Since October 2025, USPTO Director John Squires has personally taken control of IPR institution decisions — and the results are stark: every petition submitted under his watch has been denied. That’s right: 0% institution. Historically, the PTAB accepted about two-thirds of petitions. Now, denials come as short, unexplained notices listing only the IPR numbers. No reasoning. No analysis. Just a flat “denied.”
Why it matters: Previously, three-judge PTAB panels carefully reviewed petitions, weighing the technical merits and legal arguments, producing reasoned institution decisions that guided patent owners and practitioners. Now, with Squires juggling an entire agency of 10,000+ employees, it’s hard to imagine each petition getting anything more than a cursory glance. The lack of explanation also means no transparency and raises questions about whether decisions are substantive or just procedural.
Patent owners are pushing back, citing factors like patent age, parallel district court cases, and strategic delays by challengers. Aerin Medical v. Neurent Medical is a case in point: Neurent argued that Aerin waited too long to file IPR, and that the disputes could have been raised earlier in post-grant review. These arguments reflect a broader trend: patentees are trying to use the discretionary denial process to protect their rights.
Bottom line: The USPTO’s new “no” policy changes the IPR landscape. Patentees can no longer rely on PTAB panels to thoughtfully review petitions, and the system’s transparency and predictability are diminished. For anyone holding patents, this signals a return to stronger patent rights and less administrative risk, but it also raises questions about whether IPR is still a meaningful alternative to litigation.