Coke Morgan Stewart Advocated for Patent System Reform

The C4IP leader discussed legislative changes during the Women's IP Forum in late September 2026.

Updated on Sept. 24, 2026 in Remote Work

Coke Morgan Stewart Advocated for Patent System Reform

Live Poll

Do you trust that the current U.S. patent system is working effectively for innovators?

Coke Morgan Stewart, recently appointed as the President and CEO of C4IP, called for significant reforms to the U.S. patent system. Stewart argued that the current framework is in crisis and faces capacity constraints.

Why it matters

Stewart contends that the USPTO currently lacks the authority to effectively push for legislative changes. Her advocacy highlights a push for structural shifts to address challenges within patent litigation processes.

Approximately 80% of all patents currently challenged at the PTAB feature co-pending district court cases. This overlap remains a central point of focus for ongoing legal reform discussions.

The players

Coke Morgan Stewart

She is the current President and CEO of C4IP and a former official at the USPTO.

C4IP

This organization advocates for intellectual property rights and legislative reform in the United States.

USPTO

The United States Patent and Trademark Office manages the nation's patent system and intellectual property processes.

The details

Stewart emphasized that the patent system requires urgent legislative action to function properly. She noted that the USPTO is limited in its ability to influence these changes, necessitating external advocacy from organizations like C4IP.

Coke Morgan Stewart resigned from the USPTO in late July 2026.
Stewart assumed the role of President and CEO of C4IP on August 17, 2026.
The Department of Justice filed a legal brief in Google v. VirtaMove on September 11, 2026.
Stewart addressed the Women's IP Forum on September 24, 2026.
The Women's IP Forum occurred from September 23 to September 25, 2026.

Market Landscape

The push for patent reform follows the pattern set by major legal disputes like the Google v. VirtaMove litigation. This debate reflects a broader industry tension between administrative patent challenges and traditional district court litigation.

For businesses and individual patent holders, potential legislative changes could alter the costs and timelines associated with patent challenges. These shifts may impact how companies manage their intellectual property assets and litigation risks in the future.

The takeaway

Stewart expects that the settled expectations doctrine will withstand current legal scrutiny despite ongoing system challenges. Stakeholders should monitor legislative developments to understand how future rules might affect patent enforcement and defense strategies.