- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
Trump admin urged to voice support for USPTO’s proposed PTAB rule
Trump admin urged to voice support for USPTO’s proposed PTAB rule
The 22 conservative leaders who wrote to the Trump administration said that ‘the proposal will help restore fairness, efficiency, and predictability to patent adjudication’.
A letter was sent to the Director of the National Economic Council, Kevin Hassett, and Chief of Staff to President Trump, Susie Wiles, by a group of conservative leaders supporting the U.S. Patent and Trademark’s Office’s (USPTO’s) notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled ‘Revision to Rules of Practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’ issued in October.
The rules of practice are modified by the NPRM for inter partes reviews (IPRs) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) with the specified goal being “to focus IPR proceedings on patent claims that have not previously been challenged in litigation or where prior litigation was resolved at an early stage”. December 2 was the deadline for comments and the Office has received a total 11,442 submissions.
The comment period was extended by 15 days in November by USPTO Director John Squires in response to stakeholders’ requests. The initial deadline for comment was November 17 which was extended to December 2.
The proposed rule will expand upon USPTO Director John Squires’ emphasis on “born-strong” patents and quiet title. A press release issued on the NPRM in October reportedly said that under current practice, “the Office is concerned that even extremely strong patents become unreliable when subject to serial or parallel challenges.”
IP holders and practitioners have broadly welcomed the rules whereas those who want to preserve the option to easily challenge patents have opposed them.
The 22 conservative leaders who wrote to the Trump administration reportedly said, “The proposal will help restore fairness, efficiency, and predictability to patent adjudication.”



