USPTO Operations

• The USPTO remains fully operational during the government shutdown.

USPTO Leadership and Staffing

• On September 18, the US Senate confirmed John Squires as director of the USPTO by a vote of 51-47. Former Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart will serve as deputy director. Director Squires’s swearing in remarks are here.
• On September 24, Director Squires issued the first patent of his tenure. The speech he delivered at the signing ceremony is here.
• On October 1, the USPTO announced the closure of Rocky Mountain Regional Outreach Office in Denver.
• According to Reuters reporting, the USPTO will lay off about 1% of its workforce of over 14,000 employees. Director Squires indicated in an internal letter that the layoffs were not performance related.

USPTO News

• On September 8, the USPTO announced the appointment of new members of the Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) and the Trademark Public Advisory Committee (TPAC). The newly announced members are:
  • Makan Delrahim, Latham and Watkins (PPAC Chair)
  • Tracy-Gene G. Durkin, Sterne Kessler (PPAC Vice Chair)
  • David Gooder, Jack Daniels (TPAC)
  • Courtney Laginess, Worldplay (TPAC)
• Effective September 11, the USPTO is requiring identity verification for all Patent Center users. Guest and unregistered users are no longer able to access Patent Center.
• On September 11, the USPTO issued a legal framework for the patent electronic system that defines the USPTO patent electronic filing system requirements, and provides guidance on the background statutes, regulations and policies that support the USPTO Patent Electronic System. The new legal framework was announced in the Federal Register.

Final Rules

• International Trademark Classification Changes, 90 Fed. Reg. 47592 (October 2, 2025) [incorporate classification changes adopted by the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks (Nice Agreement)]

Interim Rules

• There are no new interim rules.

Proposed Rules

• There are no new proposed rules.

General Notices

• There are no new general notices.

PTAB Decisions

• New Precedential PTAB Decisions
  • There are no new precedential PTAB decisions.
• New Informative PTAB Decisions
  • There are no new informative PTAB decisions.
• New Director Review Decisions
  • Interactive Communications International, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network Inc., IPR2024-00465
    • Order granting director review, reversing the final written decision, and terminating the proceeding – Paper 39 (Squires October 1, 2025) [reversing Board decision determining all challenged claims unpatentable, determining that the “Board abused its discretion by improperly crediting expert testimony that has multiple material contradictions and that the Board found lacked credibility at least in certain respects,” and stating that the director’s reversal of the Board’s final written decision “does not constitute a final written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)”]
    • While unusual, there are other circumstances where the PTAB has not issued a Final Written Decision in an IPR after institution. For example, in Verizon Connect Inc., v. Omega Patents, LLC., IPR2023-01162, the interim Director vacated the Final Written Decision invalidating the challenged claims and terminated the proceeding. Paper 40, Order granting director review, vacating the final written decision, and terminating the proceeding (June 3, 2025) at 2. Verizon filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit, indicating that one of the issues on appeal was the failure of the PTAB to issue a final written decision. Paper 41, Notice of Appeal (Aug. 5, 2025) at 2. The appeal is pending. 
  • Inergy Technology, Inc. v. Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd., IPR2024-00094
    • Order authorizing additional evidence and briefing – Paper 41 (Stewart September 17, 2025) [following district court decision finding claims valid and a final written decision finding claims invalid, authorizing the parties to brief the “similarities and differences between the arguments and evidence presented in the district court and the arguments and evidence presented in this proceeding” because “it is important for the Board to consider a district court’s prior validity determination when adjudicating the patentability of the same or substantially the same claims”]