Proposed Patent Rule Changes Threaten Innovation & Affordability: Here’s What You Need to Know
Teh United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently proposed changes to the rules governing Inter Partes Review (IPR) – a critical process for challenging potentially invalid patents. these proposed changes are drawing widespread concern from across the tech industry, legal scholars, patient advocates, and small businesses. Why? Because they risk stifling innovation, increasing costs, and limiting access to affordable medicines.
As experts in digital rights and patent law, we at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) are deeply concerned. Here’s a breakdown of the proposed changes, who’s objecting, and what it means for you.
What is IPR and Why Does It Matter?
IPR was established by Congress as a cost-effective choice to conventional patent litigation. It allows anyone to challenge a patent’s validity before the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), rather than facing potentially ruinous lawsuits in federal court.
Think of it as a second look at a patent, ensuring it truly deserves protection. This is especially vital because:
* Bad patents happen. Patents are sometimes granted for ideas that are already known, obvious, or simply shouldn’t have been patented in the first place.
* Litigation is expensive. Challenging a patent in court can cost millions of dollars – a barrier too high for many small businesses and individual developers.
* IPR levels the playing field. it provides a more accessible and affordable way to correct errors in the patent system.
Who is Opposing the changes? A Broad Coalition Speaks Out
The proposed rules would substantially restrict the ability to challenge patents through IPR. The backlash has been substantial, coming from a diverse range of stakeholders:
Tech Industry Leaders:
* The Linux Foundation warned the changes would “effectively remove IPRs as a viable mechanism for challenges to patent validity,” harming open-source developers and their users.
* GitHub stated the proposal would increase “litigation risk and costs for developers, startups, and open source projects.”
Patent Law Experts:
* 22 patent law professors from universities nationwide argued the changes “would violate the law, increase the cost of innovation, and harm the quality of patents.”
Patient Advocates:
* patients for Affordable Drugs highlighted IPR’s crucial role in invalidating improperly granted pharmaceutical patents. Studies show invalidating these patents leads to notable price drops:
* Cardiovascular medications have fallen by 97%.
* Cancer drugs have dropped 80-98% in price.
* Opioid addiction treatments have become 50% more affordable.
Small businesses:
* Hundreds of small businesses voiced a consistent message: these rules would disproportionately harm them. They described being targeted by vague, overbroad patents they can’t afford to fight in court. IPR is often their only viable defence. Without it,they face a difficult choice: pay a “patent troll” or risk financial ruin.
What Specifically Are the Proposed Changes?
While the details are complex, the core of the proposed changes centers around limiting the grounds for challenging a patent and increasing the evidentiary burden on those who do. This effectively makes it harder and more expensive to invalidate questionable patents.
Here’s a simplified look:
* Narrowing Claim Construction: The USPTO proposes a more restrictive approach to interpreting patent claims, making it harder to argue they are invalid.
* Increased Evidence Requirements: Challengers would be required to present more evidence upfront, increasing costs and complexity.
* Restrictions on Expert Testimony: the rules could limit the ability to present expert testimony supporting a challenge.
What Happens Next? The USPTO Needs to Listen
The USPTO is currently reviewing thousands of comments submitted by concerned parties. It’s crucial they don’t treat this as a mere formality. Public input is basic to the administrative rulemaking process.
Congress created IPR to empower the public to correct flawed patents without the expense of federal court. The overwhelming response demonstrates just how vital this process is.
We at EFF will continue to advocate for a robust and accessible IPR system.
![Facial Recognition UK: Police Fight to Keep Flawed Tech | [Year] Update](https://i0.wp.com/www.techdirt.com/wp-content/themes/techdirt/assets/images/td-rect-logo-white.png?resize=330%2C220&ssl=1 "Facial Recognition UK: Police Fight to Keep Flawed Tech | [Year] Update"){kind=logo}
