Um, the public comment form lists first and last name as required fields (with address and phone number optional), then at the bottom includes this warning:
"Do not submit personally identifiable information through this form."
I am surprised this hasn't gotten more attention. I feel like HN used to love nothing more than complaining about patent trolls. Anyway, this article suggestions an action through regulation.gov which, based on the content of the page, seemed worth doing to me.
There is a fairly vocal contingent of patent people on LinkedIn swearing this is good for the solo guy, the small independent inventor. But yes, it does feel like it will be trolls that are in favor -- maybe some pharma wants this.
Am I crazy or was there a strategy reason that inter partes review at USPTO was disfavored over trial? Like the legal standards are easier for the patentholder at USPTO or something like that?
You can thank them properly by submitting a comment on this matter and add your voice to the chorus so the proposed ruling gets shoved right back into the orifice it was pulled from.
Um, the public comment form lists first and last name as required fields (with address and phone number optional), then at the bottom includes this warning:
"Do not submit personally identifiable information through this form."
I am surprised this hasn't gotten more attention. I feel like HN used to love nothing more than complaining about patent trolls. Anyway, this article suggestions an action through regulation.gov which, based on the content of the page, seemed worth doing to me.
Fast and easy to take action on that page.
I submitted a comment on Regulation.gov, and if any of you actually give a shit about tech, I suggest you do it too.
Who wants this? Is it just patent troll regulatory capture?
There is a fairly vocal contingent of patent people on LinkedIn swearing this is good for the solo guy, the small independent inventor. But yes, it does feel like it will be trolls that are in favor -- maybe some pharma wants this.
Am I crazy or was there a strategy reason that inter partes review at USPTO was disfavored over trial? Like the legal standards are easier for the patentholder at USPTO or something like that?
Cost -- it is way cheaper to use IPR and avoid discovery associated with the other factors that happen at trial. Speed, the PTO is generally faster.
I submitted a comment.
And this just after the USPTO gained some good karma for re-examining a bad patent from Nintendo in the Palworld vs Pokemon feud:
https://www.sportskeeda.com/mmo/news-nintendo-vs-palworld-po...
The deadline for comments was November 17.
It’s December 2 as explained in the article and the page on regulations.gov. Where do you see Nov 17?
Via the link in the article to: Revision to Rules of Practice Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/10/17/2025-19...
It would be nice to have some confirmation, but I'm assuming there was an extension.
Given that EFF and the comment form at regulations.gov cite Dec 2nd.
In any case, I'm filing my comment now, and encouraging others to do so as well.
Anyone who's ever been through any kind of patent process should understand just how egregious this is...
There was an extension. I don't have link handy, but an extra 15 days were provided.
Thank you EFF.
You can thank them properly by submitting a comment on this matter and add your voice to the chorus so the proposed ruling gets shoved right back into the orifice it was pulled from.
Ah, more IP sclerosis. Great.