Why Simply Issuing “Better Patents” Will Not Solve the System’s Complexities
Why Simply Issuing “Better Patents” Will Not Solve the System’s Complexities
Representative Massie’s recent proposal to abolish the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) rests on the argument that strengthening patent examination alone can address longstanding issues in the U.S. patent system. His question—“Why not just issue better patents to begin with?”—may sound like a simple fix, but it overlooks the fundamental complexities of patent prosecution and post-grant review. Below are four key points illustrating why Massie’s approach is too narrow.
1. Time Constraints in Patent Examination
A central issue is the significant time pressure placed on patent examiners. During each prosecution round, examiners often have fewer than 24 hours to review voluminous applications, conduct prior art searches, and draft office actions. Expecting them to guarantee “better patents” under such conditions is unrealistic. Representative Massie’s vision assumes an ideal setting in which examiners have abundant time and resources—an assumption that simply does not align with current realities.
2. The Critical Role of the PTAB
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) serves a vital function in maintaining patent quality. Its appeal division provides an objective review of examiner rejections, while its trial division (created under the America Invents Act) determines the validity of granted patents through inter partes review (IPR) and related proceedings. Eliminating the PTAB would remove this essential mechanism for weeding out invalid or overly broad patents, ultimately impairing innovation and competitive markets. Without the PTAB, unaddressed errors in the examination process could proliferate.
3. Examination Quality vs. Post-Grant Review
Massie’s proposal suggests that heightened examination quality could replace the need for post-grant review. However, patent examination is inherently subject to human judgment, time pressures, and incomplete information—inevitable sources of error. The PTAB functions as a second line of defense, addressing these mistakes through rigorous adjudication. Without it, the system risks becoming more susceptible to unresolved disputes and abusive practices.
4. The Need for Systemic Reform
Although Representative Massie’s call to “just issue better patents” underscores a legitimate concern—improving patent quality—his plan sidesteps broader structural challenges. Bolstering the patent system requires measures such as:
- Increasing examiner hiring and training
- Extending the time allocated per application
- Enhancing prior art searching capabilities and databases
- Strengthening transparency during the prosecution process
- Creating well-defined and precise examination guidelines
Until these reforms are implemented, the PTAB remains indispensable for ensuring public trust and correcting errors that slip through the initial examination phase.
Conclusion
Massie’s plan to abolish the PTAB and rely solely on the notion of “better patents” is far less feasible than it appears. Significant systemic overhaul—from expanded examiner staffing to more robust training and resources—would be necessary to make that vision a reality. In the meantime, the PTAB offers a critical safeguard against invalid patents and serves to stabilize the broader patent environment.
A more balanced solution, therefore, is to improve examination practices—dedicating more time, personnel, and technical resources—while preserving the PTAB as a vital oversight mechanism. Removing the PTAB entirely would ultimately undermine the very innovation the patent system is meant to foster.
Comments
Post a Comment