Historically, startups bring more new technologies to market and create more new jobs than any other entity type. Investment is critical to any startup, and patents are often the only asset a startup owns to attract that investment. Patents are thus incredibly important for American economic growth and national security. It is not surprising that most small entities believe that the institution rules are unfair and should be reined in because it denies due process and takes property; they allow unending serial attacks; they deny adjudication in an Article III court even when the case is pending; they prohibitively raise costs and years to patent litigation; the PTAB invalidates 84% of the patents it reviews; and in the end, the rules make it difficult, if not impossible, to fund a startup that challenges Big Tech. What is surprising is that not all small entities agree. Some small entities mirror Big Tech and foreign entities’ comments arguing that institution rules should not change at all. They want the mess to stay the same.
Recent Posts
- Judge Hughes Again Calls Out CAFC’s Overly Rigid Article III Analysis for Pharmaceutical Cases
- Coke Stewart’s Recent Show Cause Order Offers Hope for Addressing Serial Patent Challenges
- The USPTO Should Reintroduce the AFCP Program—Now
- What Fintiv v. PayPal Means for Software and AI Patent Practice
- Despite Tweaks, PREVAIL 2025 Would Still Transform the PTAB