Posts in USPTO

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has denied three mandamus petitions asking the court to step in and curb the recently-implemented practice by which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director decides whether to institute inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. In the one precedential ruling in In Re Motorola Solutions, Inc., the CAFC—in an opinion authored by Judge Linn—rejected Motorola’s arguments that then-Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution by deinstituting eight IPR petitions it filed against claims of Stellar LLC’s patents.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced today that it is extending the comment period for a proposed rule published on October 17 by 15 days in response to requests from stakeholders. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Revision to Rules of Practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board” has as its stated goal “to focus inter partes review proceedings on patent claims that have not previously been challenged in litigation or where prior litigation was resolved at an early stage.” A press release issued on the NPRM said that, under current practice, “the Office is concerned that even extremely strong patents become unreliable when subject to serial or parallel challenges.”

Continuing his pro-patent owner tack so far, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires  on Wednesday designated as “informative” a Director Review decision in which he relied on the recently-designated precedential decision in Revvo Technologies, Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc. to vacate and deny institution of an inter partes review filed by Tesla, Inc.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) latest USPTO Hour focused on patent eligibility updates today, one day after Director John Squires on Tuesday designated as precedential a September 26, 2025, decision that champions eligibility for artificial intelligence (AI) inventions. The Appeals Review Panel (ARP) decision in Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal 2024-000567 (Decided September 26, 2025) was mentioned in Squires’ recent remarks at the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), where he told attendees that there is no need to overhaul patent law to protect AI, as proper application of existing laws is sufficient to secure patent rights for technologies of the future.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires issued a Director Review decision on Monday, which he designated as precedential, vacating a decision granting institution of an inter partes review (IPR) because the Board erred in accepting the petitioner’s inconsistent claim constructions without explanation. In Revvo Technologies, Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc., the PTAB instituted the IPR on September 15, 2025, and Director Review was initiated sua sponte in order to address the claim construction issues.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires delivered his first public remarks on Friday, addressing a number of key issues he has been focused on during his first five weeks in office. With respect to the Office’s backlog, he told attendees of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) Annual Meeting that his administration “inherited an unexamined patent application backlog that was an absolute dumpster fire.”

Yesterday, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires sent a memo to all administrative patent judges (APJs) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) informing them that the agency was restoring the practice of requiring petitioners before the PTAB to identify all real parties in interest (RPI) prior to institution. The change is intended to address the exploitation of PTAB proceedings by foreign state-backed actors arising as an unintended consequence of less stringent RPI standards enforced by previous administrations.

On October 24, the National Weather Service Employees Organization (NWSEO) and the Patent Office Professional Association (POPA) filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that Executive Orders Nos. 14,251 and 14,343 unlawfully threaten employees’ rights to organize and bargain collectively, not on the basis of “legitimate ‘national security’ issues,” but to retaliate against unions such as NWSEO and POPA for their efforts to represent employees. The unions are asking the court to enjoin the application and enforcement of the executive orders while the case is litigated and requested a hearing for November 13.

Howard Lutnick has been universally criticized by industry for his reported proposal to tax patent values and revenue share with universities. Howard Lutnick is absolutely right about the problem. Here’s why. The patent system was designed for individual inventors. Thomas Edison, the Wright brothers—these were lone entrepreneurs securing temporary monopoly rights in exchange for disclosing their inventions to the public. But sometime after World War II, corporations and universities completed a quiet takeover of the patent office. Today’s patent landscape is dominated by patent oligarchs: systematic corporate R&D programs filing thousands of applications annually, not individuals pursuing personal innovation.

On day one of IPWatchdog’s Life Sciences Masters 2025, panelists addressed a number of looming policy proposals that are negatively impacting the life sciences industry and urged stakeholders to get involved and speak out in order to minimize their effects. An introductory panel that included program sponsors Sherry Knowles of Knowles Intellectual Property Strategies and Robert Sahr of Wolf Greenfield, as well as Becky Kaufman of Ohio State University’s Office of Legal Affairs, discussed topics including Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick’s patent tax proposal and the administration’s threats to march in on federally-funded university patents.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a Federal Register Notice today launching the Streamlined Claim Set Pilot Program, an initiative designed to expedite patent examination by assessing how a limited number of claims affects pendency and examination quality. The USPTO stated that it “anticipates that focusing examination resources on already-filed, unexamined applications that have a streamlined claim set will enhance efforts to reduce the USPTO’s inventory and pendency.” Applications accepted into the pilot program will be “advanced out of turn (i.e., accorded special status) for examination until a first office action is issued.” After the first office action, the application will no longer be treated as special during examination.

Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) told US Inventors Conference attendees on Thursday that he will reintroduce the Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act (RALIA). Massie first introduced RALIA in 2021. The bill would repeal the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR;) return the patent system to a “first-to-invent” model, rather than first-to-file, and would end automatic publication of patents. Inventor groups such as US Inventor and conservative groups have supported the legislation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday vacated and remanded a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that–despite rejecting arguments about an APJ’s alleged bias–could result in Centripetal Networks getting its request for a new PTAB panel of administrative patent judges in the face of alleged bias.

In the America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011, Congress required the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to establish at least three regional offices nationwide. These offices were not symbolic; they were intended to expand access to patent services, recruit new examiners, and strengthen innovation ecosystems outside Washington, D.C. In 2014, I was honored to serve as the first Director of the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, which provided inventors and small businesses across the Mountain West direct access to USPTO resources. By reducing barriers for entrepreneurs in states like Colorado, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming, the office became a vital link between the innovation community and the federal government. The Trump administration’s decision to close the Denver office undermines this congressional mandate.