Russell Slifer

Our patent system has been relentlessly attacked for the better part of the last 20 years. Patents have been blamed for everything from the creation of patent litigation abuse to high prescription drug costs. There is scant evidence of an actual causal relationship, yet the attacks continue. Knowing that it would be impossible to outright ban patents, the popular argument is that poor quality patents that should not have issued are responsible for a majority of litigation issues and drug prices. In response, Congress created the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in 2011 to make it easier to invalidate “low quality” patents without the need for federal district court litigation. Yet, after more than 10 years of invalidating issued patents through the PTAB, the criticism of our patent system has not abated.

In response to intense lobbying for patent litigation reform, Congress was convinced that a substantial amount of district court patent litigation involved “poor quality” patents that were clearly invalid. Images of extortionist patent trolls were widely portrayed as a primary threat to U.S. innovation. The high cost of patent litigation, years to reach a judicial resolution and reliance on lay juries to determine highly technical issues were cited as evidence of a broken system. In response, Congress passed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) in 2011…. The current IPR system as implemented has caused severe damage to an important segment of our innovation community. Congress instructed the USPTO Director, in 35 USC§ 316(b), to “consider the effect of any such regulation on the economy, the integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings instituted under this chapter.” It is time for the Director to reevaluate the effect of IPRs.