The U.S. Automotive Industry to USPTO: Preserve Patent Quality
By Tara Hairston, Guest Contributer
The U.S. automotive industry is an engine of innovation. Automotive companies own tens of thousands of patents on inventions that have transformed personal mobility for Americans across the country.
Those high-quality patents protect the billions of dollars that automotive companies invest in research and development to produce new vehicle technologies and deliver cleaner, safer, and smarter personal vehicles.
That’s why automotive companies strongly support efforts to preserve patent quality and ensure that patents receive robust legal protections.
It’s also why the U.S. automotive industry is concerned about recent policy changes at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that restrict access to post-grant review proceedings. These changes will lead to an increase in frivolous litigation against automotive companies.
One change was the rescission of 2022 guidance that instructed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to no longer take scheduled trial dates at face value, carved out pending International Trade Commission proceedings as a basis for denial of a post-grant review petition, and created a safe harbor from procedural bars for parties that stipulate to avoid duplication with district court validity defenses.
The other change? A March 2025 memorandum that creates a bifurcated two-step process to access post-grant review proceedings, incorporating a new list of policy considerations and requiring lengthy briefing from parties on these policy and other non-merit-based factors.
Taken together, these two changes work to insulate invalid patents from review and limit the ability of automotive companies to defend themselves.
Automotive companies often face litigation alleging infringement of patents that should not have been issued. Post-grant review proceedings, particularly inter partes review, efficiently resolve questions regarding the validity of patents that USPTO may have granted in error.
The automotive industry finds these proceedings fair and equitable, having experienced them from both sides. But the recent policy changes adopted by USPTO have resulted in the denial of nearly 60 post-grant review petitions on the basis of a co-pending trial date and the filing of over 200 discretionary denial requests.
Why would USPTO adopt policies that prevent entities manufacturing and selling products in the U.S. from defending themselves against invalid patents? That’s confusing. After all, post-grant review of such patents often confirms that they should never have been issued in the first place. These policy changes make it more difficult for USPTO to correct its mistakes. Congress determined that parties should have recourse to the technical expertise of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for resolving patent-quality disputes. Post-grant review is not a discretionary function of USPTO; it is statutorily mandated by Congress.
The U.S. automotive industry, like other productive sectors, creates jobs, provides products and services, and prioritizes technological advancement.
USPTO should reverse these recent policy changes and instead advance policies that support its mission to issue high-quality patents that will fuel innovation well into the future. Robust and predictable access to post-grant review proceedings is a key component of a patent quality policy agenda.
Tara Hairston is Senior Director, Technology Policy at Alliance for Automotive Innovation.
Disclaimer: This post provides general information related to the law. It does not, and is not intended to, provide legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice, please contact an attorney directly.
Engine is a non-profit technology policy, research, and advocacy organization that bridges the gap between policymakers and startups. Engine works with government and a community of thousands of high-technology, growth-oriented startups across the nation to support the development of technology entrepreneurship through economic research, policy analysis, and advocacy on local and national issues.
