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
- CAFC Says Prosecution History Disclaimer Applies to Design Patents, Too
- Harrity & Harrity Seeks FT Patent Attorney / Agent in Electrical or Mechanical Technologies
- Understanding IP Matters: Celebrated MIT Engineer and Entrepreneur Develops Medical Devices to Treat Cancer and Other Diseases
- CAFC Finds IPR Petitioner Did Not Rely on AAPA as Basis for Obviousness Grounds in Affirming PTAB Invalidation
- Foreign Price Controls: A Risk to U.S. Medical Innovation and Patient Access