Some proposed fixes to the US patent system, but is it even broken?

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Some proposed fixes to the US patent system, but is it even broken?

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has released a white paper it says is the culmination of two-and-a-half years’ worth of research that outlines a plan to fix a broken patent system

The “Defend Innovation” whitepaper says overbroad and vague patents, combined with an insufficient review process by the USPTO, have hindered rather than supported innovation. The whitepaper concludes that the result is abuse by patent trolls and an explosion in software patents leading to a patent arms race.

The whole whitepaper is worth a read but I’ll save you some legwork and reveal the six fixes the EFF proposes:

  • Passing measures that focus on strengthening patent quality – such as reaffirming limits on functional claiming and ending continuation abuse – as well as implementing inexpensive, efficient tools to challenge the validity of issued patents.

  • Passing a comprehensive patent litigation reform bill, such as the Innovation Act, that levels the playing field and removes systemic advantages for patent trolls.

  • Ending the Federal Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction over patent cases, so that other appellate courts have a chance to offer alternative approaches and legal interpretations.

  • Passing meaningful reform to discourage bad actors from sending frivolous demand letters.

  • Putting a stop to “forum shopping,” the ability for patent owners to file suit in distant favorable districts that have minimal ties to defendant.

  • These legislative reforms should be combined with action by the Patent Office to modernize its procedures (such as its use of online resources and databases) and promote patent clarity. The courts, for their part, could seek to limit exorbitant damages awards.

  • Private parties also have a role to play. For example, companies could encourage open innovation by adopting alternative patent licensing schemes that prevent patents from being abused by trolls.

Other than targeted reform to stop frivolous demand letters being sent – which is pretty hard to argue against on its face – these fixes are enough to start fierce arguments.

Pro-patent types will point out – rightly – that the Supreme Court last year already made it harder to obtain and to keep certain types of software patents, in Alice v CLS Bank, as well as relaxed the standard for awarding attorney’s fees, in Octane Fitness v Icon Health & Fitness.

In addition, unlike a few years ago, it is far from clear that patent litigation is increasing. My Twitter feed has been a hotbed of increasingly bitter arguments recently over patent litigation statistics, with this just one example.

Expect the rancor to increase even further as patent reform gets debated during the next weeks and months. 

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
Gift this article