Takeaway: The USPTO’s proposed rules to limit America Invents Act (AIA) post-grant patent reviews have sparked intense debate, with supporters citing predictability and reduced litigation, opponents warning they could block legitimate challenges and hinder innovation, highlighting the need to balance patent protection with accessible avenues to contest invalid patents.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s proposed rules to limit certain America Invents Act (AIA) post-grant patent reviews have drawn nearly 11,000 public comments, highlighting a sharp divide among stakeholders. Supporters, including patent owners and startup groups, say the rules would bring predictability, reduce duplicative challenges, and restore inter partes reviews as a streamlined alternative to costly litigation, helping inventors and investors commercialize innovations without repeated challenges.

Opponents caution the proposal could block legitimate challenges, exceed the USPTO’s authority, and undermine transparency. Tech companies, life sciences organizations, and legal associations warn that forcing petitioners to forgo invalidity arguments or barring reviews when related proceedings exist could make it nearly impossible to contest questionable patents, raising costs, slowing innovation, and affecting access to affordable drugs.

The debate highlights the tension between protecting patent holders and maintaining mechanisms to contest invalid patents. The USPTO has yet to respond. The proposal’s outcome could reshape post-grant reviews, affect innovation strategies, and influence the broader U.S. patent system for years to come.