Bipartisan Skepticism Greets Director Squires at First House Oversight Hearing

IPR, Patent, Supreme Court, USPTO News

by Dennis Crouch

On March 25, 2026, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet held its first oversight hearing of the USPTO under Director John Squires. The hearing, which ran for several hours with Squires as the sole witness, covered an extraordinary range of topics: IPR institution policy (including the proposed NPRM), retroactive de-institution of trials, AI in patent examination, the application backlog, national security concerns about foreign petitioners, Section 101 reform, fee-setting authority, injunctive relief, employee morale, and a sustained exchange over Dir. Squires decision to file trademark applications for the Trump administration's "Board of Peace."  Overall, there was substantial and bipartisan skepticism.

Several themes recurred throughout the hearing. Squires repeatedly invoked his "born strong" framework for patent quality and characterized the IPR changes as restoring "balance and fairness" to the AIA system. Members on both sides pushed back, questioning whether the Director's centralized control of institution decisions, combined with summary denial orders that provide no reasoning, is consistent with the AIA's design. The hearing also showcased Squires' rhetorical style: the "Central Bank of Innovation" metaphor appeared in both his written and oral testimony, and he introduced a new characterization of the proposed estoppel rule as "one, join, and done" rather than the critics' shorthand of "one and done."

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Prototype Enough: Even More Expansion to the ITC Domestic Industry Framework

CAFC, IPR, ITC, Patent

by Dennis Crouch

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed the US International Trade Commission's (ITC) limited exclusion order barring importation of certain Apple Watch models, bringing to a close (at least on this front) one chapter of the sprawling patent war between Masimo and Apple over blood oxygen measurement technology in wearable devices. Apple Inc. v. ITC, No. 24-1285 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 19, 2026).

The Federal Circuit's decision rejected every argument Apple raised on appeal - with the most interesting issues focused on (1) the domestic industry requirement and (2) prosecution laches.

The ITC's Domestic Industry Requirement: Section 337 of the Tariff Act makes it unlawful to import articles that infringe a valid U.S. patent, but the agency can take action only if "an industry in the United States, relating to the articles protected by the patent . . . exists or is in the process of being established." 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2). This domestic industry requirement has two prongs. The "technical prong" asks whether an actual article exists that practices at least one claim of the asserted patent. The "economic prong" asks whether there is significant domestic investment in that article through plant and equipment, labor or capital, or research and development. Both prongs must be satisfied as of the date the complaint is filed. The requirement reflects the reality that the ITC is designed particularly to protect US industry against unfair foreign competition, not to serve as a general patent court.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Guest Post: Protectionist PTO Memo is on a Collision Course with TRIPS

IPR, Patent

Guest post by Sapna Kumar. Prof. Kumar is the Henry J. Fletcher Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School.

USPTO Director John Squires recently issued a memorandum regarding a new policy for instituting IPR and PGR proceedings. The memo argues that manufacturing moving overseas is causing “significant economic and national security damage” and claims that [t]hese developments bear directly” on the Director’s “statutory obligation to consider the effect of institution standards on the economy and the integrity of the patent system.” It further notes that large companies lacking “significant” U.S. manufacturing are the “most frequent users of IPR and PGR proceedings.” Based on these findings, the memo states that in determining whether to institute IPR and PGR proceedings, the Director will consider to what extent accused infringing products at issue in a parallel proceeding are U.S. manufactured or relate to U.S. manufacturing operations and to what extent the patent owner’s competing products are U.S. manufactured.

The United States is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and a signatory to the WTO-administered Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS). The USPTO has acknowledged that “TRIPS applies basic international trade principles to member states regarding intellectual property including national treatment.” As Article 3 states, “[e]ach Member shall accord to the nationals of other Members treatment no less favourable than that it accords to its own nationals” for IP protection. With regard to nondiscriminatory practices, Article 27 further specifies that “patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the place of invention, the field of technology and whether products are imported or locally produced.”

Based on memo’s language, the USPTO will be more likely to institute an IPR or a PGR against a patent holder whose competing products are not manufactured in the United States, and will be less likely to do so against a patent holder that domestically manufactures its competing products. This means that the strength of U.S. patent rights will now vary based on whether patented products are produced in the United States or abroad. This appears to violate Article 27, given it limits enjoyable patent rights based on where products are being produced. (more…)

Made in America: Director Squires Ties IPR Institution to Domestic Manufacturing

IPR, Patent

by Dennis Crouch

The International Trade Commission conditions patent relief on a showing that the patent holder maintains a "domestic industry" in the United States. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2)-(3). That statutory requirement is derived from ITC's trade-protection mission: the agency exists to guard American industry from unfair imports, not to serve as a general-purpose patent court. Until now, no other patent forum has imposed anything comparable.

Director Squires signature on manufacturing memorandum

USPTO Director John Squires issued a memorandum on March 11, 2026, announcing three new discretionary factors for IPR and PGR institution decisions, all organized around U.S. manufacturing and small business status. When deciding whether to institute review, the Director will now consider:

  1. The extent to which products accused of infringement in parallel litigation are manufactured in the United States or relate to investments in American manufacturing operations;
  2. The extent to which competing products made, sold, or licensed by the patent owner are manufactured in the United States; and
  3. Whether the petitioner is a small business sued for infringement of the patent at issue.

The memo applies immediately to all pending IPRs and PGRs where the patent owner's discretionary brief deadline has not yet passed.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Two Rejections Per Allowance

IPR, Patent

by Dennis Crouch

Over the past several weeks, I published a trilogy of posts examining USPTO allowance rates from three different temporal vantage points: filing cohort dates, applicant disposal dates, and examiner action dates.

Each approach answers a slightly different question about when and how examination policy produces outcomes. This post adds a complementary dataset: instead of looking at final outcomes (allowance or abandonment), it looks at the office actions themselves.

Three charts below are all built from a dataset of published utility patent applications and plotted as three-month moving averages that smooths the data a bit.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Five Petitions, Five Denials: The Federal Circuit’s Mandamus Wall Grows Higher

CAFC, IPR, Patent

by Dennis Crouch

Five more mandamus petitions challenging IPR institution denials. Five more denials. In a series of nonprecedential orders issued between February 24 and 27, 2026, the Federal Circuit rejected every theory that petitioners offered for why the USPTO's discretionary denial of inter partes review should be subject to judicial oversight. The petitioners included major technology companies (Intel, Tesla), a Chinese communications firm (Kangxi Communication Technologies), an education technology company (Kahoot!), and a startup founded by the very inventors of the patents it sought to challenge (Tessell). Each presented a different factual scenario and a different legal theory. None succeeded. In re Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., No. 2026-115 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2026); In re Intel Corp., No. 2026-113 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2026); In re Tessell, Inc., No. 2026-117 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2026); In re Kahoot! AS, No. 2026-119 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 25, 2026); In re Tesla, Inc., No. 2026-116 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 27, 2026).

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.