USPTO Updates and Changes Under Director Squires

USPTO Director John Squires was confirmed by the Senate on September 17, 2025, and a September 22, 2025 press release published by the USPTO welcomed Director Squires into his new role. An October 9, 2025 statement by Director Squires discusses his view of the USPTO and his plan to “ensure that our unitary patent system serves all walks of inventors, issuing timely, high-quality rights that foster continued innovation, opportunity, and growth.” In this press release, Director Squires references the Ex parte Desjardins decision and notes that the decision “emphasized a critical point: the proper statutory tools for limiting the scope of patents are §§ 102 (novelty), 103 (obviousness), and 112 (written description and enablement).” He notes that section 101 should not be misused as a blunt instrument to exclude entire technological fields.

Since his statement, Director Squires has taken a very active role in day-to-day decisions at the USPTO. For example, he announced in an October 17, 2025 memorandum that he will determine whether to institute trial for inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings. The was a significant departure from the previous procedure, where three-judge panels of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board made IPR institution decisions. As of November 20, 2025, Director Squires had made 90 IPR institution decisions, all of which have been denied. This initial 0% institution rate is far below the historic institution rate of 67% for IPRs. However, in a November 20, 2025 notice, the Director announced he was not denying 28 IPR petitions and 3 PGR petitions based on discretionary denial considerations, and that those petitions would be further reviewed on the merits. 

Director Squires has also taken a notably active role in patent reexamination. On November 3, 2025, he ordered reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 12,403,397. Reexamination may be requested at any time, by any person, by citing to patents or printed publications that the requestor believes “to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of a particular patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 301. Under 35 U.S.C. § 304, the Director, “[o]n his own initiative, and any time, [] may determine whether a substantial new question of patentability is raised by patents and publications discovered by him or cited under the provisions of section 301 or 302.” This decision by the Director may be made “even though no request for reexamination has been filed in accordance with § 1.510 or § 1.913.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.520. Although the Director has this authority, it is exceedingly rare for a Director to order reexamination as stated in MPEP 2239.

Director Squires sua sponte ordered reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 12,403,397 under 35 U.S.C. § 304 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.520 noting that he has “determined that substantial new questions of patentability have arisen as to claims 1, 13, 25, and 26” based on US Patent Publications 2002/0119811 to Yabe et al. and 2020/0254335 to Taura et al. US Patent No. 12,403,397 was filed by Nintendo Co., Ltd. and The Pokémon Company and includes claims directed to controlling movement of a player character in a virtual space, controlling movement to cause a sub-character to appear, controlling a battle between the sub-character and an enemy when the enemy appears in a location of the sub-character, automatically moving the sub-character when an enemy character is not in the location of the sub-character, and controlling a battle in an automatic mode when the enemy is placed at a designated location. This patent was issued after a first-action allowance. Yabe describes video games with control of a main character and a sub-character where the sub-character may automatically or manually attack enemies. Taura is directed to video games with players and sub-characters where the players may summon a sub-character for battle in an automatic or manual mode. Neither of these cited references were previously made of record and the Director notes that these references each raise a substantial new question of patentability. Director Squires did not give any indication as to what prompted him to consider reexamination of the patent.

Director Squires has shown that he intends to be personally involved in many decisions that do not typically have involvement from the Director. Processes for IPRs, reexaminations, and rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are changing and will be interesting and informative areas of patent law to continue to monitor.