United for Patent Reform
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 472624028
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2016–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2019, Form 990-N 2014
- Location
- Washington, DC, USA
- Phone
- 2125652821
- Rating confidence
- Limited
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $600,000
- Expenses
- $378,860
- Assets
- $311,109
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- STEPHANIE MARTZ (PRESIDENT)
- CHRIS MOHR (VICE PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- STEPHANIE MARTZ (PRESIDENT)
- CHRIS MOHR (VICE PRESIDENT)
- LAURA SHERIDAN (TREASURER)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The membership of united for patent reform (ufpr) consists of businesses, associations and corporations wishing to address the problem of patent litigation abuse.
What it reported doing in 2024
United for patent reform ("ufpr") is a broad coalition of american businesses advocating for a patent system that ensures high quality patents, advances meaningful innovation, and protects legitimate american businesses from unnecessary patent litigation. Our members range from main street retail shops, realtors, hotels, grocers, convenience stores, and restaurants to national construction companies, automobile manufacturers, and technology businesses. In 2024, ufpr continued to take an active role in shaping the landscape of patent legislation and policy. Ufpr sent a joint letter to congress expressing concerns over the prevail act which would pose significant challenges for businesses facing invalid patents and unnecessarily restrict their ability to seek recourse through the patent trial and appeal board (ptab). Additionally, ufpr's leadership has been at the forefront of the debate, writing an op-ed that urged the senate to oppose the prevail act. This op-ed emphasizes the importance of a robust inter partes review (ipr) system to shield businesses from exploitative litigation tactics. Ufpr has not only opposed potentially harmful legislation like the prevail act, the patent eligibility restoration act, and the restore act, but has also submitted detailed comments to the uspto. These comments express a firm stance on maintaining the integrity of the america invents act (aia) and supporting initiatives that reinforce the reliability of patent rights. By engaging in these advocacy actions, ufpr continues to champion a patent environment that fosters innovation and protects businesses from overreaching patent claims.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 75% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 70
- Sustainability: 72
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: Limited
- Program expense ratio: Limited
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 36.9%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.82; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -6.2% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
- Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $292K reported
- Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2016 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.