PTAB is key to prevent court overload
Kevin Jakel ’23 [Intuits Head of IP Litigation, patent litigator with Kaye Scholer LLP and Howrey LLP, previously patent examiner at the US Patent and Trademark Office, JD from George Washington University Law School, BS in Mechanical Engineering from UCLA, The Hill, 11/21/23, “Senate innovation hearing long on assertions, short on support” https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/4321736-senate-innovation-hearing-long-on-assertions-short-on-support/, MP3]
One of the more ironic talking points from the hearing is that of PTAB proceedings have related lawsuits in progress, which is evidence of a broken system.
Congress anticipated that businesses targeted with meritless lawsuits in district court would respond by challenging patents at the PTAB. This was one of the driving forces for creating the more efficient system. Congress urged district courts to pause their cases while patents are reviewed, and they generally do. This avoids unnecessary litigation that might drain resources from plaintiffs and defendants if the patents were granted in error. If PTAB review finds that the patents are valid, then the case continues, not in parallel, but afterward.
Review is used as a defensive measure, not as a way to proactively attack a patent in two venues. About of those who challenge patents at the PTAB have been sued before they file a petition. Meanwhile, of patent cases brought in district court do not have a related PTAB review. Defendants do not seek review unless they believe that there is a strong case the patent is invalid. This is exactly what Congress wanted — an efficient way to weed out weak patents.