PTAB reforms are highly controversial---it trades off political capital with other more feasible policies.

In the final analysis, the case for a PTAB off-ramp is unclear for much the same reason that administrative patent revocation under the AIA has been troublesome in the first place. At its core, the design of the PTAB is to make it easier to invalidate poor-quality patents, but to do so, it must necessarily make it easier to invalidate all patents-in the hope that the punishments at the end would fall disproportionately on poor-quality patents.100 Although this problem could be managed, it could not be avoided entirely because poor-quality patents cannot reliably be identified up front; if they could, there would be no need for review at all. 101

The inverse is also true. Procedures that make it easier to preserve the validity of particular patents unavoidably make it easier to preserve the validity of all patents by diminishing the relative cost-savings associated with PTAB review for petitioners who otherwise seek a cheaper, faster, and more expert alternative than the district courts for litigating the validity of patents.

The mixed case for a PTAB off-ramp should give pause to institutional designers both in the Patent Office and in Congress. Recent doctrinal retrenchments from the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit have already begun to scale back some of the more expansive and problematic positions of the Patent Office concerning PTAB structure, offering a positive way forward. 102 Meanwhile, renewed enthusiasm in the Patent Office for other, more foundational issues such as PTAB claim construction 03 and the doctrine of patent-eligible subject matter'1 have largely met with public approval and success. The resurgent but finite political capital of the Patent Office and the generally limited window of consensus within which patent legislation is likely to succeed all point toward a need for cautious prioritization. The past shortcomings of PTAB practice with respect to preserving patents through amendment do merit reform, but this should not come at the expense of other more basic or feasible reforms.