In the high-stakes world of patent litigation, a single court order can ripple through economies, disrupt industries, and jeopardize thousands of jobs. A recent study by Copenhagen Economics, commissioned by the Public Interest Patent Law Institute (PIPLI), reveals the staggering economic consequences of injunctions in patent cases—court orders that halt sales of products accused of infringement—in Europe. By analyzing two important cases, the report underscores how these injunctions threaten financial burdens hundreds of times greater than the royalties sought by patent holders, harming innovation, employment, and global supply chains.

The Public Interest Patent Law Institute (PIPLI) has filed an amicus brief in In re SAP America, calling on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to stop the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) from unlawfully changing the rules for challenging invalid patents after the fact. The USPTO’s decision to apply new rules retroactively doesn’t just violate due process—it threatens to lock in bad patents that keep drug prices high.

Seed Patents & Power: How Intellectual Property Law Shapes Our Food System

Friday, June 27 | 1:00pm to 2:30pm EST

How do patents on seeds affect what farmers and researchers can grow – and what we all eat? Join leading experts from academia and the seed industry to explore how U.S. intellectual property laws influence seed diversity, prices, and innovation.

The Public Interest Patent Law Institute (PIPLI) is releasing a new white paper, Comparing Patentability Requirements for Pharmaceuticals, Biologics, and Medical Methods in the U.S. and Europe, which offers a critical examination of how divergent patent standards are shaping drug prices, innovation, and public health outcomes across the Atlantic.

The report finds that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) consistently applies looser, more permissive standards than the European Patent Office (EPO) when granting pharmaceutical and medical patents. This disparity is no mere technical detail—it has significant consequences for U.S. healthcare costs, market competition, and biomedical innovation. Our central policy recommendation is clear: it is time for the U.S. to harmonize its patent examination standards with those of the EPO.

Imagine paying $1,000 a month for a life-saving drug while knowing a cheaper generic version exists—but can’t reach the market. This isn’t a dystopian fantasy. It’s the direct result of a U.S. patent system that’s buckling under pressure, allowing low-quality patents to block competition and inflate prices. A bombshell 2025 GAO report exposes how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is failing at its most basic job: ensuring patents reward true innovation, not legal gaming.

The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2025 (PERA), introduced in the U.S. Senate, claims to “restore” clarity to patent law. However, its sweeping changes risk monopolizing access to life-saving medical innovations and stifling competition across critical economic sectors.

On April 25, 2025, the Public Interest Patent Law Institute (PIPLI) hosted an online roundtable discussion about the new administration’s radical overhaul at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The roundtable highlighted grave concerns about the patent system’s extreme change of direction and the implications for American innovators, patients, manufacturers, and consumers.

In a powerful display of bipartisan unity, the Senate Judiciary Committee this week advanced a sweeping legislative package aimed at lowering prescription drug costs by curbing the pharmaceutical industry’s abusive patenting and marketing practices. The committee’s unanimous approval of four bills and strong bipartisan support for others underscores widespread recognition that pharmaceutical companies’ anti-competitive practices—such as “pay-for-delay” deals and patent abuses—hurt American patients, providers, and taxpayers alike.

The bills, which will head next to the Senate floor, are the culmination of years of groundwork by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, with the Committee’s Chairman, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), providing pivotal leadership in bringing lawmakers of both parties together to address pharmaceutical industry abuses. As the Senator emphasized in a recent Q&A: “when Big Pharma games the system to keep generics off the market . . . , Congress needs to iron out the kinks in the system to help lower drug prices and save taxpayer dollars.”

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)—America’s guardian of innovation—is gutting its own mission through reckless policy changes that prioritize speed over scrutiny. Recent decisions to slash examiner resources, dismantle training programs, and fast-track patent approvals threaten to flood the system with low-quality patents, eroding public trust and handing monopolies to corporations at the expense of genuine inventors, entrepreneurs, and patients.

A coalition public interest groups sent letters to Chairman Durbin and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emphasizing the important public benefits that come from an administrative process allowing the Patent Office to reevaluate—and when, appropriate—cancel patents that do not meet the threshold for patentability under the law. The letter highlights the value of this process for lowering drug prices when wrongly granted patents drive them up.

Public Interest Patent Law Institute (PIPLI) is releasing case studies that demonstrate the efficacy of patent challenge proceedings in lowering drug prices, building on groundbreaking research by Charles Duan of American University’s Washington College of Law that provides compelling evidence of the transformative power of IPR in catalyzing significant price reductions and expanding access to vital pharmaceuticals.

As both U.S. and European government agencies heighten their focus on standard-essential patents (SEP), grasping the economic stakes of SEP licensing is increasingly critical. A new study from Professor John L. Turner (supported by the Public Interest Patent Law Institute) offers a promising new approach to SEP royalty setting that is designed to align with the goals of both standardization and patent protection.

The European Commission (EC) recently opened the floor for comments on a ground-breaking proposed regulation concerning the licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs). At the Public Interest Patent Law Institute (PIPLI), we see the regulation as a positive step toward a more fair and efficient SEP licensing landscape. but we also see concerning aspects that need to be changed. While the proposal may not be flawless, its potential for reshaping the SEP licensing landscape, promoting efficiency, and establishing a level playing field is well worth the work of improving it.