As we enter the second month of Trump’s second term, speculation about the next USPTOUnited States Patent and Trademark Office. See also PTO. Director has intensified. Given the Administration’s focus on curbing unfair foreign competition from China, the Administration should prioritize finding a Director who will shed light on the opaque litigation investment industry and defend the PTABPatent Trial and Appeal Board. Reviews adverse decisions of examiners on written appeals of applicants and appeals of reexaminations, and conducts inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews. The Board also continues to decide patent interferences, as it was known as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) before the AIA. amid threats to its operation.
Fortress Investment Group, specifically, has come under increased scrutiny following an October investigation by Bloomberg Law. The firm’s business model relies heavily on investing in abusive intellectual property lawsuits, committing a whopping $2.9 billion and 19 full-time employees to the practice. Fortress openly admits that its approach exploits complexities and perverse incentives within the patent system to drive up undue damages for its own gain.
As Fortress’s own head of Intellectual Property, Eran Zur, acknowledged in 2015, “These oversized [intellectual property damages] awards stem from the sheer complexity of interoperable components and systems sold as part of functional units, if not integrated devices…And because technology invention tends to be incremental, to the extent an individual patent owner can be awarded damages on the price of the entire end product as opposed to their specific patent claimThe section of a patent that describes the legal scope of the invention. Patent claims are supposed to establish the boundaries of the patentee’s entitlement to exclude. Under peripheral claiming as practiced in the U.S., claims establish the outer bounds of the patentee's privilege to exclude others. For further reading, see Burk and Lemley, Signposts or Fence Posts., a litigation incentive arises.”
The firm’s refusal to disclose its funding arrangements, going so far as to abandon cases when a judge asks them to disclose, raises serious red flags. While we know that Fortress is owned by an Emirati sovereign wealth fund, the lack of disclosureOne of the primary objectives of the patent system. In return for the government-granted right to exclude that is embodied in the patent, the inventor must disclose to the public through his patent the invention for which protection is sought. Inventors unwilling to disclose their invention to the public may instead opt for trade secret protection. requirements means full details of its ownership and its financing of non-practicing subsidiary entities to target legitimate American companies with frivolous litigation remain unclear.
The next USPTOUnited States Patent and Trademark Office. See also PTO. Director should commit to reining in these abuses and shining some much-needed sunlight on the problem of third-party litigation investment, especially when foreign-based competitors with deep pockets are exploiting our court system for financial and strategic advantage. Legislation aimed at addressing this issue exists, including a bill from Speaker Mike Johnson in the last Congress and the Litigation Transparency Act of 2025 recently introduced by Darrell Issa, though progress on these bills is yet to be seen. (More on the Litigation Transparency Act soon.)
As we’ve covered extensively in Patent Progress, Russian and Chinese entities have already been able to sidestep the patchwork of disclosureOne of the primary objectives of the patent system. In return for the government-granted right to exclude that is embodied in the patent, the inventor must disclose to the public through his patent the invention for which protection is sought. Inventors unwilling to disclose their invention to the public may instead opt for trade secret protection. requirements currently in place. And a December Government Accountability Office report confirmed that this trend is only growing – with suggestions that third-party investment is now behind over half of all patent cases.
At the same time, the next USPTOUnited States Patent and Trademark Office. See also PTO. Director must demonstrate a commitment to a strong and robust PTABPatent Trial and Appeal Board. Reviews adverse decisions of examiners on written appeals of applicants and appeals of reexaminations, and conducts inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews. The Board also continues to decide patent interferences, as it was known as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) before the AIA., as mandated by the America Invents Act. Funded entirely by fees paid by petitioners at no cost to taxpayers, the PTABPatent Trial and Appeal Board. Reviews adverse decisions of examiners on written appeals of applicants and appeals of reexaminations, and conducts inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews. The Board also continues to decide patent interferences, as it was known as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) before the AIA. is the most cost-efficient and effective mechanism for reviewing and invalidating bad patents, many of which are wielded by foreign competitors against American companies. Studies show that the majority of patents challenged at the PTABPatent Trial and Appeal Board. Reviews adverse decisions of examiners on written appeals of applicants and appeals of reexaminations, and conducts inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews. The Board also continues to decide patent interferences, as it was known as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) before the AIA. are owned by foreign corporations or their affiliates and most challengers are U.S.-based companies. Despite misplaced criticisms from opponents, weakening the PTABPatent Trial and Appeal Board. Reviews adverse decisions of examiners on written appeals of applicants and appeals of reexaminations, and conducts inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews. The Board also continues to decide patent interferences, as it was known as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) before the AIA. only emboldens bad-faith actors to continue exploiting weak patents to harm legitimate companies.
Now, with controversial legislation—such as PERA and the PREVAIL Act—expected to re-emerge in the 119th Congress with the potential to undermine patentability standards and PTABPatent Trial and Appeal Board. Reviews adverse decisions of examiners on written appeals of applicants and appeals of reexaminations, and conducts inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews. The Board also continues to decide patent interferences, as it was known as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) before the AIA. review processes even further than some past agency directives already have, the administration needs a Director who will be a bulwark against Chinese IP aggression and a steadfast defender of patent quality. This means nominating someone committed to upholding PTABPatent Trial and Appeal Board. Reviews adverse decisions of examiners on written appeals of applicants and appeals of reexaminations, and conducts inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews. The Board also continues to decide patent interferences, as it was known as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) before the AIA. as originally intended and supporting transparency requirements to bring the shadowy world of third-party litigation investment into the light.
