Here’s our wrap-up of the massive public response to @USPTO’s proposed patent challenge restrictions.
Thousands Tell the Patent Office: Don’t Hide Bad Patents From Review
A massive wave of public comments just told the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO): don’t shut the public out of patent review.EFF submitted its own formal comment opposing the USPTO’s proposed ...
www.eff.org
December 11, 2025 at 9:19 PM
Here’s our wrap-up of the massive public response to @USPTO’s proposed patent challenge restrictions.
Bad patents hurt innovators, small companies, and the public. That’s why thousands pushed back against the USPTO’s proposal to make patent review nearly impossible. www.eff.org/deeplinks/2...
Thousands Tell the Patent Office: Don’t Hide Bad Patents From Review
A massive wave of public comments just told the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO): don’t shut the public out of patent review.EFF submitted its own formal comment opposing the USPTO’s proposed
www.eff.org
December 14, 2025 at 5:58 PM
Bad patents hurt innovators, small companies, and the public. That’s why thousands pushed back against the USPTO’s proposal to make patent review nearly impossible. www.eff.org/deeplinks/2...
Remember the outrageous “podcasting patent” EFF defeated? Under the USPTO's proposed new rules, that challenge probably never would’ve been allowed.
The Patent Office Is About To Make Bad Patents Untouchable
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has proposed new rules that would effectively end the public’s ability to challenge improperly granted patents at the Patent Office itself. We need EFF sup...
www.eff.org
November 24, 2025 at 8:10 PM
Remember the outrageous “podcasting patent” EFF defeated? Under the USPTO's proposed new rules, that challenge probably never would’ve been allowed.
The message to the Patent Office is unmistakable: don’t hide bad patents from review.
Thousands Tell the Patent Office: Don’t Hide Bad Patents From Review
A massive wave of public comments just told the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO): don’t shut the public out of patent review.EFF submitted its own formal comment opposing the USPTO’s proposed ...
www.eff.org
December 12, 2025 at 11:27 PM
The message to the Patent Office is unmistakable: don’t hide bad patents from review.
The USPTO received more than 4,000 comments on its proposed rules, all echoing the same warning: don’t weaken patent review. www.eff.org/deeplinks/2...
Thousands Tell the Patent Office: Don’t Hide Bad Patents From Review
A massive wave of public comments just told the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO): don’t shut the public out of patent review.EFF submitted its own formal comment opposing the USPTO’s proposed
www.eff.org
December 13, 2025 at 2:59 PM
The USPTO received more than 4,000 comments on its proposed rules, all echoing the same warning: don’t weaken patent review. www.eff.org/deeplinks/2...
This isn't the exercise of discretion. It is the opposite: the rejection of any exercise of judgment.
patentlyo.com/patent/2025/...
patentlyo.com/patent/2025/...
An Era of No: The USPTO’s New 0% Institution Rate
USPTO Director John Squires has denied every IPR since taking control, issuing no-opinion orders that test the limits of transparency and accountability.
patentlyo.com
November 13, 2025 at 9:43 PM
This isn't the exercise of discretion. It is the opposite: the rejection of any exercise of judgment.
patentlyo.com/patent/2025/...
patentlyo.com/patent/2025/...
Starting now - The USPTO's webinar on what they're doing to combat trademark fraud currently! I'm in attendance and will be posting highlights here, so stay tuned.
June 25, 2025 at 4:03 PM
Starting now - The USPTO's webinar on what they're doing to combat trademark fraud currently! I'm in attendance and will be posting highlights here, so stay tuned.
Open-source communities, small businesses, law professors, patient advocates, and thousands of individuals all told the USPTO the same thing: we need a real way to challenge bad patents. www.eff.org/deeplinks/2...
Thousands Tell the Patent Office: Don’t Hide Bad Patents From Review
A massive wave of public comments just told the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO): don’t shut the public out of patent review.EFF submitted its own formal comment opposing the USPTO’s proposed
www.eff.org
December 16, 2025 at 8:07 PM
Open-source communities, small businesses, law professors, patient advocates, and thousands of individuals all told the USPTO the same thing: we need a real way to challenge bad patents. www.eff.org/deeplinks/2...
USPTO's updated trademark application system is much more user-friendly. Overall, a solid update. It was about time.
April 24, 2025 at 3:14 AM
USPTO's updated trademark application system is much more user-friendly. Overall, a solid update. It was about time.
American innovation can thrive only when opportunity to participate is accessible to all.
RM @hankjohnson.house.gov explains that failure to reauthorize the USPTO’s fee-setting authority will have devastating effects on its workforce and innovators.
youtu.be/6hX-rR5CoOE
RM @hankjohnson.house.gov explains that failure to reauthorize the USPTO’s fee-setting authority will have devastating effects on its workforce and innovators.
youtu.be/6hX-rR5CoOE
Protecting American Innovation: RM Johnson on USTPO Fee-Setting
YouTube video by House Committee on the Judiciary
youtu.be
September 2, 2026 at 2:58 PM
American innovation can thrive only when opportunity to participate is accessible to all.
RM @hankjohnson.house.gov explains that failure to reauthorize the USPTO’s fee-setting authority will have devastating effects on its workforce and innovators.
youtu.be/6hX-rR5CoOE
RM @hankjohnson.house.gov explains that failure to reauthorize the USPTO’s fee-setting authority will have devastating effects on its workforce and innovators.
youtu.be/6hX-rR5CoOE
A good demonstration of the DOGE/Lutnick/general absurdity is the US Patent and Trademark Office, part of Commerce. Its *entire* budget comes from patent and trademark fees; its appropriation is zero dollars. It is facing the same contracts bullshit and coming RIFs as everyone else.
April 13, 2025 at 3:23 PM
A good demonstration of the DOGE/Lutnick/general absurdity is the US Patent and Trademark Office, part of Commerce. Its *entire* budget comes from patent and trademark fees; its appropriation is zero dollars. It is facing the same contracts bullshit and coming RIFs as everyone else.
"Spelled differently but sounds the same" is literally the first example on the USPTO's page about likelihood of confusion.
www.uspto.gov/trademarks/s...
www.uspto.gov/trademarks/s...
Likelihood of confusion
One common reason we may refuse to register your trademark is if it’s confusingly similar to a previously registered trademark or a pending application with an earlier filing date.
www.uspto.gov
May 28, 2026 at 8:45 PM
"Spelled differently but sounds the same" is literally the first example on the USPTO's page about likelihood of confusion.
www.uspto.gov/trademarks/s...
www.uspto.gov/trademarks/s...
It’s the first example on the USPTO’s likelihood of confusion page
June 4, 2026 at 1:15 AM
It’s the first example on the USPTO’s likelihood of confusion page
95% of USPTO employees work fully remotely, from all around the US - where will they all go if they are ordered to RTO?
USPTO’s Remote Work Program Faces Potential Rapid Dismantling Under New Federal Guidelines patentlyo.com/patent/2025/...
USPTO’s Remote Work Program Faces Potential Rapid Dismantling Under New Federal Guidelines patentlyo.com/patent/2025/...
USPTO's Remote Work Program Faces Potential Rapid Dismantling Under New Federal Guidelines
by Dennis Crouch Last week, I wrote about the twin challenges facing the USPTO: a return-to-office mandate and a hiring …
patentlyo.com
January 28, 2025 at 9:54 PM
95% of USPTO employees work fully remotely, from all around the US - where will they all go if they are ordered to RTO?
USPTO’s Remote Work Program Faces Potential Rapid Dismantling Under New Federal Guidelines patentlyo.com/patent/2025/...
USPTO’s Remote Work Program Faces Potential Rapid Dismantling Under New Federal Guidelines patentlyo.com/patent/2025/...
Further, no matter how much secondary meaning you show, you CANNOT register a title of a single work as a trademark. The USPTO's criteria for this are fun to read, at least for me.
December 10, 2025 at 10:26 PM
Further, no matter how much secondary meaning you show, you CANNOT register a title of a single work as a trademark. The USPTO's criteria for this are fun to read, at least for me.
It seems like every single news site I've seen that's reported on this is referencing the same source, which is a right-wing rage farm, instead of just reading the patent (#12403397), which is up on the USPTO's website.
September 10, 2025 at 4:00 PM
It seems like every single news site I've seen that's reported on this is referencing the same source, which is a right-wing rage farm, instead of just reading the patent (#12403397), which is up on the USPTO's website.
#ICYMI, read our letter to the House Judiciary #IP Subcommittee expressing our support for the reauthorization of the #USPTO's fee-setting authority for a long term.
This would ensure that the USPTO has the resources it needs to invest in its workforce and in its overall operation.
This would ensure that the USPTO has the resources it needs to invest in its workforce and in its overall operation.
C4IP Letter RE: USPTO Fee-Setting Authority
c4ip.org
September 24, 2026 at 6:04 PM
The USPTO's April Fool's joke about an AI tool for patent eligibility might be funny - but it perfectly mirrors real policy on Alice, SMEDs, and AI examination. Read the full analysis on Patently-O.
USPTO's April Fool's Prank Says the Quiet Part Out Loud
USPTO's April Fool's MATTHEW AI tool for eligibility is a joke that maps precisely to real policy on Alice, SMEDs, and AI examination.
patentlyo.com
April 1, 2026 at 7:39 PM
The USPTO's April Fool's joke about an AI tool for patent eligibility might be funny - but it perfectly mirrors real policy on Alice, SMEDs, and AI examination. Read the full analysis on Patently-O.
Just a reminder that LittleForBig is trying to steal the word "Babyfur" from us, through willfully using it for a product and trademarking it.
They still have not gotten it since it's still being processed.
But gosh, screw those guys.
Don't buy from them.
Ask @eolis.bsky.social about them.
They still have not gotten it since it's still being processed.
But gosh, screw those guys.
Don't buy from them.
Ask @eolis.bsky.social about them.
September 20, 2024 at 10:14 PM
Just a reminder that LittleForBig is trying to steal the word "Babyfur" from us, through willfully using it for a product and trademarking it.
They still have not gotten it since it's still being processed.
But gosh, screw those guys.
Don't buy from them.
Ask @eolis.bsky.social about them.
They still have not gotten it since it's still being processed.
But gosh, screw those guys.
Don't buy from them.
Ask @eolis.bsky.social about them.
A patent that never should have been granted can threaten thousands of people. That’s why Congress created IPR, and why the USPTO’s new proposal is so dangerous. EFF has filed our opposition. Add your voice now:
EFF Tells Patent Office: Don’t Cut the Public Out of Patent Review
EFF has submitted its formal comment to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) opposing a set of proposed rules that would sharply restrict the public’s ability to challenge wrongly granted pate...
www.eff.org
December 2, 2025 at 8:24 PM
A patent that never should have been granted can threaten thousands of people. That’s why Congress created IPR, and why the USPTO’s new proposal is so dangerous. EFF has filed our opposition. Add your voice now:
New on Patently-O: Does the USPTO's domestic manufacturing policy for IPR decisions conflict with TRIPS? Prof. Sapna Kumar examines potential legal collisions in this must-read guest post.
Guest Post: Protectionist PTO Memo is on a Collision Course with TRIPS
Prof. Sapna Kumar argues the USPTO's new domestic manufacturing policy for IPR institution decisions may violate U.S. obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.
patentlyo.com
March 14, 2026 at 3:35 AM
New on Patently-O: Does the USPTO's domestic manufacturing policy for IPR decisions conflict with TRIPS? Prof. Sapna Kumar examines potential legal collisions in this must-read guest post.
The USPTO’s public press release says the ID.me requirement is security related, but the timing is *very* rapid & Trump2.0 deserves no presumption of good faith
For all I know, they’re trying to collect practitioners’ IDs or limit public access or save costs on server traffic
For all I know, they’re trying to collect practitioners’ IDs or limit public access or save costs on server traffic
September 4, 2025 at 2:45 PM
The USPTO’s public press release says the ID.me requirement is security related, but the timing is *very* rapid & Trump2.0 deserves no presumption of good faith
For all I know, they’re trying to collect practitioners’ IDs or limit public access or save costs on server traffic
For all I know, they’re trying to collect practitioners’ IDs or limit public access or save costs on server traffic