A coalition public interest groups sent letters to Chairman Durbin and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emphasizing the important public benefits that come from an administrative process allowing the Patent Office to reevaluate—and when, appropriate—cancel patents that do not meet the threshold for patentability under the law. The letter highlights the value of this process for lowering drug prices when wrongly granted patents drive them up.

Public Interest Patent Law Institute (PIPLI) is releasing case studies that demonstrate the efficacy of patent challenge proceedings in lowering drug prices, building on groundbreaking research by Charles Duan of American University’s Washington College of Law that provides compelling evidence of the transformative power of IPR in catalyzing significant price reductions and expanding access to vital pharmaceuticals.

As both U.S. and European government agencies heighten their focus on standard-essential patents (SEP), grasping the economic stakes of SEP licensing is increasingly critical. A new study from Professor John L. Turner (supported by the Public Interest Patent Law Institute) offers a promising new approach to SEP royalty setting that is designed to align with the goals of both standardization and patent protection.

The European Commission (EC) recently opened the floor for comments on a ground-breaking proposed regulation concerning the licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs). At the Public Interest Patent Law Institute (PIPLI), we see the regulation as a positive step toward a more fair and efficient SEP licensing landscape. but we also see concerning aspects that need to be changed. While the proposal may not be flawless, its potential for reshaping the SEP licensing landscape, promoting efficiency, and establishing a level playing field is well worth the work of improving it.

Restricting access to patent challenges will chill innovation and endanger the health of millions of Americans, but that is what the Patent Office is proposing to do. It needs to hear from you how harmful its proposed restrictions will be. Together, we can convince it do the right thing.

When members of Congress asked about the Patent Office’s recently proposed rules at an oversight hearing, Director Kathi Vidal repeatedly stated that the proposal reflected feedback from unidentified “stakeholders.” Given the proposal’s one-sided slant, these oblique references to stakeholders whose feedback influenced the proposal only raised more questions. To ensure the public gets the answers that it needs—and is entitled to receive, the Public Interest Patent Law Institute (PIPLI) has submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking records of the Patent Office’s external communications about the proposed rules.

PIPLI and other public interest groups are calling on Congress to protect access to administrative proceedings for challenging invalid patents.

Patent eligibility law overwhelmingly benefits U.S. innovation, competition, and economic vitality. The evidence shows we need patent eligibility law to protect American innovators, businesses, and consumers. But we also need more transparency about patent ownership and patent litigation to stop foreign entities from hiding in the shadows when they weaponize U.S. patents against U.S. interests.

In Amgen v. Sanofi, the Supreme Court will decide whether to change the rules so that disproportionately favor patent owners. Thanks to Georgetown Law Intellectual Property and Information Policy (iPIP) Clinic students Sumaia Tabassum and Ian Stubbs, and Visiting Professor and Acting Director Nina Srejovic, the Public Interest Patent Law Institute (PIPLI) submitted a brief urging the Court to confirm that patents must enable the same invention they claim.

Thanks to the help of students and faculty at Harvard’s Cyberlaw Clinic, the Public Interest Patent Law Institute (PIPLI) has sent a letter to Senator Leahy, Senator Tillis, and Director Vidal, emphasizing the importance of this problem, explaining how it manifests, and proposing practical solutions for addressing it across the patent system.

Patents are government grants designed to encourage investment in and disclosure of innovation. The fact that patent owners are trying to conceal their identities from the Patent Office is a sign the patent system is not working as intended. Thankfully, judges like Judge Connolly (among others) are not permitting them to use publicly-funded courts to facilitate covert schemes.

The Patent Office requested comments on important procedures regarding patent eligibility and review of Patent and Trial Appeal Board decisions. Public interest groups responded by urging the procedures to be changed to restore conformity with the spirit and letter of the law as well as the public’s interest in a patent system that fairly and effectively promotes innovation for all.

The Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division is supposed to protect Americans from schemes that drive prices up and competition down. Unfortunately, the Division’s former head, Makan Delrahim, did the opposite, protecting anticompetitive conduct from meaningful scrutiny and disregarding concerns about consumer harm. One glaring example is the (absurdly favorable) business review letter he issued regarding a patent licensing pool administered by Avanci.