USPTO Director Changes Review Authority: What This Means for Patent Owners and Challengers

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has taken a significant procedural turn. In an open letter titled “Bringing the USPTO Back to the Future,”[1] Director John Squires revealed that he will personally decide whether each inter partes review (“IPR”) or post-grant review (“PGR”) petition may proceed to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”).

Before this change, PTAB panels of administrative patent judges generally decided whether to institute IPRs and PGRs on behalf of the USPTO Director. By reasserting control over institution of proceedings, Director Squires is now reshaping one of the significant aspects of post-issuance practice under the America Invents Act (AIA), enacted in September 2011.

Key Takeaway

The Director has essentially redefined the post-issuance landscape for U.S. patents. Patent owners can seemingly expect stronger patents, while patent challengers will need to navigate a new, more selective process for post-issuance challenges at the PTAB. This will likely drive more practice into other post-issuance challenges (such as ex parte reexaminations) and district court litigation. Patent owners should re-evaluate their patent enforcement strategies in view of these changes.

What is Exactly Changing?

As of October 17, 2025, the Director, not panels of PTAB administrative law judges, will determine institution of all IPRs and PGRs. Each IPR or PGR will undergo direct review by the Director in consultation with PTAB judges. Many of these institutional decisions will issue as summary notices (unlike the lengthy discretionary denial opinions in the recent past) – with only cases which present novel or complex questions likely to receive a detailed written institution decision moving forward).  Director Squires stated that this shift aims to restore accountability, improve efficiency and adhere to statutory requirements.[2]

Why This Matters?

Under past practice, institution rates have been over 60% in recent years.[3] By tightening oversight, the Director may decrease the number of IPRs and PGRs that reach full trial; perhaps signaling a more patent-owner friendly environment. At the same time, this change may also reduce predictability for petitioners, who must now tailor their petitions to withstand an additional layer of scrutiny from the Director. 

Implications for IP Clients

Based on the Director’s open letter, this shift in procedure is expected to reduce the number of challenges to U.S. patents that proceed to full review, giving patent owners greater confidence in the stability of their issued rights stemming from the patent. This added layer of scrutiny may also strengthen the bargaining power of patent owners in enforcement or licensing negotiations. If the percentage of instituted reviews declines in the coming months, this could cause some patent owners to revisit their litigation and settlement strategies to reflect potential reduced exposure to post-issuance USPTO challenges.

For petitioners and accused infringers, the patent landscape will likely become less predictable and more selective in the near term. Some also expect to see an uptick in other validity challenges with the PTAB (such as ex parte reexaminations), or simply an increase in district court litigation.

Global and International Considerations

With U.S. patents potentially facing fewer administrative challenges, they may hold greater international value in licensing, enforcement and acquisition contexts. On the other hand, foreign challengers may need to reconsider the utility of U.S. IPR and PGR petitions. Companies with multinational portfolios would do well to review their current strategies to reflect what may the increased resilience (and even value) of U.S. patents.

Dinsmore will continue to monitor these developments closely and stands ready to help clients assess how the Director’s policy change may affect ongoing or prospective matters before the USPTO.