Several bills would make it significantly harder for ordinary Americans and small businesses to obtain litigation funding — an increasingly important tool that helps level the playing field against far larger, better-funded opponents. The result would be fewer meritorious cases, weaker protection for intellectual property, and ultimately less American innovation.

America’s largest technology companies have repeatedly been accused of infringing the intellectual property of smaller innovators. Even when infringement is clear, however, enforcing a patent against a multibillion-dollar corporation can be prohibitively expensive.

Patent litigation can cost millions of dollars and drag on for years. Few startups or small businesses have the capital to finance that kind of legal battle, much less absorb years of uncertainty. As a result, many are forced to abandon legitimate claims or accept deeply discounted settlements.

Large corporations understand this dynamic. Some deliberately steal first and litigate later, betting they won’t be caught and that if they are, they can outspend smaller innovators in court rather than negotiate a fair licensing agreement from the outset.

America has long recognized that reducing the cost of litigation expands access to justice. Contingency fee arrangements — where attorneys are paid only if they win — allow ordinary Americans to pursue claims they otherwise couldn’t afford. Pro bono representation serves the same goal.

Third-party litigation funding builds on that same principle. Funders provide capital to finance legitimate lawsuits in exchange for a share of any eventual recovery. Like contingency fee arrangements, it enables plaintiffs with strong claims — including small businesses defending valuable intellectual property — to pursue justice against far better-funded adversaries.

That is precisely what several bills now before Congress would jeopardize. Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) Litigation Transparency Act and Sen. Thom Tillis’s (R-NC) Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act, for example, would impose sweeping disclosure requirements that are both unnecessary and counterproductive.

Courts already possess ample authority to review litigation funding arrangements when appropriate. These D.C. proposals would instead force plaintiffs to disclose sensitive information about their financial backing, legal strategy, and resources — information sophisticated corporate defendants could exploit. Large companies could pressure funders to withdraw support or use those disclosures to strengthen their own litigation strategy. Over time, fewer investors would be willing to finance legitimate claims.

The result will be fewer resources available for small inventors and entrepreneurs seeking to defend the innovations they worked so hard to create. Without access to litigation funding, many simply won’t be able to protect their intellectual property.

OPINION: THEY STOLE A HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR’S NAME. WHEN HIS FAMILY OBJECTED, THEY FOUND ANOTHER LEMKIN

The consequences extend well beyond the courtroom. Small businesses generate nearly 45% of U.S. GDP and produce roughly 50% more patents per employee than large companies. If entrepreneurs cannot reliably defend their inventions against infringement, they’ll have less incentive to invest in the costly research and development that drives economic growth. The result will be less innovation, a weaker economy, and a diminished ability to compete with strategic rivals like China.

For 250 years, the United States has recognized that the rule of law depends on more than rights on paper. It depends on ordinary Americans having a meaningful opportunity to enforce them. Congress shouldn’t make that harder. Restricting access to litigation funding would weaken access to justice, discourage innovation, and make it easier for the largest companies to outlast — rather than outargue — their smaller competitors.

Kristen Osenga is the chief policy counselor of the Inventors Defense Alliance and the Austin E. Owen research scholar and professor of law at the University of Richmond School of Law.