In the Press
From Competition to Cronyism: How the Patent Office’s Backslide Threatens American Innovation
Read Article ↗Low-quality patents are invalidated, which might otherwise increase costs by blocking generic prescription drugs from entering the market or be used in lawsuits that stunt startup growth. And an agency that doesn’t cost taxpayers a dime (the PTO is funded exclusively by fees) efficiently self-corrects its own errors.
But, in an unprecedented and likely illegal move, the acting PTO director has inserted herself personally as a barrier between the public and what patents get the added scrutiny of a second expert review.
But, in an unprecedented and likely illegal move, the acting PTO director has inserted herself personally as a barrier between the public and what patents get the added scrutiny of a second expert review.
Patent Office is Putting Pharma Profits over Patients’ Lives
Read Article ↗The benefits that come from cancelling low-quality patents are significant. When patent monopolies end, generic alternatives, which typically cost 80 percent less than their brand-name counterparts, can then compete. Patents also block additional, related research while they are in effect. When a patent is valid, this exclusivity is justified; however, when a patent is invalid, exclusivity prevents new innovation and reduces consumer choices. Data cannot capture the economic cost or lives lost due to innovations that go undiscovered because of patents that should never have been granted. By not completing the review of an Ozempic patent that the agency itself had determined was likely invalid, the USPTO failed to fulfill its mission to “drive U.S. innovation and global competitiveness for the benefit of all Americans.” Something needs to change. The USPTO has the power and the tools to stop the proliferation of low-quality patents; instead, it has moved in the opposite direction. In fact, interim USPTO leadership recently enacted several procedures that make it more difficult for low-quality patents to be challenged and invalidated.
Trump Appointees Are Hijacking the Patent System
Read Article ↗In 2020, under Iancu’s leadership, the USPTO began chipping away at the PTAB’s authority, letting judges deny IPR petitions on vague “discretionary” grounds. Worse, the director—a political appointee—seized unilateral power to override PTAB decisions. Fast-forward to 2025: Under Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart (Iancu’s former chief of staff), the USPTO has doubled down on “discretionary” criteria that shield invalid patents—and their owners—from meritorious challenges.
Citing a “workload management” crisis the USPTO itself created by slashing PTAB judges, Stewart rescinded former Director Kathi Vidal’s 2022 guidance, which curbed abusive discretionary denials, and imposed new “Interim Processes” empowering the director to unilaterally deny IPR petitions—even if they establish a patent is likely invalid. Instead of ensuring decisions are based on merit, these processes weaponize nonsensical criteria that overwhelmingly favor patent owners.
Citing a “workload management” crisis the USPTO itself created by slashing PTAB judges, Stewart rescinded former Director Kathi Vidal’s 2022 guidance, which curbed abusive discretionary denials, and imposed new “Interim Processes” empowering the director to unilaterally deny IPR petitions—even if they establish a patent is likely invalid. Instead of ensuring decisions are based on merit, these processes weaponize nonsensical criteria that overwhelmingly favor patent owners.
Google Gets Amicus Boost In Fed. Circ. Battle With Sonos
Read Article ↗In a separate brief, making a somewhat similar argument, was the Public Interest Patent Law Institute, a small nonprofit started a few years ago by the former Electronic Frontier Foundation lawyer Alex Moss. "Removing prosecution laches, however, will increase the risk of liability and litigation for everyone,"" read this brief. In a statement circulated from the group, Moss says ""we hope the Federal Circuit confirms that prosecution laches protects the public when unreasonably delayed patent claims threaten harm."
Sonos-Google patent dispute explained: A raw deal for consumers
Read Article ↗As for why the case was pursued with both the ITC and the federal court system, I asked Alex Moss, a noted patent attorney and executive director of the Public Interest Patent Law Institute. She explains: "The ITC is an administrative tribunal ... It has become a very attractive venue for patent litigation because, in 2006, the Supreme Court said that you don't automatically get a preliminary injunction, like a ban on sales or imports, in intellectual property cases." Moss continued, "And so the ITC actually can't award damages. It can only issue import bans, but it becomes very useful as leverage because, if you're importing, it's basically a nationwide sales ban. It gives you a ton of leverage for settlement." She concluded, "When you've got a real competitor fight, you're going to go to the ITC. The proceedings are very fast."
Medicare Drug Negotiation Uncertainties Lead To Differing Savings Predictions
Read Article ↗Alexandra Moss, executive director at the Public Interest Patent Law Institute, said that Medicare will make sure that the pharmaceuticals will make substantial profit, which is why the agency has gathered comprehensive data from the companies to make price analysis. “Medicare is getting all this information from them because they don’t want to prevent the companies from making profits,” Moss said. “The big reason [the drug companies] are upset is because they don’t want to give out the information about what [the drugs] cost.” A report by the prescription drug pricing analysts at SSR Health suggests the cost savings predictions are misleading.
FTC Pressed To Focus More On PBMs, Patents In Merger Oversight
Read Article ↗Alexandra Moss, executive director at the Public Interest Patent Law Institute, said that while PBMs play a role in high drug prices, they are not the root cause but rather an "upstream cause.” “Patent ownership is the main driver for high drug prices, and that’s really missing in the guideline,” she says. The FTC can address mergers when the effect may be "substantially to lessen competition or to tend to create a monopoly.” According to Moss, the FTC can also address situations where anticompetitive outcomes or monopolies arise from the assertion of patents or threats related to patents that a merger would enable or facilitate. Moss cites the example of the Johnson & Johnson’s acquisition of Momenta as a case where a merger involving patents could yield anticompetitive consequences.
FTC Warns Pharmaceutical Companies May Face Criminal Action On Improper Patent Listings
Read Article ↗Alexandra Moss, executive director at the Public Interest Patent Law Institute, told Inside Health Policy that “the policy statement is a huge step in the right direction -- stronger and better than expected.” “It also meaningful that the statement says submitting a false certification may constitute a criminal violation, and that FTC may refer such conduct to the Department of Justice,” she adds. “We hope the FTC follows up this strong statement with equally strong action. If it does, this will be a watershed moment for generic drug competition, innovation, and access,” said Moss.
Powerful interests, not small inventors, will benefit from Patent Office proposals
Read Article ↗As the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) weighs new proposals that critics warn would further flood courts with meritless lawsuits, it’s important to remember who benefits from tilting the rules of legal engagement in favor of patent infringement plaintiffs. Advocates