# Electronic Frontier Foundation: Why Fewer People Are Challenging Bad Patents [Canonical reading](https://escapemeridian.com/readings/electronic-frontier-foundation-why-fewer-people-are-challenging-cad03717) The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s article argues that fewer people are challenging patents because the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made the process less predictable—not because patent quality has improved. It points to a sharp fall in inter partes review (IPR) petitions and in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) institution rate. IPR lets people challenge patents at the Patent Office instead of relying on expensive federal court litigation. The article says the USPTO Director has also vacated institution decisions and terminated proceedings before a final written decision, sometimes after parties had invested time and money. For the EFF, the stakes extend beyond patent lawyers: it says weak software and internet patents can burden startups, small businesses, nonprofits, and independent developers, and can threaten the freedom to build everyday online tools. The article argues that without a predictable administrative review process, more questionable patents may survive and expose defendants to costly litigation or settlements. It acknowledges that the PTAB need not institute every petition, but calls for a process that is transparent, predictable, and fair. Its account does not establish how the USPTO would respond to these criticisms or whether the decline in filings will continue. Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims. ## Original source Electronic Frontier Foundation · Article Original source date: Nov 9, 2026 (2026-11-09T13:40:14-08:00). Date basis: Date stated by the publisher. Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-09T22:16:31.853Z. First observed: 2026-11-09T21:42:20.497Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-09T22:01:54.955Z. - [Why Fewer People Are Challenging Bad Patents](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/11/why-fewer-people-are-challenging-bad-patents) ## Limits The evidence is an EFF article arguing for a balanced IPR system; the supplied text does not independently verify its account of USPTO decisions or their causes. The article predicts possible consequences if fewer people pursue IPRs; the supplied text does not establish whether those predicted consequences will occur. ## Open question What reasons has the USPTO given for vacating institution decisions, and how does it assess whether those reasons are unrelated to the merits? ## Source-stated The EFF article attributes the decline in IPR petitions to reduced predictability and USPTO decisions, rather than improved patent quality. > The drop didn’t happen because suddenly patents have become higher quality. It’s simply because USPTO leadership is increasingly refusing to consider good challenges to patents, for reasons unrelated to the merits. - [Supporting source](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/11/why-fewer-people-are-challenging-bad-patents) ## Source-stated The article reports that 97 IPR petitions were filed in the third quarter of 2026, compared with 327 in the same period of 2025. > In the third quarter of 2026, July through September, only 97 IPR petitions were filed at the PTAB, compared to 327 petitions during the same period in 2025. - [Supporting source](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/11/why-fewer-people-are-challenging-bad-patents) ## Source-stated The article reports that the PTAB’s IPR institution rate fell from 66%–68% in fiscal years 2022–2024 to 41% in fiscal year 2026. > Between fiscal years 2022 and 2024, the PTAB instituted between 66% and 68% of IPR petitions. In fiscal year 2026, which concluded in September 2026, the institution rate fell to 41%. - [Supporting source](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/11/why-fewer-people-are-challenging-bad-patents) ## Source-stated The article says USPTO Director John Squires vacated at least 29 decisions granting institution and subsequently denied the petitions. > USPTO Director John Squires has vacated at least 29 decisions granting institution of IPR proceedings, and subsequently denied the petitions, terminating those proceedings before a final written decision. - [Supporting source](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/11/why-fewer-people-are-challenging-bad-patents) ## Source-stated The EFF argues that weakening IPR could leave more weak patents available for use in costly litigation or settlement demands. > If companies, individuals, and nonprofits conclude that IPRs aren’t worth pursuing, the consequences won't stop at the PTAB. More weak patents that never should have been granted will survive, and patent trolls will use them. - [Supporting source](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/11/why-fewer-people-are-challenging-bad-patents) ## Source and contributor context Betty Gedlu and Joe Mullin · Article author These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage. ## Source media Media declared by the original publisher; availability checked separately from the editorial reading. - [image · Electronic Frontier Foundation](https://www.eff.org/files/banner_library/patent-troll-warning_0.png) ## Terms and references Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement. ## Electronic Frontier Foundation The Electronic Frontier Foundation advocates for digital rights through litigation, technical work and public policy. - [Explore this context](/entities/electronic-frontier-foundation) - [Reference](https://www.eff.org/) ## TIME TIME is a news magazine publishing reporting on world affairs, business, technology and the workers behind digital services. - [Explore this context](/entities/time) - [Reference](https://time.com/) ## Editorial provenance Version 1. Publication ID: 84fadd37-44b1-4c73-8bce-a1e8b5024cb5. Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna. Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-09T22:16:31.853Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true. Editorial selection: accept; reasons: useful\_perspective. Observation: c9402f24367a2d851f5bd730954ff89cb211a88edc6309cca0da602fbd2c0bff. Source text hash: 95b6658ff3d767eabbc41fd360e03e9ef7f0c0a9c1d974f0e2ffb975333f382f. ## Revision and source-check history ### Version 1 — 2026-11-09T22:16:31.853Z The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s article argues that fewer people are challenging patents because the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made the process less predictable—not because patent quality has improved. It points to a sharp fall in inter partes review (IPR) petitions and in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) institution rate. IPR lets people challenge patents at the Patent Office instead of relying on expensive federal court litigation. The article says the USPTO Director has also vacated institution decisions and terminated proceedings before a final written decision, sometimes after parties had invested time and money. For the EFF, the stakes extend beyond patent lawyers: it says weak software and internet patents can burden startups, small businesses, nonprofits, and independent developers, and can threaten the freedom to build everyday online tools. The article argues that without a predictable administrative review process, more questionable patents may survive and expose defendants to costly litigation or settlements. It acknowledges that the PTAB need not institute every petition, but calls for a process that is transparent, predictable, and fair. Its account does not establish how the USPTO would respond to these criticisms or whether the decline in filings will continue. ## Original source Electronic Frontier Foundation · Article Original source date: Nov 9, 2026 (2026-11-09T13:40:14-08:00). Date basis: Date stated by the publisher. Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-09T22:16:31.853Z. First observed: 2026-11-09T21:42:20.497Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-09T22:01:54.955Z. - [Why Fewer People Are Challenging Bad Patents](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/11/why-fewer-people-are-challenging-bad-patents) ## Limits The evidence is an EFF article arguing for a balanced IPR system; the supplied text does not independently verify its account of USPTO decisions or their causes. The article predicts possible consequences if fewer people pursue IPRs; the supplied text does not establish whether those predicted consequences will occur. ## Open question What reasons has the USPTO given for vacating institution decisions, and how does it assess whether those reasons are unrelated to the merits? ## Source-stated The EFF article attributes the decline in IPR petitions to reduced predictability and USPTO decisions, rather than improved patent quality. > The drop didn’t happen because suddenly patents have become higher quality. It’s simply because USPTO leadership is increasingly refusing to consider good challenges to patents, for reasons unrelated to the merits. - [Supporting source](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/11/why-fewer-people-are-challenging-bad-patents) ## Source-stated The article reports that 97 IPR petitions were filed in the third quarter of 2026, compared with 327 in the same period of 2025. > In the third quarter of 2026, July through September, only 97 IPR petitions were filed at the PTAB, compared to 327 petitions during the same period in 2025. - [Supporting source](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/11/why-fewer-people-are-challenging-bad-patents) ## Source-stated The article reports that the PTAB’s IPR institution rate fell from 66%–68% in fiscal years 2022–2024 to 41% in fiscal year 2026. > Between fiscal years 2022 and 2024, the PTAB instituted between 66% and 68% of IPR petitions. In fiscal year 2026, which concluded in September 2026, the institution rate fell to 41%. - [Supporting source](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/11/why-fewer-people-are-challenging-bad-patents) ## Source-stated The article says USPTO Director John Squires vacated at least 29 decisions granting institution and subsequently denied the petitions. > USPTO Director John Squires has vacated at least 29 decisions granting institution of IPR proceedings, and subsequently denied the petitions, terminating those proceedings before a final written decision. - [Supporting source](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/11/why-fewer-people-are-challenging-bad-patents) ## Source-stated The EFF argues that weakening IPR could leave more weak patents available for use in costly litigation or settlement demands. > If companies, individuals, and nonprofits conclude that IPRs aren’t worth pursuing, the consequences won't stop at the PTAB. More weak patents that never should have been granted will survive, and patent trolls will use them. - [Supporting source](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/11/why-fewer-people-are-challenging-bad-patents) ## Source and contributor context Betty Gedlu and Joe Mullin · Article author These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage. ## Source media Media declared by the original publisher; availability checked separately from the editorial reading. - [image · Electronic Frontier Foundation](https://www.eff.org/files/banner_library/patent-troll-warning_0.png) ## Terms and references Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement. ## Electronic Frontier Foundation The Electronic Frontier Foundation advocates for digital rights through litigation, technical work and public policy. - [Explore this context](/entities/electronic-frontier-foundation) - [Reference](https://www.eff.org/) ## TIME TIME is a news magazine publishing reporting on world affairs, business, technology and the workers behind digital services. - [Explore this context](/entities/time) - [Reference](https://time.com/) ## Editorial provenance Version 1. Publication ID: 84fadd37-44b1-4c73-8bce-a1e8b5024cb5. Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna. Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-09T22:16:31.853Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true. Editorial selection: accept; reasons: useful\_perspective. Observation: c9402f24367a2d851f5bd730954ff89cb211a88edc6309cca0da602fbd2c0bff. Source text hash: 95b6658ff3d767eabbc41fd360e03e9ef7f0c0a9c1d974f0e2ffb975333f382f. ### uncertain — 2026-11-09T22:16:31.853Z — anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 Publication: 84fadd37-44b1-4c73-8bce-a1e8b5024cb5 attribution — pass: The reading consistently attributes the argument, statistics and predictions to the Electronic Frontier Foundation article. It does not present them as established fact or as Escape Meridian's view. > That’s why EFF has defended IPR since it came on the scene more than a decade ago. summary — uncertain: The summary explains IPR but never explains "institution." It uses the term in "institution rate" and "vacated institution decisions," which carry the central argument. A lay reader may not know that institution means the PTAB has agreed to hear the challenge, not that the challenger won. Smallest repair: add a brief plain-language gloss or a term-library tooltip. Otherwise the summary faithfully conveys EFF's thesis, its stakes, its conditional prediction and its concession that the PTAB need not institute every petition. The question is substantive and not leading. > institution is only the first step of an IPR—it means the PTAB has agreed to hear the challenge, not that the challenger won, and the patent will be invalidated. date — pass: originalPublished (2026-11-09T13:40:14-08:00, from the publisher page) matches the feed entry (2026-11-09T21:40:14Z). No earlier publication is indicated. support — pass: Each claim matches its excerpt verbatim in substance: the cause of the decline, the 97 vs 327 petition counts, the institution rates falling from 66–68% to 41%, Squires vacating at least 29 institution decisions, and the predicted survival of weak patents. Stakeholder impacts on startups, small businesses, nonprofits and developers are source-stated. The predicted consequences remain conditional, and the limitations note that the source is not independently verified. > The IPR process has protected startups, software developers, nonprofits, and small businesses that otherwise would have faced crushing litigation costs media — pass: The selected media is the verified direct link to the original EFF article, which is the most direct way to access the source. ## Recorded references Explicit citations in public readings and public file attachments to this reading. Shared topics are not citations. Other artifact types need an explicit reference adapter. No public references recorded here yet. [Reference data (JSON)](/readings/cad03717971fc4e7580abff621918803d91683c2c005ee61372c0fa83625d938/references.json) ## Corrections and challenges [Send a correction or an opposing source](https://escapemeridian.com/corrections/) [JSON record](https://escapemeridian.com/readings/electronic-frontier-foundation-why-fewer-people-are-challenging-cad03717.json)