We have received text from H.R. 10218: Advancing American Innovation Act. This bill was received on 2026-09-01, and currently has 2 cosponsors.
Here is a short summary of the bill:
This bill would change how the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) handles certain import-trade disputes under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. Section 337 cases are often used to ask the ITC to block imported products that allegedly infringe U.S. intellectual property rights or otherwise violate trade rules.
Changes to who can bring a case
The bill narrows and clarifies what counts as a qualifying “domestic industry” for some Section 337 cases. In general, a complainant would need to show that it has real U.S. business activity tied to the intellectual property at issue, such as:
- manufacturing in the United States,
- significant investment in plant or equipment,
- significant investment in engineering and research and development, or
- significant investment in licensing activities that leads to products incorporating the intellectual property being adopted and developed for sale in the United States.
The bill also says a complainant generally cannot rely on the activities of its licensees unless those licenses lead to the development of products incorporating the relevant patent, copyright, trademark, mask work, or design for sale in the United States. It further requires that, for a complaint under oath, any person being relied on to qualify as part of the domestic industry must join the complaint under oath, though they cannot be forced to do so.
Faster early review of some cases
The bill directs the ITC to identify, at the start of an investigation, whether the case includes a key issue that can be resolved quickly through expedited fact-finding and a short hearing. If so, the assigned administrative law judge would have to issue an initial decision on that issue within 100 days of the case being opened. While that early decision is pending, the broader investigation would be paused.
More emphasis on public interest
The bill changes how the ITC considers public interest factors before excluding imported goods or issuing cease-and-desist orders. It would require the ITC to look more explicitly at:
- public health and welfare,
- the U.S. economy, including competitive conditions,
- the production of similar products in the United States by the complainant and its licensees, and
- U.S. consumers.
It also gives the ITC more explicit authority to stop an investigation without finding a violation if it decides that excluding the goods would not be in the public interest. The bill says the ITC may consider terminating a case based on a consent order, an agreement between the parties, or public-interest concerns during the investigation.
Public-interest changes to exclusion orders
If the ITC finds a violation and also concludes that exclusion is in the public interest, it would direct exclusion of the imported goods. The bill keeps that basic structure but updates the factors the ITC must weigh. It also applies similar public-interest language to temporary exclusion orders and cease-and-desist orders.
New disclosure rules for litigation funding
The bill adds new transparency requirements for patent infringement proceedings at the ITC. A complainant would have to disclose:
- the identity and address of any third-party funder, and, for a company, its place of incorporation and principal place of business;
- any funding agreement with a third party that relates to the proceeding or the asserted patent, unless the ITC orders otherwise or all parties agree not to disclose it;
- the information within 10 days after the funding relationship is created or when the complaint is first served, whichever is later.
If the disclosure becomes incomplete or inaccurate, the complainant would have to update it. The bill also requires the ITC to impose appropriate sanctions if a complainant does not fully comply.
Who would be affected
The main effects would likely fall on companies and other parties that file or defend Section 337 cases before the ITC, especially those involved in patent, trademark, copyright, mask work, or design disputes involving imported goods. It could also affect third-party litigation funders that finance these cases, because they would become subject to mandatory disclosure.
Relevant Companies
- AAPL — Apple could be affected if it is involved in ITC disputes over imported electronics or IP enforcement, since the bill changes ITC case standards and disclosure rules.
- SONY — Sony could be affected through ITC cases involving consumer electronics, devices, or intellectual property claims tied to imported products.
- NVDA — NVIDIA could be affected indirectly if ITC proceedings involve imported chips or hardware that are subject to patent or trade complaints.
- TSM — TSMC could be affected indirectly by ITC cases involving semiconductors or other imported components used by U.S. firms.
- INTC — Intel could be affected in the same way as other semiconductor firms, through ITC disputes over chip technologies, licensing, or imported products.
- QCOM — Qualcomm could be affected by the bill’s changes to domestic-industry and licensing rules in patent-related ITC cases.
Representative David Schweikert Bill Proposals
Here are some bills which have recently been proposed by Representative David Schweikert:
- H.R.10218: Advancing American Innovation Act
- H.R.9819: AIDEN (Advancing Integrated Data for Equitable National Child Welfare)
- H.R.9772: Foreign Funding Transparency Act
- H.R.9715: Intelligent Arbitration Act of 2026
- H.R.9566: To establish a pilot program for use by U.S. Customs and Border Protection at land ports of entry along the Arizona border to assess the use of artificial intelligence through an anomaly detection algorithm, and for other purposes.
- H.R.9565: Enhanced Counter-Narcotics Detection and Technology Act
You can track bills proposed by Representative David Schweikert on Quiver Quantitative's politician page for Schweikert.
Representative David Schweikert Net Worth
Quiver Quantitative estimates that Representative David Schweikert is worth $754.0K, as of September 3rd, 2026. This is the 372nd highest net worth in Congress, per our live estimates.
Schweikert has approximately $0 invested in publicly traded assets which Quiver is able to track live.
You can track Representative David Schweikert's net worth on Quiver Quantitative's politician page for Schweikert.
2026 Arizona's 1st Congressional District Election
There has been approximately $68,755,662 of spending in Arizona's 1st congressional district elections over the last two years, per our estimates.
Approximately $47,442,837 of this has been from outside spending by PACs and Super PACs. Some of the groups who are spending money in this race include:
- HMP ($14,117,072)
- DCCC ($8,285,783)
- CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP FUND ($7,752,031)
- BOLD AMERICA ($1,970,053)
- PROJECT 218 ($1,907,790)
The rating for this race is currently "Toss Up".
You can track this election on our matchup page for the 2026 Arizona's 1st congressional district election.
This article is not financial advice. See Quiver Quantitative's disclaimers for more information.
