Drop a comment by Dec 2nd re: Patent Trolls
Alan Blount
I am a software developer turned product manager with 25 years of experience in the industry. Throughout my career, I have seen how the patent system acts as a double-edged sword. While intended to protect invention, in the software world, it is frequently used by entities that do not innovate—often called "patent trolls" or Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs)—to extract rents from those of us actually building products.
I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed changes to the Inter Partes Review (IPR) practices, specifically the restrictions on instituting IPRs based on parallel litigation or prior adjudications.
- The "One-and-Done" / Preclusion Rule is Dangerous: The proposal to deny IPR if a patent has been upheld in a separate proceeding involving different parties is fundamentally unfair. It binds independent developers to the legal failures of others. Just because one company failed to invalidate a bad patent (perhaps due to budget or poor legal counsel) does not mean the patent is valid, nor should it bar me from protecting my own work using the IPR process.
- IPR is the Only Defense for Small Innovators: Litigation in federal court is prohibitively expensive for most small to medium-sized software companies. IPR was created by Congress to provide a cost-effective check on low-quality patents. By tying IPR institution to the timing of district court cases (which trolls often manipulate by filing in "rocket dockets"), you are effectively removing the only shield developers have.
- Hurting American Competitiveness: These changes do not streamline the system; they weaponize it against builders. By making it harder to invalidate junk patents, you are taxing American innovation and handing an advantage to entities that contribute nothing to the economy but litigation.
Please rethink this regulation change. We need a strong, accessible IPR process to protect the developers and companies that are trying to make the world a better place.
Alan