PTAB/USPTO Update - November 2025

PTAB/USPTO Update - November 2025

Client Alert

Authors

Related Solutions

Providing comprehensive solutions for the acquisition, enforcement and protection of IP.
We advise clients on the smartest, most cost-effective ways to challenge or defend issued patents.

USPTO Operations 

USPTO Leadership & Staffing

  • Gabrielle White has assumed the role of Special Advisor for Communications.

Changes to IPR Institution Process 

  • On October 17, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires issued an open letter with an attached memorandum explaining that effective October 20, 2025, the Director will assume responsibility for determining whether to institute inter partes and post-grant review proceedings (IPR and PGR) in consultation with PTAB judges.  Under the new procedure, except in cases involving novel or important factual or legal issues, the Director will issue a summary decision granting or denying institution without specifically addressing discretionary factors or the merits of the petition. According to the memo, this change was implemented to enhance consistency, transparency, and adherence to statutory requirements by centralizing institution decisions with the Director.
  • On the same day, the USPTO issued a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing revisions to PTAB practice.  According to the USPTO’s announcement, the rule would:
    • “Require an IPR petitioner to file a stipulation not to pursue invalidity challenges under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103 in other forums;
    • Provide that the USPTO will not institute an IPR when the USPTO or another forum already has adjudicated patentability or validity of the claims;
    • Provide that the USPTO will not institute an IPR when another proceeding is likely to determine patentability or validity of the claims under §§ 102 or 103 first; and
    • Permit the USPTO to institute an IPR notwithstanding a prior adjudication or expected earlier determination on patentability or validity when exceptional circumstances exist.”
  • The USPTO also concurrently withdrew the April 19, 2024 notice of proposed rulemaking regarding discretion to institute AIA review.  This prior notice addressed, among other topics, discretionary denial procedures.
  • Director Squires issued his first summary denial of 13 IPR petitions on October 31.

USPTO News:

  • On October 8, the USPTO launched the Artificial Intelligence Search Automated Pilot (ASAP!) Program. Applicants for original (non-continuing) utility applications filed between October 20, 2025 and April 20, 2026 can petition to participate in the program.  Applicants accepted into the program will receive an automatic AI-based Automated Search Results Notice (ASRN) with the top 10 results prior to examination.  Applicants may use the results, for example, to evaluate a preliminary amendment or abandon the application and request refund of certain examination fees.
  • On October 8, the USPTO hosted a webinar on the most active patentees involved in PTAB litigations.
  • On October 10, USPTO Director John Squires testified before the United States Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Committee on the Judiciary regarding subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, emphasizing the agency’s interest in promoting clarity, certainty, and predictability. He discussed the potential impact of Section 101 jurisprudence on national security and emerging technologies, such as AI and quantum computing.
  • On October 14, the USPTO launched a web version of the PTAB Trial Practice Guide (TPG).
  • On October 16, the USPTO announced that courtesy ceremonial paper copies of eGranted patents will be delayed by up to 90 days.
  • On October 17, the USPTO hosted the 2025 Collegiate Inventors Competition. This year’s winning inventions included a new way to avoid allergens such as peanuts and a sustainable drinking water solution.
  • On October 21, the USPTO hosted the Trilateral Offices's 43rd annual meeting with the European Patent Office (EPO), the Japan Patent Office (JPO), and various industry representatives. The meeting focused on the offices' strategies on patent quality and operational efficiency, including through the use of information technology and artificial intelligence. The offices agreed to launch a Trilateral AI Working Group.
  • On October 24, the USPTO launched the Streamlined Claim Set Pilot Program, which will prioritize examination of certain patent applications with one independent claim and 10 or fewer claims total.  Each technology center will accept up to 200 applications, which can be filed via a petition to make special.
  • On October 28, the USPTO announced a new approach to Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) applications that will aim to docket PPH applications to have approximately half the pendency time of non-PPH applications in the same technology area.
  • On October 31, Director Squires offered remarks at the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) Annual Meeting, discussing the USPTO’s approach to the government shutdown, developments in patent eligibility, efforts to address application backlogs, and the implications of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and blockchain on intellectual property policy. 
  • Beginning November 1, all users are required to log into USPTO.gov accounts using secure multifactor authentication (MFA).  Users are no longer able to log in using email as a second factor.

Proposed Rules

Final Rules

  • There are no new final rules.

Interim Rules

  • There are no new interim rules.

General Notices:

Legislation:

  • On October 24, Representatives Marcy Kaptur, Chip Roy, Warren Davidson, Michael Cloud, and Paul. A. Gosar introduced H.R.5811 titled “Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2025.” The bill would, among other things:
    • Revert to the pre-American Invents Act (AIA) “first-to-invent” system;
    • Abolish the PTAB, IPRs, and PGRs and reestablish the Board of Patent Appeals and interferences (BPAI);
    • Eliminate fee diversion from the USPTO;
    • Amend 35 U.S.C. § 101 to permit patenting of computer software and life science discoveries;
    • Establish patents as private property rights;
    • End publication of patent applications;
    • Apply the presumption of patent validity in all judicial or administrative proceedings;
    • Establish a presumption of a permanent injunction for patent infringement; and
    • Reestablish concealment of best mode as a basis for a finding of invalidity.
  • On October 24, Representatives Thomas Massie, Richard McCormick, and Donald G. Davis introduced H.R.5819 titled “Balancing Incentives Act of 2025.”  The bill would require patent owners to consent to filing of IPR or PGR petitions.

PTAB & Director Decisions:

  • New Precedential PTAB Decisions
    • Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc., IPR2014-00440, Paper 68 (August 18, 2015) (designated: October 28, 2025 except § II.E.1) (dismissing Petition for failing to name all real parties in interest (RPIs) as required by 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2)).
      • Director Squires’ October 28 memorandum explaining the basis for designating the above decision as precedential expressed concern for exploitation of the PTAB by foreign state-backed actors.  The memorandum explains that although the now de-designated SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 (PTAB Oct. 6, 2020) decision “focused on the difficulty of determining the RPis in many cases, which is a legitimate policy concern,” “policy justifications alone do not provide adequate reason for the Office to ignore the best reading of [35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2)].”  For example, the memorandum highlights particular “[e]ntities identified by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) … for activities including technology misappropriation and forced technology transfer” and “foreign state actors [that] have sought to manipulate U.S. IP systems, including administrative challenges before the PTAB, to weaken or misappropriate U.S. technological leadership.”
  • New Informative PTAB Decisions
    • There are no new precedential PTAB decisions.
  • New Director Review Grants & Decisions
    • Revvo Technologies, Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc., IPR2025-00632
      • Order initiating Director Review – Paper 19  (Squires October 20, 2025) (ordering sua sponte Director Review of claim construction in institution decision where Petitioner adopted Patent Owner’s district court constructions but advocated for different interpretations in the parallel district court proceeding).
    • Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v. Ningde Amperex Technology Limited, IPR2025-00405
      • Decision vacating decision granting institution, and denying institution – Paper 24 (Squires October 15, 2025) (granting Director Review, vacating Decision on institution, and denying institution because “[a]lthough the Board did not abuse its discretion in instituting review, as a matter of policy, it is not an efficient use of Office resources to institute and maintain a trial when a petition presents a multitude of [15] unfocused grounds leaving the work to be done by the Office”).
    • Dish Network LLC v. Entropic Communications, LLC, IPR2024-003731
      • Decision vacating-in-part the Final Written Decision, and remanding for further proceedings – Paper 47 (Squires October 15, 2025) (granting Director Review, vacating Final Written Decision in part, and remanding for further consideration where the Board’s decision overlooked Patent Owner’s arguments regarding a particular dependent claim).
    • Visa Inc. v. Cortex MCP, Inc., IPR2024-00486, IPR2024-00489 & IPR2024-00490
      • Order delegating Director Review to a Delegated Rehearing Panel – Paper 34 (Squires October 9, 2025) (delegating request for Director Review to a Delegated Rehearing Panel (“DRP”) to “determine whether the Board misapprehended or overlooked any issues, including: (1) whether the Board failed to meaningfully evaluate the parties’ claim construction positions as to the disputed limitation; (2) whether the Board advanced its own theory of unpatentability as to Oborne; and (3) whether Petitioner established that Oborne discloses or teaches the disputed limitation based on the arguments and evidence the parties presented during trial”).
    • 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) (granting Director Review, reversing Final Written Decision, and terminating proceeding where the Board “rested its finding of a reason to combine on [an expert’s] contradictory testimony” demonstrating that the expert is “not credible”).
      • Revised Order granting director review, vacating the final written decision, and terminating the proceeding – Paper 40 (Squires October 9, 2025) (granting Director Review, vacating Final Written Decision, and terminating proceeding on the same grounds)
  • New Appeals Review Panel (ARP) Decisions from Ex Parte Appeals
    • Ex parte Guillaume Desjardins et al., Appeal No. 2024-00567, App. No. 16/319,040 (September 26, 2025) (vacating new ground of rejection under § 101 and holding that claims directed to training machine learning models integrate abstract ideas into a practical application and are thus patent-eligible.  Citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the decision finds that the claim limitation at issue reflects “an improvement to how [a] machine learning model itself operates, and not, for example, [an] identified mathematical calculation.”)

Authors

More From This Series

Explore the Full Series

Notice

Unless you are an existing client, before communicating with WilmerHale by e-mail (or otherwise), please read the Disclaimer referenced by this link. (The Disclaimer is also accessible from the opening of this website). As noted therein, until you have received from us a written statement that we represent you in a particular manner (an "engagement letter") you should not send to us any confidential information about any such matter. After we have undertaken representation of you concerning a matter, you will be our client, and we may thereafter exchange confidential information freely.

Thank you for your interest in WilmerHale.

I Accept Cancel