In a recent Congressional oversight hearing, policymakers from both parties raised concerns about recent changes at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that are limiting access to a critical patent review process: Inter Partes Review (IPR).
IPR is an administrative proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that offers a cost-effective way for parties to challenge patent validity. USPTO’s rollback of IPR not only harms patent quality, but also burdens US innovators with higher litigation costs, while undermining the statutory framework Congress put in place through the America Invents Act (AIA).
What Policymakers Are Saying
During the hearing, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) pressed USPTO leadership on the lack of transparency behind discretionary denials, questioning why decisions are being made without clear written explanations.
Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA) underscored IPR’s role in correcting improperly granted patents.
Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) challenged the idea that alternative processes can fill the gap, noting that ex parte reexamination is inherently one-sided and lacks the rigor of an adversarial proceeding.
Other members, including Representatives Ben Cline (R-VA), Laurel Lee (R-FL), and Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI), focused on the real-world consequences, emphasizing that limiting IPR access drives companies into significantly more expensive litigation. Several lawmakers also warned that weakening IPR could advantage foreign patent holders and litigation financiers at the expense of US industry.
The message is clear: the current trajectory undermines the system Congress deliberately designed to improve patent quality, reduce unnecessary costs, and protect American innovators.
What Has Changed — and Why Congress Is Worried
IPR was established under the AIA to provide an efficient, expert-driven process for evaluating patent validity. For the business community, including the enterprise software ecosystem, IPR has served as an essential safeguard by allowing companies to focus resources on innovation rather than costly and avoidable legal disputes.
That balance is now at risk.
The USPTO has significantly expanded its use of discretionary denials, preventing many IPR petitions from being considered based on factors that extend beyond the statutory standard set by Congress. This shift redirects patent cases from PTAB proceedings that typically cost $100,000–$350,000, and instead to district courts where a patent case can cost upwards of $4.5 million.
For BSA members and the broader innovation economy, this change directly impacts the ability to invest, compete, and scale new technologies.
A Necessary Course Correction
The bipartisan scrutiny from Congress signals a growing recognition that maintaining a high-quality patent system requires ensuring that IPR remains accessible, predictable, and grounded in the law.
Reaffirming those principles is essential to improve patent quality, support American innovation, strengthen global competitiveness, and ensure that the patent system works as intended.