The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office proposed tighter rules to limit repeat inter partes reviews at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, drawing support from Conservatives for Property Rights and criticism from Big Tech and civil liberties groups.
On October 17, 2025, the United States Patent and Trademark Office published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking titled “Revision to Rules of Practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.” The NPRM zeroes in on when the PTAB should institute inter partes review, the process used to challenge patent validity. The goal is to reduce repeated attacks on the same patent claims across multiple forums.
The NPRM frames the issue as one of fairness and predictability for patent holders. The USPTO argues that serial or parallel challenges can make even strong patents unreliable, undermining confidence in issued rights. Under the proposal, the director would use discretion to prevent duplicative proceedings that don’t serve the patent system.
The proposed gatekeeping would require parties to avoid “double-dipping” by coordinating parallel proceedings and limiting challenges to claims that have already been litigated or settled early. That design does not remove inter partes review entirely; it aims to keep IPR focused on fresh validity questions rather than letting the same issues bounce between venues. Supporters say that would save resources, reduce delay, and keep patent owners from being ground down by repeated attacks.
Big tech companies, including major domestic and foreign firms, have pushed back hard against the proposal. Their objections emphasize IPR as a tool to weed out low-quality patents and a defense against litigation abuse. Civil liberties and public interest groups have joined the chorus of opposition, warning the rule could shelter weak patents from scrutiny.
These changes would strip away important protections against patent trolls that rely on low-quality patents and litigation pressure to extract settlements from innovators, small businesses, and the public. The rulemaking would make bad patents nearly untouchable and invite a new wave of opportunistic legal abuse. EFF opposes multiple proposed changes for the reasons below.
Conservatives for Property Rights has been outspoken in favor of the NPRM and urged White House backing for the changes. Their letter argues the proposal restores principles promised under the America Invents Act by curbing serial, duplicative challenges and countering a bias toward invalidation of patent claims. The organization frames the reform as a correction that channels disputes to a single forum and reserves exceptions only for extraordinary circumstances.
“The proposal would help restore fairness, efficiency, and predictability to patent adjudication. Such are principles that Congress pledged in the America Invents Act (AIA), but that years of serial and duplicative challenges and bias for patent claim invalidation have eroded,” the letter read. “By limiting duplicative challenges, the NPRM’s framework channels patent disputes to a single forum. By reserving exceptions for truly extraordinary circumstances, cost and delay will be reduced for all participants. The proposal will also allow USPTO to redirect its limited resources to its core mission of examining and issuing patents. These reforms will help make PTAB proceedings what Congress intended: a focused, efficient, and fair mechanism to resolve legitimate validity questions without undermining confidence in issued patents.”
Jim Edwards, founder and President of Conservatives for Property Rights, laid out the group’s case in blunt terms and urged executive backing. “Conservatives, who believe in the inherent rights of private property ownership, want the White House to know that we strongly support the initiative of the Trump administration’s Patent and Trademark Office leaders,” he said. His statement credits PTO leadership for proposing rules that would stop repeated challenges that big companies use to delay or neutralize patents.
“Conservatives, who believe in the inherent rights of private property ownership, want the White House to know that we strongly support the initiative of the Trump administration’s Patent and Trademark Office leaders. They’ve proposed a rule to correct a primary means of invalidating issued patents. No longer could the Patent Trial and Appeal Board hold repeated challenges on the same issues involving inventions the challengers—predominantly Big Tech and Chinese tech companies—want to use without the consent of the patent owner. PTO officials deserve much credit for this PTAB reform proposal.”
Backers argue that reliable patents matter to investment and innovation, and that endless relitigation benefits only deep-pocketed challengers. Opponents counter that limiting IPR could entrench low-quality patents and empower so-called patent trolls. The clash lays out competing visions of how to balance patent certainty against mechanisms to police claim quality.
The NPRM now moves through the public comment and review process, setting up a political and legal fight over patent enforcement policy. How the White House and the PTO respond to pressure from industry groups and public interest advocates will shape whether the rules settle into practice or face further challenges. The outcome could change how patent disputes resolve and who ultimately carries the cost of prolonged litigation.
