Weakening PTAB hurts the economy---it harms productive companies and drives the focus towards frivolous lawsuits, putting jobs at risk.

The specific points of opposition in individual comments vary, but in many cases the overarching sentiment is consistent. Restricting access to the PTAB, as proposed in the ANPRM and PREVAIL Act, will increase costs and directly harm productive participants in the economy. Congress intended for the PTAB to be an open, more efficient alternative to costly litigation and settlements. Rolling back access will be a drag on the economy and a burden for businesses, small and large. 

Business and labor groups, and patent policy experts, submitted comments emphasizing the economic damage and higher costs that the changes to PTAB review would catalyze:

“...The proposed changes could have a considerable impact on our economy and the ability of businesses to defend themselves against attacks from patent trolls. 

Our members are on the forefront of the construction and energy industries in New Hampshire, and around the country. But at a time when the construction industry is only beginning to rebound from the events of 2020, companies are under threat from non-practicing entities. Instead of investing in wages and jobs, companies are spending thousands of dollars settling frivolous lawsuits out of court. These problems will only get worse under the recently proposed rules. 

A diverse range of industries rely on the Patent Trials and Appeal Board (PTAB) review process as a means to combat low-quality patents, and protect themselves from patent trolls by targeting the bad patents these companies use to go after main street businesses. Unfortunately, the USPTO’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) published on April 20 is poised to undermine this effective instrument by making it harder for businesses to use the Inter Partes Review (IPR) process to defend themselves from unfounded patent lawsuits. Doing so will force businesses to endure costly and prolonged court litigation, draining their limited resources – and putting jobs at risk.” - D. Spechuilli, Laborers Local 976 (Laborers’ International Union chapter based out of Portsmouth, New Hampshire)

“Our association is made up of over 1,100 businesses across the South Placer region, including restaurants, retailers, realtors, hospitality and event services, finance and insurance companies, and more. Our members rely on the Patent Trials and Appeal Board (PTAB)’s review process to invalidate patents that never should have been issued in the first place. The recently proposed rules would significantly curtail companies’ abilities to seek PTAB review in many cases when they are sued on invalid patents. Rather than being able to rely on the Inter Partes Review (IPR) system to invalidate bad patents, companies will be forced to go to litigation – spending valuable time and money on expensive lawsuits…

…With these proposed rules, the USPTO will make it much harder to institute an IPR, and will hurt American businesses and consumers. The changes the ANPRM proposes include shortening the filing deadline for an IPR from the deadline created by the AIA, raising the standard for instituting a review, and even changing who is allowed to file an IPR.

Businesses relies on the PTAB and the IPR process to help protect them from the high costs associated with frivolous patent litigation. We ask that you reconsider the proposed rules.” – R. Ghadban, Roseville Area Chamber of Commerce (An association made up of over 1,100 businesses across the South Placer region in California)

“I strongly oppose any effort to limit the sorts of patents that can be challenged via IPR. The IPR process has proven to work extraordinarily well. It has lowered the cost of resolving the validity of disputed patents by an order of magnitude, without changing the statistics about who wins validity disputes.