Tesla has recently filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, challenging the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) recent modifications to the institution process at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The company contends that these changes introduce “arbitrary roadblocks” that hinder the fair evaluation of patent validity.
This legal action follows a series of policy shifts by the USPTO under Director John Squires. Notably, in October 2025, Director Squires assumed direct oversight of decisions regarding whether the PTAB should initiate reviews of patent validity challenges. This move was aimed at addressing concerns about potential biases and ensuring procedural integrity within the PTAB. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-patent-office-director-takes-authority-over-agency-patent-reviews-2025-10-17/?utm_source=openai))
In addition, the USPTO has reinstated stringent requirements for identifying all real parties-in-interest (RPI) in inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) petitions. This policy reversal emphasizes the necessity for petitioners to fully disclose all RPIs before a trial may be instituted, aligning with a strict interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/uspto-director-establishes-strict-real-party-in-interest-requirement-iprs–pracin-2025-11-12/?utm_source=openai))
Furthermore, the USPTO has restricted the use of applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) and general knowledge in IPR proceedings. Effective for IPRs filed on or after September 1, 2025, this policy prohibits relying on AAPA to supply any missing claim limitations, thereby tightening prior guidance and deviating from Federal Circuit decisions in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/uspto-restricts-prior-art-that-can-be-used-inter-partes-reviews-2025-08-22/?utm_source=openai))
These policy changes have faced criticism from various technology companies. In August 2025, Samsung and Google jointly filed a writ of mandamus at the Federal Circuit, arguing that the USPTO’s overhaul of the IPR process violates both the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. ([patentprogress.org](https://patentprogress.org/2025/08/samsung-and-google-join-growing-chorus-challenging-usptos-unlawful-ptab-changes/?utm_source=openai))
In a related development, the Federal Circuit recently denied petitions for mandamus review from Motorola Solutions, SAP, Alphabet (Google), and Samsung. The court rejected arguments that the USPTO’s policy changes violated due process rights and were procedurally invalid for being implemented without notice-and-comment rulemaking. ([insight.rpxcorp.com](https://insight.rpxcorp.com/news/88670-federal-circuit-rejects-challenges-to-uspto-s-rollback-of-fintiv-limits?utm_source=openai))
Tesla’s challenge adds to the growing discourse surrounding the USPTO’s evolving policies and their impact on patent litigation. The outcome of this case may have significant implications for the balance between patent holders and challengers in the U.S. intellectual property landscape.