“With institution decisions moving away from the Director and back to the PTAB the concern is the institution rate will only accelerate.”
Sources familiar with operations at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) have told IPWatchdog that USPTO Director John Squires has informed the Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that he will be relinquishing decision-making authority on which patent challenges to institute, returning the decision to the PTAB.
IPWatchdog has been told that these likely consequential, recent developments inside the USPTO seem to be part of a deliberate repositioning of PTAB oversight ahead of an upcoming oversight hearing. Although not officially announced yet, it is believed an oversight hearing will take place on September 29, 2027.
In October 2025, Squires announced that he would personally decide whether America Invents Act (AIA) trial proceedings should be instituted, after consulting with PTAB judges. The USPTO described the change as returning the institution function to the Director. This followed on the reforms ushered in by then Acting Director Coke Stewart, who in March 2025 introduced the interim process for Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Workload Management, and specifically, the “settled expectations” doctrine, which was an effort to rebalance institution decisions.
At the time Director Squires took control of institution decisions, he explained that while the delegation of institution decisions to PTAB judges was practical immediately following passage of the AIA, reclaiming that authority would give him the ability to align the administration of IPRs with the letter and spirit of the law. The reason for this reversal by Director Squires, who will ultimately make the final decisions on institution, whether decision-making with revert to individual panels as was the case in previous years, and when any new process will officially take effect are all material questions that are unknown at this time. Also uncertain is whether recent changes reflect a policy course correction or are merely a response to immediate oversight pressure.
What is clear, however, is that institution rates are already climbing. According to USPTO data, 40% of petitioners were instituted through the first 11-months of FY 2026, with 356 institutions and 545 denials. That was significantly lower than in FY 2025, where 616 petitioners were instituted and 616 petitioners were denied, representing a 50% institution rate. And it’s 28% lower than in FY 2024, where 740 petitioners were instituted against 347 denials, representing a 68% institution rate. Inside the numbers, institution rates by petition stood at 38% through the first three quarters of FY 2026, with 314 petitions instituted and 509 petitioners denied. However, if you focus on the difference in institutions and denials reported in July 2026 and August 2026 compared with the numbers reported through June 2026, the institution rate ticked up. There were 42 petitions instituted in July and August 2026, and 36 petitions denied during that same timeframe, which represents a 54% institution rate in July and August 2026.
It is feared that this uptick in institution rate is only the tip of the iceberg. With institution decisions moving away from the Director and back to the PTAB the concern is the institution rate will only accelerate.
For patent owners who favored tighter limits on PTAB review, the centralization of institution decisions in the Office of the Director was a significant and welcome policy change. If the reported plan to return institution decisions to the Board is accurate—and multiple sources have told IPWatchdog that the PTAB has already been informed of this change—the agency would be reversing course on that issue less than one year.
Meanwhile, IPWatchdog has also learned that Director Squires is loosening up other requirements for the PTAB as well. Unlike other USPTO employees, PTAB judges are being permitted to telework full time. How that is consistent with Trump Administration guidance on return-to-office is unclear.
This is a developing story. Stay tuned!

Join the Discussion
No comments yet. Add my comment.
Add Comment