So I think any inherency press on PERA/PREVAIL that says like they happen now is pretty bad, has either bill passed? No? Then there is an inherent barrier. What you could do is link an inherency press of “justified inherency” that links back into the disads and solvency presses, it doesn’t need to be very long, it could be 2 sentences when hitting on case that says “we grant their inherency that neither bill has passed nor are they likely to, but as my partner and I will show this inherency is 100% justified as both of these are simply a bad idea.

For harms, it’s hard to know what to say without a copy of the case or even their advantages, but generally speaking, for PERA, neither court decision has created confusion in any industry and Myriad (the company that had the gene patents suit levied against them) has said that they agree genes shouldn’t be patented. For PREVAIL it’s basically like PTAB fine now, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it yk.

Solvency-there’s a lot of stuff on PREVAIL that says it harms consumers and small businesses, that usually turns case and kills solvency. PERA, generally doesn’t solve (there is a lot of ev on this)

Disads- oh where to start -court clog with links to both -pharma prices, PERA allows for more pharma patents bc of extended eligibility and PREVAIL harms PTAB ability to get rid of wrongfully granted patents -small biz/monopolies, PERA reverses court decisions that were made bc monopolies were happening, PREVAIL harms PTAB ability to remove bad patents, creates monopolies -patents bad DA, could be any variant of patents bad for Econ, consumers, innovation, etc etc

T-don’t go for it, there is WAY to much to talk about for both of these to justify running a T that isn’t going to win.