To: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Re: Comments Opposing Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Discretionary Denial Standards, Docket No. PTO-P-2025-0025

To the Honorable Director of the USPTO:

I am from [X project, company or sector, explain business, tell recent NPE story if you have one]. I write to note my concern about the effects that the proposed IPR rules would have in enabling non-practicing entities (NPEs) to target my business with harmful litigation backed by weak patents.

We urge the Office to withdraw the proposed rule changes.

NPEs--entities that do not produce or sell any products or services, and generate revenue solely by asserting patents--are increasingly targeting open source software. Because open source technologies are ubiquitous, they offer a target-rich environment for abusive assertions. 

Responding to NPEs' demands extracts a heavy toll on U.S. companies, putting them at a disadvantage relative to their global competitors. Our community relies on existing IPR processes to mitigate the damaging effects of NPEs making threats based on weak and likely invalid patents. IPRs are an effective and efficient process to reduce the harm caused by invalid patents that should not have been granted.

Congress established the PTAB to provide a critical tool for protecting the economy from some of the thousands of low quality patents asserted each year. The IPR process assists with eliminating invalid patents before NPEs use them to interfere with economic growth from meaningful product development.  A strong system to clean out bad patents makes the patent system healthier overall.

We are deeply concerned that the NPRM's IPR bar and stipulation requirements will result in insulating the agency's mistakes from review.

Specifically, we oppose:

* De Facto Estoppel: The proposal to require a stipulation that users abandon all section 102 and 103 invalidity defenses in any forum creates an early de facto estoppel that the statute directly contradicts.

* Unreliable Trial Dates: Denying institution based on unreliable projected trial dates means businesses sued in venue-shopped districts will face automatic denials, regardless of the patent's weakness.

* Third-Party Bars: It is fundamentally unfair to bar future challenges based on the activity of other parties in other forums (like the ITC) that lack the authority to cancel patents.

This rule change shifts the burden and cost of validity analysis from the USPTO to the federal court system, judges, and juries--who often lack the technical expertise of PTAB judges--resulting in an inefficient outcome that will clog court dockets and increase the aggregate cost to the technology ecosystem by forcing disputes into far more expensive venues. 

The NPE business model is premised on extracting settlement payments--even when the asserted patents are likely invalid--just to avoid the even higher cost of litigation. The proposed rules would exacerbate this dynamic, harming startups, SMEs, and open source projects that are critical to the U.S. high-tech ecosystem.

We respectfully request that the USPTO withdraw the proposed rules and maintain IPRs as an accessible, efficient mechanism for ensuring patent quality.