This note provides an update on Section 101 patent-eligibility legislation pending in Congress. On July 14, 2026, the Senate Judiciary Committee held its first full-committee hearing on S. 1546, the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2025 (“PERA”). Co-Sponsored by Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE), PERA would eliminate all judicially created exceptions to patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and replace them with defined statutory exclusions, leaving Sections 102, 103, and 112 (novelty, nonobviousness, and disclosure) unchanged. The bill addresses only the threshold eligibility question.

On June 4, 2026, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court of the United States, reversed a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and held that Amarin Pharma, Inc. failed to plausibly allege that Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. actively induced patent infringement through its generic version of Vascepa under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).  Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., No. 24-889 (U.S. June 4, 2026).  Plaintiff alleged that the totality of defendant’s statements across its “skinny label,” website, patient leaflet, and press releases induced physicians to prescribe defendant’s generic drug for plaintiff’s patented cardiovascular use.   

On April 14, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the District of Utah’s grant of summary judgment invalidating claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,458,689 under the pre-America-Invents-Act on-sale bar, 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Definitive Holdings v. Powerteq, No. 2024-1761 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 14, 2026).

On February 6, 2026, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, finding six patents owned by plaintiff invalid for claiming ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Innovaport LLC v. Target Corp., No. 2024-1545 (C.A.F.C. Feb. 6, 2026).