Recent policy shifts at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) have raised significant concerns among judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). These changes, initiated by USPTO Director John Squires, aim to centralize authority over the institution of inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings, a move that has unsettled the PTAB’s administrative judges.
On October 17, 2025, Director Squires announced that he would assume direct responsibility for deciding whether to institute IPR and PGR proceedings, a function previously delegated to PTAB panels. This decision, effective October 20, 2025, marks a return to the statutory framework outlined in the America Invents Act (AIA), where the USPTO Director is explicitly charged with making such determinations. Squires cited concerns about the impartiality and perception of self-incentivization within the PTAB, noting that the delegation of institution authority had led to “structural, perceptual, and procedural concerns inconsistent with the AIA’s design, clear language, and intent.” ([mofo.com](https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/251020-the-director-decides-aia-institution-authority?utm_source=openai))
In conjunction with this policy shift, the USPTO proposed amendments to 37 CFR § 42.108, aiming to limit the institution of IPRs in cases where validity has already been—or soon will be—adjudicated elsewhere. The proposed rules would require petitioners to stipulate that they will not pursue invalidity challenges in other venues, such as U.S. district courts or the International Trade Commission (ITC), if an IPR is instituted. Additionally, the USPTO would not institute an IPR if the patent claims have survived prior validity challenges in any forum, or if another proceeding is likely to determine the validity of the challenged claims before the IPR concludes. ([morganlewis.com](https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2025/10/uspto-proposes-new-institution-rules-and-director-takes-over-merits-based-institution-decisions?utm_source=openai))
These developments have led to a notable decline in IPR institution rates. In the third quarter of 2025, the PTAB instituted trial in just 35% of AIA review petitions, a significant drop from 72% in the same quarter the previous year. This downward trend is largely attributed to changes in the PTAB’s discretionary denial practices and the centralization of institution authority under Director Squires. ([rpxcorp.com](https://www.rpxcorp.com/data-byte/institution-rates-dropped-further-as-stewart-continued-discretionary-denial-expansion/?utm_source=openai))
PTAB judges have expressed distress over these changes, viewing them as a curtailment of their authority and a shift away from the board’s traditional role in adjudicating patent validity disputes. The consolidation of institution decisions under the Director, coupled with the proposed rule changes, has introduced a level of instability that has prompted some judges to consider seeking employment elsewhere. The move to issue “summary notices” for institution decisions, which lack detailed reasoning, has further fueled concerns about transparency and the potential for reduced oversight in the patent review process. ([mofo.com](https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/251020-the-director-decides-aia-institution-authority?utm_source=openai))
As the USPTO continues to implement these policy changes, the legal community remains attentive to their implications for patent litigation strategy and the overall integrity of the patent system. Stakeholders are encouraged to submit comments on the proposed rule changes by November 17, 2025, to ensure that a diverse range of perspectives is considered in the final rulemaking process. ([knobbe.com](https://www.knobbe.com/updates/uspto-proposes-rule-and-director-implements-policy-likely-to-limit-multiple-patent-validity-challenges/?utm_source=openai))