IP Law Daily, PATENT NEWS: Former USPTO director urges legislators to pass patent reform laws, bolster international IP enforcement, (Jan 15, 2026)

By Thomas Long, J.D.

In testimony before the House subcommittee on trade, former USPTO head Andrei Iancu warned that U.S. could lose tech edge if government fails to adequately address overseas IP violations.

Former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu warned a congressional subcommittee on January 13 that in recent years “a vacuum of U.S. leadership on IP issues globally has created an opening for both allies and adversaries to advance their own preferred IP policy models on the international stage.” Iancu made this point in written testimony submitted to the Trade Subcommittee of the House Committee on Ways and Means for a hearing on the role of trade policy in maintaining American innovation and technology leadership. Iancu spoke to the critical role of IP with respect to American economic strength, technological leadership, and national security, emphasizing the importance of strong and enforceable IP rights as “cornerstone of the U.S. innovation economy and a central pillar of U.S. trade policy.” Iancu made several recommendations to the subcommittee, some of which mirrored recent initiatives and policy statements by current USPTO leadership.

Iancu headed the agency from 2017 to 2021. Along with serving as co-head of Sullivan & Cromwell’s Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation Group, Iancu is currently co-chair of the Council for Innovation Promotion, which describes itself on its website as “a bipartisan coalition dedicated to promoting strong and effective intellectual property rights that drive innovation, boost economic competitiveness, and improve lives everywhere.” The organization’s other co-chair is former USPTO Director David Kappos (2009–2013), currently a partner at Cravath, Swaine & Moore.

To illustrate the importance of IP to the American economy, Iancu testified, “In 2022, the United States enjoyed an IP trade surplus of $74 billion, standing in stark contrast to China’s $31 billion IP trade deficit.” However, he raised the alarm about potential threats to U.S. supremacy in technological innovation. He said that the primary focus by government enforcers has been on has been on combatting outright theft of American IP, particularly by foreign companies and state-backed actors. However, he testified, “foreign governments are [increasingly] employing more sophisticated strategies—using regulatory processes, procedural mechanisms, and ostensibly neutral policy frameworks to disadvantage U.S. companies abroad while favoring domestic or preferred foreign competitors and other national priorities.”

Reinvigorated engagement with foreign governments and stronger trade agreements. Iancu urged legislators to ramp up pressure on trading partners to strengthen their own domestic IP standards and enforcement practices, to “ensure that foreign countries do not free-ride on American innovation.” He told the subcommittee that doing so would reduce prices on new technologies for U.S. consumers. In addition, he said that a coordinated government response to overseas IP threats would include making sure trade agreements contain strong provisions protecting IP and continuing the use of the U.S. Trade Representative’s Special 301 reports to identify and denounce harmful practices abroad.

Iancu provided three examples of foreign practices that Congress should closely examine. First, he said that “the United States should press for revisions to the European Union’s recently adopted General Pharmaceutical Legislation (GPL), which undermines key intellectual property incentives for medical innovation.” Second, he criticized what he characterized as excessive regulation of standard essential patents by the European Union, the United Kingdom, and China. Finally, he called on Congress to scrutinize the continued influx of counterfeit goods into the United States.

He emphasized the importance of international agreements on IP rights and enforcement. “The United States should also continue to pursue binding commitments on intellectual property through robust IP chapters in bilateral and multilateral trade agreements,” he said, “while also rigorously monitoring compliance with existing obligations.”

Iancu also took the opportunity to criticize the initial decision in 2021 to support a waiver of IP protections under the TRIPS Agreement for COVID-19 vaccines, which he called a retreat from the U.S. commitment to global leadership on IP policy. “While perhaps well-intentioned,” Iancu testified, “that position overlooked the fact that IP protections were not a barrier to vaccine access, and instead weakened the very framework that enabled the rapid development of safe and effective vaccines and the ability to distribute them widely.”

Support for USITC’s protection against infringing imports. Iancu emphasized the importance to U.S. rights holders and inventors of the ability to obtain exclusion orders through International Trade Commission proceedings. “Meaningful exclusionary relief deters infringement, promotes good-faith licensing, and safeguards U.S. investment in research and development,” Iancu testified. However, he cautioned that “overly expansive” interpretations of the statutory requirement that the USITC consider the effects of proposed remedies for IP violations on the public interest before imposing it. According to Iancu, “the ITC’s ‘public interest’ test cannot become a de facto escape clause for large infringers simply because they have achieved market dominance and the removal of their product would affect consumers.”

Iancu also criticized the use of patent review proceedings through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings that could result in cancellation of exclusion orders. “Congress should take steps to prevent the USPTO from cancelling a patent at the urging of a party that was already found to infringe by the ITC,” he testified.

Legislation to strengthen domestic IP system. Iancu urged Congress to bolster the U.S. patent system through three key measures: the RESTORE Act (H.R. 1574; S. 708), the PREVAIL Act (S. 1553; H.R. 3160), and the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) (H.R. 3152; S. 1546). The RESTORE Act would create a rebuttable presumption in favor of permanent injunctions; the PREVAIL Act would make significant changes to the administrative patent review process, particularly by eliminating or reducing duplicative proceedings; and PERA would address judicial decisions narrowing the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. “Together, these three measures would clarify the enforceability and scope of U.S. patents,” Iancu said, promoting the maintenance of U.S. technological leadership.

Outside the patent realm, Iancu also expressed support for legislation aimed at AI-generated “deepfakes,” counterfeit goods sold through e-commerce platforms, and foreign-based copyright piracy websites.

Standard essential patents. Iancu’s testimony also touched on the topic of standard essential patents (SEPs), noting that “As part of the standards-setting process, SEP holders typically commit to license their patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.” He stressed that adoption of FRAND terms is not a waiver of patent rights and does not necessarily preclude imposition of all typical patent remedies. This point is congruent with the recent announcement by the USPTO of an SEP working group and its launch of a pilot program to incentivize participation by U.S. small and medium-sized businesses, universities, and non-profits in standards development, as well as the agency’s tendency in recent years to back away from policy statements that discouraged the issuance of injunctions in infringement suits involving SEPs. The former director praised the USPTO’s recent activities on this front, stating that “the United States must reassert a clear and consistent position in favor of a market-driven, private-sector led, and contract-based approach to SEP licensing, backed by effective and impartial judicial enforcement.”

Artificial intelligence. Iancu wrapped up his written testimony with comments regarding the topic on everyone’s lips: artificial intelligence. According to Iancu, reliable and predictable IP protections will play a critical role in ensuring that the United States continues to lead in this technological field. He told the subcommittee that a “wholesale rethinking” of U.S. patent and copyright law is not required, stating that existing IP-law frameworks are sufficient to deal with AI. “But legal frameworks should not be weakened just because the innovation or creative content relates to or was created with AI,” he said. “Indeed, American AI creators need the protection of the rule of law just as much as any other creators.” Iancu advocated for the legal recognition and protection of inventions and creative works made with the assistance of AI tools. According to Iancu, the United States must articulate an innovation-friendly regulatory approach, or else “other governments will fill that vacuum with more prescriptive models that weaken IP rights or distort global markets to the disadvantage of U.S. innovators.” This approach must not, however, be overly prescriptive and must avoid chilling beneficial uses of AI.

“By reinforcing the principle that AI is a tool that enhances human creativity—and by leading internationally with that approach—the United States can continue to lead in AI innovation while preserving the intellectual property foundations that have long supported American technological leadership,” Iancu said.

Attorneys: Andrei Iancu (Sullivan & Cromwell LLP).

MainStory: TopStory AINews Copyright IndustryNewsTrends Patent TechnologyInternet Trademark GCNNews