PERA stands for the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act. It was originally introduced in the US Senate in 2023 as S.2140 by Senators Thom Tillis and Chris Coons, but never made it out of committee by the May 2024 cutoff and, therefore, was not voted on by the Senate.

However, PERA was reintroduced in 2025 for the 119^th Congress.

The purpose of PERA is to address subject matter eligibility uncertainty caused in the wake of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Alice established a two-step framework for determining subject matter eligibility. The first step is determining if a claim recites an abstract idea, and the second step is to determine whether the claim contains additional elements sufficient to constitute an inventive concept.

In practice, the Alice framework was not well defined, leading to uncertainty and unpredictability. The lack of definition led to very broad interpretations by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and high levels of subjectivity amongst patent examiners. Further, courts struggled to consistently apply the two-part test. Invalidity rates for patent applications spiked and it had a chilling effect on new patent application filings.

In the years that followed, the USPTO has released multiple guidance documents and memoranda, as well as example claims analyses, in an effort to reduce uncertainty and yield more consistent application of the Alice test, but with limited improvement.

PERA seeks to abrogate the Supreme Court’s judicially created exceptions to eligibility (i.e., “abstract ideas,” “laws of nature,” and “natural phenomena”) and put an end to the unpredictable and subjective Alice test. Instead of the Alice test, the 2023 version of PERA provides an express list of narrow subject matter exclusions including:

• Mathematical formulas, standing alone.
• Processes that are “non-technological”.
• Unmodified human genes.
• Unmodified natural materials.

The reintroduction of PERA in 2025 included some revisions over the original version. For instance, the original allowed for patenting of “isolated” DNA, but the revised bill removes the word “isolated” and clarifies that a human gene is only considered “modified” (and thus eligible) if it is purified, enriched, or otherwise altered by human activity. The 2025 PERA also replaced the ambiguous term “non-technological” with an inquiry into whether a claim is “substantially economic, financial, business, social, cultural, or artistic” and whether a machine is necessary for its practical performance. Also, claims that only superficially add a computer to an abstract idea will not be eligible under PERA.

Proponents of the bill argue that it is critical for competing with China in important technologies such as AI and biotechnology. Opponents argue that it will likely give rise to a resurgence in litigation by non-practicing entities (i.e., patent trolls). Whether PERA will ultimately become law remains uncertain, but its enactment would profoundly reshape the patent landscape.