Alliance Testimony in Support of the PERA Act to Senate Committee on the Judiciary: ‘When Patent Law Works, Patients Benefit’

Today, Alliance for Aging Research President & CEO Sue Peschin, MHS, delivered the following testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, “The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act — Restoring Clarity, Certainty, and Predictability to the U.S. Patent System”:

“Chairman Tillis, Ranking Member Schiff, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Sue Peschin, and I serve as President and CEO of the Alliance for Aging Research. The mission of the Alliance is simple: we are dedicated to changing the narrative to achieve healthy aging and fair access to care.

Personally, I am a family caregiver to my mom, who is 84 and lives with kidney disease, severe arthritis, and dementia. Today’s hearing is not an abstract policy debate for older adult patients and family caregivers like me—this is about lives, choices, and hope.

All of us rely on medical breakthroughs that begin with discovery. But for over a decade, our patent system has struck down thousands of patents and failed to protect some of the most transformative innovations in diagnostics—not because they weren’t new or useful, but because of confusing eligibility standards that made the system inconsistent and chaotic.

The root cause of this major shift was a series of Supreme Court cases. Several witnesses here today are experts in the details of these—I’m not one of them. But I do bring five observations to share as a patient advocate that I hope you’ll consider.

• First, Federal Circuit judges themselves have asked Congress to resolve the confusion resulting from the Supreme Court’s decisions. In the case of Ariosa v. Sequenom, Judge Linn stated: “But for the sweeping language in the Supreme Court’s Mayo opinion, I see no reason, in policy or statute, why this breakthrough invention should be deemed patent ineligible… In my view, the breadth of the second step of the Mayo test is such that it is difficult to imagine any diagnostic claim that could survive. […] If the law is to be changed, and I believe it should be, that change must come from Congress. ” It’s up to you to fix this.
• Second, the 2012 Mayo decision and others that followed made it nearly impossible to patent diagnostic tests that rely on biological markers—the very tests that tell us who has cancer, who will benefit from a therapy, or who might suffer an adverse reaction. These aren’t just ideas on the blackboard. They are real tools, developed by researchers, tested in trials, and used by families to make decisions that affect their future.
  Others here may argue that new biomarkers could be detected on already existing assays. What does that matter? Without patent protection, many of these tests are never developed. Or they sit on a shelf because no one will fund them.
• Third, when innovators can’t get patents, they often withhold discoveries as trade secrets—especially in diagnostics. That hurts scientific transparency and slows progress. During the patent application process, companies publicly disclose their invention, which allows for future innovation. Trade secrets stay secrets.
• Fourth, there is no doubt there have been bad actors. But we can’t fix litigation abuse by breaking innovation incentives. Researchers at numerous top American universities have left behind novel diagnostics for lupus, Alzheimer’s, major depressive disorder, cancer, including metastatic cancers, schizophrenia, and rare pediatric disorders, after the USPTO rejected or weakened their patents because of the eligibility rules in Mayo. That’s heartbreaking.
• Fifth and last, I’m personally encouraged by the fact that the former directors of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office under both Presidents Trump and Obama are testifying in favor of the bill—and that the bill has bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress and among many former Federal Circuit judges. There is shared agreement that something is wrong and shared commitment to fix it. That doesn’t happen often these days, and patients don’t have time to wait.

The Alliance for Aging Research is honored to strongly support the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2025, or PERA. PERA would restore the balance. It doesn’t let companies patent nature. It allows them to patent inventions that apply human insight to nature—to turn discoveries into action, into treatments, and into better outcomes for patients.

When patent law works, patients benefit. We get earlier diagnoses, more effective treatments, and more personalized care. When it doesn’t, we lose time. We lose tools. We lose lives.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.”

Read the Alliance’s written remarks submitted for this hearing.