Engine, Unified Patents, CableLabs, The Niskanen Center, and The R Street Institute filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court this week in support of General Electric’s request that the Court consider whether competitors may bring patent validity disputes to the patent office and patent appeals court.
The case concerns streamlined, cost-effective patent validity review procedures that Congress created in 2011. We argue that the Federal Circuit, relying on overly-narrow interpretations of Constitutional law, has made those patent review procedures less balanced and effective. Engine urges the Supreme Court to weigh in to correct the law, which will also promote patent quality, innovation, and competition.
We explain in our brief how invalid patents create drains on innovation and harm competition. Acknowledging those problems, Congress created administrative patent review proceedings, like inter partes review (“IPR”) and post-grant review (“PGR”), to “improve the quality of patents” and “make the patent system more efficient,” by providing an easier and less expensive way to challenge questionable patents. Consistent with that intent, Congress granted parties to IPR and PGR the right to appeal.
However, in a series of recent decisions, the Federal Circuit has limited appeal rights for would-be patent challengers, which could discourage competitors harmed by questionable patents from filing IPRs and PGRs, and ultimately cuts against efforts to improve patent quality. This case, and a healthy administrative patent review system, is particularly important to startups who need opportunities to reduce the cost and risk imposed by issued-but-invalid patents.
You can read the full brief here.
