USPTO Leadership & Staffing
- Robert Hayes assumed the role of Acting Chief AI Officer and Acting Chief Data Officer. He will continue to serve in his role as Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
- Todd Tiberi assumed the role of General Counsel and Principal Legal Advisor. He previously served as outside general counsel and investor for a portfolio company of a private equity firm.
USPTO News
- On November 3, the USPTO Director John A. Squires ordered sua sponte a reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 12,403,397 relating to video game technology (corrected announcement here). The Director noted that two references not considered during prosecution raised a substantial new question of patentability.
- On November 6, the USPTO extended the comment period for the October 17, 2025 proposed rule titled “Revision to Rules of Practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board” until December 2, 2025.
- On November 7, Director Squires made remarks to the USPTO Military Association in celebration of Veterans Day, recognizing their service and highlighting the agency’s recent veteran-friendly awards and the ongoing contributions of veterans to the USPTO.
- On November 21, the USPTO launched a new initiative focused on improving patent quality through data-driven metrics. The initiative “prioritize[es] statistically identified, high-deviation areas for strategic reviews” to promote consistency in examination characteristics.
- On November 21, the USPTO released an updated Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP), which “incorporates relevant precedential decisions issued since the May 2025 TMEP revision and before August 31, 2025” and “clarifies or formalizes some existing procedures.” A change summary is available.
- On November 21, the USPTO released the 3.0 version of the Open Data Portal (ODP), which “now includes Patent Trial and Appeal Board datasets.”
- On November 25, the USPTO issued a Joint Public Interest Statement with the Department of Justice Antitrust Division in U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-3854. The Statement argued that the United States “has a strong interest in protecting and promoting competition in the U.S. economy, including by promoting a strong and effective patent system.” The statement specifically addresses “how to assess whether a plaintiff alleging patent infringement has demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm under the four-factor test for a preliminary injunction under Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent” in cases involving alleged anticompetitive effects derived from standard-development organizations (SDOs).
- On November 25, the USPTO announced that the Assignment Recordation Call Branch hours have changed to 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET.
Discretionary Denial Procedures
- On November 6, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied the first three mandamus petitions challenging the USPTO’s interim process for addressing discretionary denial factors for inter partes and post grant review. In re Motorola Sols., Inc., No. 2025-134 (Fed. Cir. 2025); In re Google LLC, No. 2025-144 (Fed. Cir. 2025); In re SAP Am., Inc., No. 2025-132, 2025-133 (Fed. Cir. 2025). In the one decision designated precedential, the Federal Circuit rejected the petitioner’s constitutional arguments, finding no due process violation because there is no constitutional right in institution of an IPR where such decision is committed to the discretion of the USPTO Director. In re Motorola, Slip. Op. at 7-10. The Federal Circuit also rejected the Petitioner’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenge to the Director’s rescission of the USPTO’s prior discretionary denial guidance, finding that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) bars appellate review of institution decisions. Id., 10-11. The Federal Circuit left open the possibility of an APA challenge in federal district court. Id., 10.
- Three mandamus petitions have since been submitted to the Federal Circuit seeking to present arguments not addressed in the Federal Circuit’s November 6 decisions upholding the USPTO’s discretionary denial practices. See In re Google LLC (No. 26-111); In re Intel Corporation and Lenovo (No. 26-113); In re Kangxi Communication Technologies (No. 26-115). The petitions specifically challenge the USPTO’s “settled expectations” doctrine and consideration of parallel district court decisions in discretionary denial decisions.
- On November 17, the Director issued a memorandum allowing petitioners to submit a Search Disclosure Declaration (SSD), which “will be considered as a non-exclusive, non-dispositive favorable discretionary factor supporting institution, particularly where the SDD reveals new or underutilized pathways relevant to Office search practice. An SDD also may be helpful in demonstrating Office error during examination.” The SSD may detail the databases and repositories in which the asserted prior art was located, the general search approach, search terms, filters, queries, or classification pathways employed, other analytics or publicly accessible resources consulted, the amount of time spent on the search, and the amount of time spent reviewing search results.
- In the Director’s first two summary Notices of Decisions on Institution, the Director did not specify whether institution was denied based on discretionary or merits factors. On November 20, the Director amended its November 6 Notice of Decisions on Institution in various IPR and PGR proceedings to identify which proceedings were denied institution based on discretionary factors, and which were denied based on merits factors. Compare IPR2025-01124, Paper 10 (November 6, 2025) with IPR2025-01124, Paper 12 (November 20, 2025).
- On the same day, the Director issued another Notice of Decisions on Institution identifying decisions denied institution for discretionary factors, decisions that have completed discretionary review and “will be reviewed for merits and non-discretionary considerations,” and one decision denied institution on the merits. See PGR2025-00060, Paper 14. The Director also noted that opinions are forthcoming in two IPRs (IPR2025-01342 and IPR2025-01383) referred for merits review.
- On December 1, 2025 the Director issued the first Notice of Decisions on Institution granting institution of various IPRs and PGRs. See, e.g., IPR2025-01122, Paper 13 (December 1, 2025). The Decisions did not provide a written opinion addressing discretionary factors or the merits.
Final Rules
- There are no new final rules.
Interim Rules
- There are no new interim rules.
Proposed Rules
- Revision to Rules of Practice Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 90 FR 50492 (November 7, 2025) (extending the comment period for the October 17, 2025 proposed rule titled “Revision to Rules of Practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board” until December 2, 2025).
General Notices
- Revised Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions, 90 FR 54636 (November 28, 2025) (providing examination guidance applying the same conception-based test for AI-assisted inventions as to human inventorship and rescinding February 13, 2024 “inventorship guidance for AI-assisted inventions” that relied on Pannu factors for joint inventorship).
- Performance Review Board, 90 FR 49240 (November 4, 2024) (providing notice of the USPTO’s Performance Review Board (PRB) membership, which now includes: Coke M. Stewart, Chair, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the USPTO; William Covey, Chief Compliance Officer, USPTO; Christopher J. Shipp, Chief of Staff, USPTO; Anne T. Mendez, Vice Chair, Acting Chief Administrative Officer, USPTO; Valencia Martin-Wallace, Acting Commissioner for Patents, USPTO).
PTAB & Director Decisions:
- New Precedential Decisions
- Revvo Technologies, Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc., IPR2025-00632, Paper 20 (November 3, 2025) (designated: November 3, 2025) (vacating decision granting institution and remanding to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for further proceedings after sua sponte director review “to determine whether Petitioner has provided a sufficient reason why different claim construction positions [in the parallel district court case and IPR] are warranted”).
- New Informative Decisions
- Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2025-00340, Paper 18 (November 5, 2025) (designated: November 5, 2025) (granting director review, vacating decision granting institution, and denying institution because petitioner failed to explain why it took different claim construction positions in district court and the pending IPR).
- New Director Review Grants & Decisions
- Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v. Micron Technology, Inc., IPR2025-00098 & IPR2025-00099
- Order to show cause – Paper 33 (Squires November 10, 2025) (ordering additional briefing for Petitioner to “show[] cause why the Petitions should not be denied institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)” for naming a Petitioner “listed on the Bureau of Industry and Security’s Entity List, which ‘identifies persons . . . reasonably believed to be involved, or to pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved, in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.’” (citing 15 C.F.R. § 744.16; 15 C.F.R. § 744 (Supp. IV 2023) (listing YMTC)).)
- Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2025-00340 (see Claim construction)
- Decision vacating decision granting institution, and denying institution – Paper 18 (Squires November 5, 2025)
- Revvo Technologies, Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc., IPR2025-00632 (see Claim construction)
