The section introduces the "Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2024," outlining its title and listing the main parts of the Act, which address changes to patent laws, including restoring inventors' rights, removing certain patent review processes, securing funding for the Patent Office, defining patent eligibility, and modifying publication and validity rules.

The section outlines Congress's findings that the current patent system, impacted by recent laws and Supreme Court decisions, has weakened its intended purpose of encouraging innovation in science and the arts. It emphasizes that the U.S. government has a responsibility to protect intellectual property and declares that this Act aims to realign the patent system with the Constitution's original vision.

The section proposes to revert the U.S. patent system back to a "first-to-invent" basis instead of the current "first-to-file" system established by the America Invents Act. It also seeks to restore a one-year grace period before filing a patent to help inventors complete research and attract investment, and reverts specific sections of the U.S. Code to their prior state.

The text explains that Congress intends to abolish certain patent review processes created by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, as they believe these processes unfairly challenge and invalidate patents too often. The proposed change would eliminate inter partes and post-grant reviews, while still allowing a different type of review called ex parte reexamination.

Congress is proposing to get rid of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and bring back the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. The new changes mean that certain ways of challenging patents won't be allowed, aiming to make it fairer for patent owners to keep their patents unless challenged in specific situations.

The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences is a group within the Patent and Trademark Office that reviews patent application decisions when appealed and handles disputes about patent priority and patentability. This board includes senior officials and administrative judges who are experts in law and science, and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, with specific guidelines on their authority and appointment process.

Applicants or patent owners unhappy with a decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences can appeal directly to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or seek a new review in a U.S. district court. Additionally, if there's a disagreement in an interference case, a party may appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, unless an opposing party chooses to continue proceedings differently within a certain timeframe.

The section amends parts of U.S. law to fully fund and prevent the diversion of fees collected by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) by establishing an “Innovation Promotion Fund,” where all collected patent and trademark fees will be deposited and used to cover the USPTO's operational expenses. It also transfers any leftover balances from old funds to this new fund and terminates the obsolete reserve fund after all obligations are paid.

The section discusses changes to patent law, specifically stating that a person can obtain a patent for useful inventions, unless those inventions already exist naturally or only exist in the mind. It also expresses Congress's view that previous court decisions negatively impacted scientific progress and clarifies that new amendments ensure discoveries in life sciences and software are patentable.

Whoever creates or discovers a new and useful process, machine, or material can apply for a patent, as long as it meets certain conditions. However, a patent cannot be granted for inventions that naturally exist without human involvement or exist solely in the mind.

Section 102 of title 35 of the United States Code describes the rules about patenting an invention. It explains that a person cannot get a patent if someone else already knew about the invention, if it was already patented or published, if the inventor gave up on it, if it was first patented outside the U.S., or if someone else invented it first in the U.S. It also states that certain disclosures before a patent is issued might not count as prior art if they were made by the inventor or if the disclosed invention is owned by the inventor.

In order for a person to be granted a patent, the invention must be new and not previously known, used, or described by others, and must have been invented by the applicant themselves; there are several conditions that can disqualify an invention from being patentable, such as prior publication, abandonment, or prior invention by someone else. Disclosures related to the invention are not considered prior art if they originated from the inventor or if they were publicly disclosed by the inventor before the patent application was filed.

Section 9 of the bill amends U.S. patent law to recognize patents as private property rights, rather than government-bestowed public franchises. It emphasizes the importance of allowing patent owners to assign their rights freely and criticizes recent court rulings that have limited these rights, asserting that they go against the original intent of patents as exclusive rights.

A patent right is a type of private property right given to an inventor once they are issued a patent, and it can only be taken away by a court's decision during a legal case, unless the patent owner agrees to another process.

The proposed amendment to Section 122(b) of title 35 would require patent applications to be published only if the applicant requests it, rather than automatically after 18 months. Congress believes that automatic publication can harm progress by creating prior art that might prevent future patents and allows foreign competitors to steal or copy innovations made in the United States.

In this section of the bill, it states that a patent is assumed to be valid in legal or administrative proceedings, and if someone challenges a patent's validity, they must prove it's invalid with clear evidence. It also mentions that while a patent is being legally contested, the time period of the patent is paused until the issue is resolved.

The section amends U.S. patent law to make it easier for courts to grant permanent injunctions against patent infringers by assuming that further infringement causes harm to the patent owner, unless the infringer can prove otherwise with strong evidence. It also reflects Congress's intention to undo the effects of a previous Supreme Court decision that made it harder for patent owners to get injunctions.

The section repeals Section 15 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act and restores any changes made by it to their original form, as they were before the Act was enacted.