Op-Eds

In a new piece for U.S. News & World Report, former Chair of the Democratic National Committee and Governor of Vermont Howard Dean argues that strong IP protections are essential for safeguarding the innovation necessary to combat future pandemics. He points to the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines as a case study: decades of patent-protected research enabled scientists to build on mRNA technology to deliver safe and effective vaccines at record speed. Today, research institutions and biotech firms are working with that same sense of urgency to develop vaccines and treatments for bird flu. Their ability to succeed depends on a stable innovation ecosystem — one where investments in risky, long-term research are protected and incentivized. In the op-ed, Dean raises concerns about ongoing efforts to require companies to share confidential research data and waive patent protections during pandemics. “IP protections aren’t barriers to innovation; they are foundations for it,” states Dean. “These protections create the stable ground that allows scientists and companies to make the massive, no-returns-guaranteed investments required to develop new treatments and diagnostics.”

Former USPTO Director and C4IP Co-Chair David Kappos is sounding the alarm on an emerging international threat to American innovation: the growing push to strip US companies of their intellectual property rights. In a new IAM op-ed, Kappos highlights efforts by global institutions like the WTO and WHO to weaken IP protections — first by waiving patents for COVID-19 vaccines, and now through a proposed pandemic treaty that could force U.S. firms to surrender patents and trade secrets to foreign governments. He argues that these policies, while framed as humanitarian, would ultimately stifle the development of new medicines and other technologies by undermining the incentives that make R&D possible. “If biotech firms believe their breakthroughs may be taken away at the whim of international organisations, the incentive to take risks and invest in costly R&D — including during pandemics and other crises — disappears,” states Kappos. Kappos calls on Congress, the US Trade Representative’s office, and other government agencies to defend American IP against international proposals that would compromise America’s innovative edge.

In their new opinion piece published in The Hill, C4IP Co-Chairs and former USPTO Directors Andrei Iancu and David Kappos call attention to a growing threat to American innovation: the erosion of patent enforcement, which in recent years has allowed intellectual property theft to go largely unpunished. Even after securing a patent and successfully proving infringement in court, innovators often find that the infringer can continue selling the stolen product with minimal consequences. Iancu and Kappos liken this phenomenon to someone being found guilty of trespassing but still being allowed to live in your home. This breakdown of basic property rights, they argue, defies common sense and jeopardizes America’s global technological leadership. To address the issue, they urge Congress to pass the bipartisan RESTORE Patent Rights Act, which would once again make injunctive relief the standard remedy in cases where valid patents are infringed. “By passing this much-needed reform, lawmakers can protect the rights of inventors — instead of rewarding thieves who steal innovators’ ideas in disregard of America’s technological leadership.”

As we celebrate Women’s History Month, it’s important to recognize the vital role women have played in shaping innovation — like Mary Anderson, who patented the windshield wiper in 1903, or Jennifer Doudna, inventor of the CRISPR gene-editing tool. Historically, strong intellectual property protections have empowered women to turn their groundbreaking ideas into transformative inventions. Unfortunately, small inventors today face growing challenges in protecting their IP from large, well-resourced corporations. In her recent essay, C4IP Chief Policy Officer Jamie Simpson outlines how large companies often appropriate smaller companies’ patented technologies rather than negotiating fair licenses. Then, when challenged, they use their resources to overwhelm smaller inventors through legal and financial pressure. This system is especially harmful to women and minority founders, who already face significant funding and opportunity barriers. Simpson highlights three bills in Congress — the PREVAIL Act, the RESTORE Act, and the IDEA Act — that would protect the rights of small inventors and those from historically underrepresented backgrounds to help build a thriving innovation ecosystem that works for everyone. “[The current] system doesn’t just harm current inventors, but creates powerful disincentives for future innovation. When would-be founders observe that their work can be stolen with little consequence, they may choose not to pursue their ideas at all,” said Simpson.

In a piece published by Law360, C4IP Co-Chair and former USPTO Director David Kappos debunks myths about the pharmaceutical industry’s alleged exploitation of the patent system, including claims of so-called “patent thickets” and “evergreening.” Citing a 2024 USPTO study, Kappos highlights the lack of evidence for these practices and warns that misguided legislative efforts to curb them could stifle medical innovation. Read the original piece here: https://www.law360.com/articles/2291368/congress-must-consider-accurate-data-about-patent-thickets Just before Christmas, Congress added — and then abruptly dropped — a section of a proposed spending bill aimed at limiting the number of patents pharmaceutical manufacturers could assert in patent litigation.[1][2] While well-intentioned, it would have severely limited innovators’ ability to protect their inventions from infringement. If lawmakers revisit this bill, Americans suffering from diseases will bear the weight of the consequences. The lawmakers behind the bill have good intentions. They’re trying to prevent exploitation of the patent system in ways that prevent cost-effective drugs from reaching the market. Anti-patent activists tell lawmakers that these practices are widespread. Those activists claim drug companies illegitimately obtain scores of overlapping patents — creating so-called thickets to block competition — or make insignificant tweaks to existing products to extend the life of the original patent, thereby extending market exclusivity and preventing generic competition, also known as evergreening. But those allegations are flatly contradicted by a 2024 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office study. The study, conducted in response to a request for an independent analysis of the issue from Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., found no evidence that patent thicketing or evergreening actually occurs.[3] By introducing new measures to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, lawmakers could inadvertently make it harder for life sciences companies to invest in legitimate research. Scientists, and ultimately patients, would be worse off as a result. The most influential source of these patent thicket theories is the Initiative for Medicines, Access, and Knowledge, or I-MAK. The group has long produced reports that purport to show the scale of the problem, but lawmakers shouldn’t take the group’s claims at face value. As law scholar Adam Mossoff notes in a recent Hudson Institute report summarizing the USPTO study, I-MAK’s publications are factually unreliable.[4] Consider the patent thicketing allegations. I-MAK asserted that 68 patents were associated with the popular nerve-pain relief drug Lyrica.[5] But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration‘s Orange Book — which lists all patents covering approved drugs in the U.S. — lists ...

In their new paper published in the Stanford Social Innovation Review, C4IP Co-Chairs and former USPTO Directors Andrei Iancu and David Kappos emphasize that strong intellectual property (IP) protections are essential for fostering innovation in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). They argue that AI’s advancement depends on human ingenuity and that, without robust patent protections for AI-driven innovations, we risk stifling the very creativity necessary to propel this transformative technology forward. Additionally, they highlight how clear and enforceable guidelines and IP protections can benefit content creators by reducing the harms of AI on the artistic community — without hindering AI’s continued progress. One example is the No Fakes Act, a piece of legislation that aims to prevent deepfakes. Iancu and Kappos also express concern about the USPTO’s overly restrictive guidance on AI-related inventions, particularly its stance that AI-generated outputs are comparable to human abstract thought processes, which are typically not patent-eligible. “Our laws should treat AI like any other tool: defaulting to patent eligibility until and unless compelling evidence becomes available to dictate some other policy direction,” explain Iancu and Kappos. “Of course, strengthening IP protections for both data inputs and human-created enhancements won’t just increase the social and economic utility of AI. A more robust and reliable system of IP rights will also directly benefit content creators.”

In their new opinion piece published in The Well News, C4IP Co-Chairs and former USPTO Directors Andrei Iancu and David Kappos debunk the notion of a patent quality crisis in the United States, citing a recent study that underscores the strength of our patent system. According to Iancu and Kappos, the study found that the USPTO’s “world-class” performance is on par with its international counterparts in the European Union, South Korea, and Japan. They explain that, if anything, the USPTO would benefit from stronger patent protections so that fewer high-quality patents are thrown out. Per the study, the USPTO is more than twice as likely to reject a valid patent claim than it is to approve an invalid one — resulting in thousands of high-quality inventions being denied patents every year. “The United States stacks up well against our peers when it comes to keeping out ‘bad patents.’ But to succeed in the battle for 21st century technological supremacy, we’ll also need to ensure that we do not keep out good patents. The incoming administration and USPTO leadership can achieve this by strengthening patent protections and rejecting false narratives about the prevalence of low-quality patents.”