Ten think tanks and consumer groups have lined up in opposition to a Senate bill that proposes substantial changes to how patent challenges operate at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, saying the measure will ensure “Americans continue paying more than the rest of the world for prescription drugs.” “What brings [these proposals] together is that both directly attack the rules for accessing and the implications of accessing the proceedings for challenging patents.”

“[T]he U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has determined that both patents at the heart of VLSI Technology’s litigation against Intel Corp. are invalid, wiping out the patents along with two massive damages awards. The USPTO eventually got this one right, but [its] long-awaited decision is raising important questions about why it refused to review VLSI’s patents before these pointless trials.”

“So if Amgen argues for limits on J&J patents, their arguments could be used against them in another case.”

“Everyone who cares about US innovation and competitiveness should be thankful that invalidated patents cannot drain money from domestic businesses that make products we desperately need, like semiconductor chips.”

“Congress specifically gave any entity or person a right to challenge a patent at the PTAB, but it’s practically difficult for nonprofits to regularly litigate there because each case costs at least $200,000. Lawmakers wanted groups or people to challenge bad patents; Unified does that successfully.”

“If the U.S. were to win and score a royalty from Gilead, the funds could provide money for PrEP treatment, HIV testing and related care.”

“Non-practicing entities like ParkerVision that make meritless litigation their business demonstrate why we need greater transparency in our patent system, not why transparency efforts should be opposed. Transparency will shine light on the networks of investors—including foreign government-backed funds—hiding behind patent troll shell companies.”

“If you’re concerned about the effect patents have on access to medicine, economic opportunities or healthy food, the newly launched Council for Innovation Promotion (C4IP) tells you to ignore the man behind the curtain. According to C4IP, low-quality, overly broad patents deserve protection — not people with diabetes, small businesses or farmers.”

“Increasing the quality of granted patents is good for everyone (except those who depend on invalid ones). A system that reliably grants valid patents gives everyone—patent owners, licensees, investors, and customers—greater confidence in the value of granted patents. One that routinely grants invalid patents erodes that confidence, creates uncertainty, and spurs investment in litigation instead of innovation.”

“Avanci was open about its intention to offer licenses exclusively to car manufacturers—and refuse all other industry participants, including manufacturers of the components that enable wireless connectivity. This scheme overtly violates pool members’ obligations to license SEPs on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms, also known as FRAND.”

A 10-page letter co-authored by Alex Moss and supported by 28 lawyers, professors, and former regulators urged DOJ scrutiny of Avanci’s model. Moss said any move away from the Qualcomm‑friendly stance of the prior DOJ would be “a remarkable change.”

“Alas, the Patent Office has often neglected to serve the public’s interest—and seldom has it performed worse than under Donald Trump’s choice of director, the corporate lawyer Andrei Iancu… Weakening enforcement of patent laws and shrouding the USPTO’s operations in secrecy that precludes public accountability.”

“The problem is not what CHIPS+ provides as much as what it (or any other law) fails to require: Transparency about what happens to patents once the government pays for them—critically, whether they are transferred to foreign companies, including the very ones CHIPS+ is supposed to help domestic companies compete against.”

PIPLI’s amicus brief noted timing around Fintiv’s designation and urged attention to how PTAB panels applied the precedent. “The judge did not say why he was springing this new case on the parties… Fintiv was not designated precedential or about to be.”

“The public has a strong interest in ensuring the challenged patent is cancelled if not properly enabled to protect space for innovation and access to cancer medication… Given the petition’s strong merits, PGR should proceed immediately.”

“It shouldn’t be controversial to expect patents to be new and useful, but it is. That’s because a handful of big companies use the Patent Office like an A.T.M.: a reliable source of cash for the cost of a small fee… What about members of the public who depend on patented technology to earn a living, get an education, or access medical care? We get ignored.”

“This seems more like a ‘patent bullying’ lawsuit—where one entity uses its patents to block competitors instead of competing in the market on the basis of consumer appeal.”

The public’s interest in the patent system is paramount. As the court observed, a patent owner “is a tenant on a plot within the realm of public knowledge,” and the public “has every right to account for all its tenants, all its sub‑tenants, and anyone holding even a slice of the public grant.”

PIPLI’s goal is to ensure the patent system “promotes access to innovation of all kinds for the benefit of everyone,” and to help small developers and companies facing questionable patent demands—like the CSP nonces episode—by making the system more transparent and accountable.