Industry Leaders, Advocacy Organizations, Former Lawmakers Send Clear Message to USPTO: Stand with American Businesses and Protect the IPR Process

On October 17, 2025, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would effectively shut off access to Inter Partes Review (IPR) in nearly all cases. Instead of strengthening the patent system and promoting innovation, the proposal would revive the large-scale abusive patent litigation campaigns that for years drained resources, stifled investment, and hurt businesses of all sizes. 

Over 10,000 comments from industry leaders, trade associations, advocacy organizations, and former members of Congress have been submitted, with the overwhelming majority opposing this rule, sounding the alarm on the devastating impact this change would have on American businesses.  

Here’s what they are saying: 

The Association for Accessible Medicines: “The NPRM’s restrictions on the use of PTAB proceedings are contrary to the statute, contrary to the public interest, and contrary to common sense.” 

Ford Motor Company: “These proposed rules would insulate USPTO mistakes or oversights from review, leaving invalid patents in force to be asserted against U.S. companies like Ford. The rules disproportionately benefit foreign applicants and NPEs over U.S. economic activity and job creators.” 

Chairman Leahy, Chairman Goodlatte and Former Members of Congress: “Congress alone writes the laws and the executive branch enforces them. In this case, the USPTO does not have the authority to rewrite the AIA–which the undersigned individuals either voted for while serving in Congress or have supported in the years since its passage–or advance an NPRM without adhering to administrative law.” 

Crypto Council for Innovation: “Without meaningful access to the PTAB, every time a meritless patent suit reaches the crypto community, companies are forced to litigate in district court where costs escalate dramatically. Instead of resolving a weak patent claim for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars through PTAB review, they must spend millions defending it in federal court. Those costs come directly out of engineering and product-development budgets.” 

National Retail Federation: “The IPR system can be an effective tool to promote patent quality and deter abusive litigation. For retailers, the proposed changes would discourage innovation, reduce affordability, and erode consumer trust.” 

Intellectual Property Owners Association: “Although IPO recognizes the intent to ensure consistency in institution determinations, summary decisions do not provide any reasoning that will allow parties to understand how the NPRM is applied in practice. This could undermine transparency and predictability, create the perception of arbitrary and capricious decision-making, and decrease public confidence.” 

Patients For Affordable Drugs: “Americans want and need action to hold the industry accountable and reform the patent system, not a handout to the pharmaceutical industry.” 

United For Patent Reform: “By cutting off access to the IPR process, the proposed rules would bring back the large-scale abusive patent litigation campaigns that plagued American businesses small and large for years.” 

American Bar Association, Intellectual Property: “[T]he NPRM risk the carefully struck legislative balance in the AIA and exceed the Office’s statutory authority. Therefore, the Section does not support the NPRM proposal as currently drafted.” 

Electronic Frontier Foundation: “If adopted, the NPRM would deprive the public of its most effective mechanism for challenging invalid patents. IPR is not merely a dispute-resolution tool for private litigants; it is a safeguard for the public at large, ensuring that mistakenly granted monopolies do not distort markets, suppress competition, or burden technological progress.” 

High Tech Inventors Alliance: "The proposed rules would directly benefit state-owned enterprises in China, which are already engaged in an aggressive patent enforcement campaign against critical U.S. technology companies. Why is the USPTO giving material support to Huawei, YMTC, and PurpleVine—rather than helping this nation’s own advanced manufacturers?"

R Street Institute: “The revisions included in the NPRM would hamper innovation, increase litigation, harm consumers, and reduce the global competitiveness of American companies. Moreover, the proposed changes also contravene the America Invents Act, which, among other things, was enacted to specifically facilitate less costly and more timely resolution of patent disputes.” 

Engine Advocacy: “IPR is a critical tool for promoting patent quality in the U.S. and a valuable component of the innovation ecosystem that allows startups to address when intellectual property protections are used in inappropriate and anticompetitive ways. We strongly oppose the proposed new rules of practice outlined in the NPRM that would dramatically decrease patent dispute predictability and the fairness and efficacy of the IPR process.”