In 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued several decisions that underscored the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) broad discretion in managing inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, highlighting ongoing tensions between the judiciary and the patent office.
In November 2025, the Federal Circuit denied Motorola Solutions’ petition for mandamus in In re Motorola Solutions, Inc., affirming that the USPTO Director’s decisions to deny or de-institute IPRs are unreviewable under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d). The court rejected Motorola’s claims that the USPTO’s rescission of prior guidance violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and due process, emphasizing that institution determinations are “final and nonappealable.” This decision reinforces the Director’s authority over IPR institution decisions and signals that petitioners cannot rely on prior guidance as a safe harbor. For practitioners, this means that IPRs should not be assumed as guaranteed components of a litigation strategy, and petitioners should file early and develop robust invalidity defenses for district court. ([fitcheven.com](https://www.fitcheven.com/2025/11/17/federal-circuit-confirms-uspto-directors-broad-discretion-to-deny-or-de-institute-iprs/?utm_source=openai))
Similarly, in a trio of rulings on November 6, 2025, the Federal Circuit delivered a clear message: discretionary denial of IPR petitions is unreviewable on appeal. The court will not interfere with the USPTO’s new discretionary denial program, leaving the Director with broad authority to deny institution. The headline decision, a precedential order in In re Motorola Solutions, Inc., confirms that Congress committed institution decisions to the Director’s discretion, and it protected the exercise of that discretion from judicial review by making such determinations “final and nonappealable.” ([jdsupra.com](https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-federal-circuit-will-not-disrupt-1651847/?utm_source=openai))
These decisions have significant implications for patent practitioners. The Federal Circuit’s stance suggests that the USPTO’s leadership can deny IPR institution for discretionary considerations, and neither its prior guidance nor petitioner stipulations limit that discretion. Whether future denials must include articulated reasons remains an open question, but for now, the Director’s discretion is “unreviewable.” ([mondaq.com](https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/trademark/1703970/the-federal-circuit-will-not-disrupt-the-usptos-new-era-of-discretionary-denials?utm_source=openai))
In another notable case, the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by US Inventor, Inc. and National Small Business United against the USPTO. The groups had petitioned the USPTO to create new rules limiting its ability to initiate certain patent review proceedings, particularly IPR and post-grant review (PGR), when small business or independent inventor patents were involved. After the USPTO denied their petition, the groups sued, claiming the denial violated administrative law and the America Invents Act. The court found that the risk of a member’s patent being canceled was too speculative, as it depended on a series of uncertain events, and thus ruled that the alleged injury was not concrete or imminent. ([uspatent.com](https://www.uspatent.com/2025/10/federal-circuit-rejects-standing-for-patent-owner-groups-challenging-uspto-rulemaking-denial/?utm_source=openai))
These rulings collectively highlight the Federal Circuit’s deference to the USPTO’s discretion in managing patent review processes. For patent practitioners, these developments underscore the importance of considering the USPTO’s broad authority when strategizing patent litigation and review proceedings.