Congressman Johnson Delivers Keynote Speech for the Innovation Alliance

Ranking Member Johnson
House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet
Keynote Speech for the Innovation Alliance
May 11, 2026

Thank you for that introduction and thank you for inviting me here to speak with all of you today. Patent and innovation policy is often viewed by people not in the business of inventing as an esoteric area of the law, meant more for corporations than everyday people like you and me. But America’s founders meant for patents to be for the people—not giants. They believed that by rewarding any individual who can meet the standard for a patent, all of us would thrive. But reputations like patent’s “sport of kings” can be difficult to overcome. And it’s been made worse by two decades of system change that have made it harder to own and enforce a patent.

I’m here today to say it’s time to make the patent system work for the people again.

One of the reasons America’s economy became the envy of the world is not just because we have smart people here. It’s because we have a system to allow those people to make a living by coming up with new and better ideas. Innovators with the confidence to invest in themselves know that a novel idea can change not just the world but the course of their own life.

But it’s not always so easy. Anyone who works with innovators and inventors can tell you that unpredictability is the hallmark of innovation. Patents are granted to creations that are, among a few other requirements, new. To invent, we need to do something that has never been done before. Individuals need the resources, investment, and most of all the promise that if they are able to discover something new, they can own their idea, without someone stealing it. 
Yes, nothing is stopping inventors from getting to work inventing. But to make those innovations and discoveries worth the time, energy, and money needed to obtain a patent, the resulting patent needs to be more than a piece of paper they can hang on their wall. A patent should be reliable enough for an inventor to be able to convince investors to help transform the idea into a reality—from paper to products on the shelves.

Two decades of changes that included multiple Supreme Court decisions, landscape-shifting statutory amendments, and technology evolving faster than most experts can keep up, have made for opaque rules governing enforcement of patent rights. Even once an innovator owns their patent, it can be difficult to know that it won’t be taken away if and when a bigger fish infringes on it. That is why I’m a proud cosponsor of the Restore Act, which would bring preliminary injunctions back to patent litigation. It is not the only fix we need, and certainly not the largest, but it is a positive step in the right direction.

But innovation isn’t just about enforcement; the strength of the patent office affects the strength of individual inventors’ patents too. Let me explain: Under the Trump administration, the patent office’s workplace morale has plummeted, likely because of the administration’s layoffs, which were bizarrely characterized as an attempt to save money, even though the USPTO is self-funded. USPTO employees’ collective bargaining rights were undermined by President Trump, destabilizing the already fragile work force. And the USPTO has limited the number of hours that examiners can be compensated for working on an application.

If these changes sound to you like internal strife unrelated to patent law, you should look closer. Patent examiners, employees who work on international innovation issues, and coordinators who do outreach to underserved communities directly affect the strength of patents granted, the enforceability of those patents overseas, and the pool of innovators working on the next big idea.

This lost mission is most obvious in the USPTO’s cancellation of its planned Southeast Regional Outreach Office in Atlanta, Georgia. The USPTO chose Atlanta after a long process, as proscribed under the law. Instead of going forward, the Trump Administration cancelled this outreach to the Silicon Valley of the South and instead opened it within the USPTO headquarters already in Alexandria, Virginia. Yes, this contract was near and dear to my heart, but it also would have served an innovation hub in the United States, to foster more individual inventors, decentralized from Washington, D.C. and the President.

American innovation can thrive only when the opportunity to participate is accessible to all. By placing the Southeast Office at USPTO headquarters just outside of DC, the USPTO has limited its reach and concentrated opportunity among those already best positioned to access it.

As you can see, I strongly disagree with the Trump Administration, and I dislike what they’ve done to the USPTO. But I acknowledge the effort Director Squires has made to reform the patent trial and appeals board, which reflects ideas my Subcommittee examined when I was Chair, and which has similarities to those proposed in my colleague Congresswoman Ross’s PREVAIL Act legislation. Even then, while these administrative changes are certainly worth discussion, agency action is not the same as legislation.

When the Director changes, so can agency rules. Patents exist to ensure that research and development rests on firm, predictable ground. This kind of vacillation between presidential administrations undermines the stability that is essential to a functioning patent system. Ultimately, these are questions for Congress to decide, not the agency; and they are questions I look forward to addressing if I become Chairman of this subcommittee next Congress.

A healthy USPTO requires clear rules, consistent leadership free from political influence and a steadfast commitment to protecting those who take the risk to create. It is incumbent upon us to get these questions right because inventors and job creators are not asking for favors, they are asking for a predictable and stable system they can rely on. When policy shifts with the political whims of an administration, it is the individuals in the American innovation system who pay the price.  

I applaud everyone in this room for their commitment to creating a patent system that works for everyone, and I welcome your questions.

Thank you again.