H.R. 9142 explained  ·  119th Congress  ·  Pending in Congress

Prohibiting Adversarial Patents Act of 2026

Create a free account or sign in to follow H.R. 9142 and get alerts. Policy area: Commerce Create a free account or sign in to follow the Commerce policy area and get alerts. ▲ 137 days since action Sponsor: Scott Fitzgerald, WI-05, R → Congress.gov

Cosponsors: 3 (1 D, 2 R) · per Congress.gov, 2026-10-14

Introduced: 2026-06-04

Latest action (2026-06-04): Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

What H.R. 9142 does, in plain terms

The Congressional Research Service has not published a summary of H.R. 9142 yet. Its official title: “Prohibiting Adversarial Patents Act of 2026”.

Constitution Index

“VFA Constitution grade”

Not graded yet

H.R. 9142 has not been graded yet. New measures with an official summary are graded daily under the published rubric.

The Framers

“Founders’ Verdict”

CONDITIONAL

Confidence 1.00

Archived SI output (machine-generated)

No editorial review recorded. This historical SI verdict was machine-generated by software and predates the review desk; check it against the official bill text.

Synthesis

The bill is constitutional in principle but only if modified to include clear definitions of 'threat to national security,' robust due process protections (notice, hearing, judicial review), and narrow tailoring to avoid arbitrary enforcement. Without such safeguards, it would violate the Patent Clause, the Fifth Amendment, and the separation of powers.

Hamilton CONDITIONAL

This bill, which seeks to limit patent rights for persons posing a threat to national security, touches upon the constitutional grant of patent power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, which empowers Congress to 'promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.' The protection of national security is an inherent attribute of sovereignty, and Congress may impose reasonable conditions on the exercise of patent rights when necessary to secure the common defense. However, the…

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause
Jefferson CONDITIONAL

While the federal government has authority under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 to secure inventors' exclusive rights for limited times, this bill's delegation of standardless discretion to administrative agents to deny patents based on undefined 'threats to national security' threatens the First Amendment's protection of petitioning the government and the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process. Such broad discretion invites arbitrary suppression of lawful inventions without clear statutory standards or judicial oversight. If the bill were narrowly tailored to proven, immediate threats to …

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 First Amendment Fifth Amendment Tenth Amendment
Madison CONDITIONAL

The proposed legislation touches upon the patent power, which is expressly granted to Congress in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, to 'promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.' This power is not absolute; it is a means to a public end. However, the bill's aim to limit patents based on a 'threat to national security' raises concerns about the proper scope of federal authority. The Constitution vests the national government with powers over national security, particular…

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 Federalist No. 43
Marshall CONDITIONAL

The proposed legislation seeks to condition the grant and enforcement of patents—a constitutionally grounded right derived from Article I, Section 8, Clause 8—upon an assessment of whether the applicant poses a threat to national security. Congress possesses broad authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause, as enunciated in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), to effectuate its enumerated powers, including the power to secure to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their writings and discoveries. However, any such limitation must not contravene the plain text and purpose of the Patent Cl…

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Report an error in this Founders' Verdict
No account needed. Or email hello@valuesforamerica.com. How reports are handled.

What should pass

“VFA SI Solution”

Read full document →

Archived SI output (machine-generated) · No editorial review recorded

This historical draft has no editorial review time on record. Check its claims against the original bill and current law.

National Security Patent Integrity Act of 2025

Generated by VFA SI Solutions

Prevent individuals who pose a national security threat from obtaining or enforcing patents, thereby protecting sensitive technologies from being controlled by adversaries.

Bipartisan rationale: Democratic priorities honored: protects national security from foreign adversaries, includes robust due process protections (notice, hearing, appeal), and ensures oversight by congressional committees. Republican priorities honored: limits federal action to clearly defined categories (state sponsors of terrorism, sanctioned persons, convicted spies), avoids broad executive discretion, uses existing funding without new taxes, and includes a sunset clause to prevent permanent overreach.

Funding: Existing USPTO fee collections No additional appropriation; c Sunset 5y Oversight: House Committee on the Judicia Enforcement: USPTO denial of patent issuance; fed
→ Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 (Patent Clause) → Fifth Amendment (Due Process Clause) → Tenth Amendment (reservation of powers to states)

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 Amendment V Amendment X

Brief for congressional offices →

Report an error in this Solution
No account needed. Or email hello@valuesforamerica.com. How reports are handled.

Citizen Consensus

“Do you support this VFA SI Solution?”

One vote per verified account; you can change it any time. Only verified accounts count, results publish once 30 verified people have voted, and state and district results count only people who attested a home ZIP code. How this works.

Email verification is not switched on yet, so no vote counts toward results yet. Votes cast now are saved and count once the voter verifies their email address.

Add a short reason (optional)

/280 · no links or contact details · reasons are reviewed before anyone sees them, and many never are shown.

Your vote is saved but held out of published results by an automated integrity check (for example, several accounts voting from one browser).

Your vote is saved. It will count once you verify your email address. Verify on your account page.

Your vote counts nationally. Add your home ZIP code to count in your state and district too.

Your vote counts nationally and in .

Reason saved privately; it is shown only if it passes review.

A sudden surge of votes on this item was flagged and is under review; votes from new accounts in that surge are held out until it is resolved.

National, state and district results →

Share card

1200×675 PNG for X, Threads, LinkedIn and messages. Free to share with a link back to this page.

For journalists and bloggers

“Embed this grade”

Free to use with the link back. The badge and card update when the grade changes. Embed terms →

VFA Constitution grade for H.R. 9142

← Back to the Republic