license produces articles sold in the United States.
- ITC process and remedies would be faster and more public‑interest focused. The bill would require an administrative law judge to issue an initial determination on a dispositive issue within 100 days and lets the Commission consider public health, welfare, the U.S. economy, consumer impact, and domestic production when ordering exclusions or cease‑and‑desist relief.
- Litigants and funders must disclose third‑party litigation funding in patent cases. Disclosures are due within 10 days of the funding relationship or service of process, must be updated if incorrect, and define a funder to include entities with at least a 5 percent equity stake, with sanctions for noncompliance.
Personalized for You
How does this bill affect your finances?
Personalize government policy and PRIA will tell you what this bill means for your household, plus every other piece of legislation we track. PRIA reads each provision against your financial profile to show you exactly what matters to your wallet.
Bill Overview
Analyzed Economic Effects
5 provisions identified: 1 benefits, 0 costs, 4 mixed.
ITC to prioritize U.S. industry and health
The bill would change section 337's stated purpose so the ITC would focus on protecting genuine U.S. domestic industries and on safeguarding public health, public welfare, and the U.S. economy including competitive conditions. That new priority would guide which cases the ITC pursues and how it weighs the public interest in investigations and remedies. The change would apply to complaints filed on or after enactment.
More power to block imported goods
This bill would let the ITC order accused imported goods blocked from U.S. entry during a section 337 investigation on a "reason to believe" standard. The ITC would have to weigh public health, U.S. economic and competitive effects, U.S. production of like goods, and effects on U.S. consumers before blocking imports or ordering companies to stop selling the goods. If the ITC finds a violation and that blocking is in the public interest, it would be required to order exclusion. The ITC could also end investigations by consent or private agreement instead of a full merits decision.
New proof needed to bring ITC cases
The bill would tighten who can qualify as an "industry" for a section 337 complaint. A complainant could show industry status based on substantial licensing investment only if that licensing led to development and U.S. sales of products that use the claimed IP. A complainant could not rely on licensee activities unless the license produced U.S. sales. If a complaint is filed under oath, a person relied on to show industry status must join the complaint under oath, though the bill says no one is forced to join. These changes would apply to complaints filed on or after enactment.
Require disclosure of outside funders
The bill would require complainants in ITC patent cases to disclose any third-party funder and its contact details, and to give the funder's place of incorporation and main business address for entity funders. Complainants would generally have to make the funding agreement available to other named parties unless the Commission orders otherwise or all parties agree. Disclosures would be due no later than the later of 10 days after the funding is set up or 10 days after process is first served, and must be corrected promptly if incomplete. The ITC could sanction failures to comply. These rules would apply to complaints filed on or after enactment.
Faster early decisions on key issues
The bill would require the ITC to spot any dispositive issue at the start of an investigation and give that issue to an administrative law judge for expedited fact-finding. The judge would have to issue an initial determination on the issue within 100 days after the investigation starts. That initial decision would pause the rest of the investigation while the Commission acts. This would apply to complaints filed on or after enactment.
Sponsors & CoSponsors
Sponsor
Schweikert, David [R-AZ-1]
AZ • R
Cosponsors
Rep. Beyer, Donald S. [D-VA-8]
VA • D
Sponsored 9/1/2026
Rep. Estes, Ron [R-KS-4]
KS • R
Sponsored 9/2/2026
Roll Call Votes
No roll call votes available for this bill.
View on Congress.gov