Patents and politics: Is the U.S. in an “America first” patent regime?

For most people, this proclamation probably conjures thoughts of tariffs and walls, but one undoubtedly less-thought-of aspect of President Trump’s “America First” crusade is to strengthen the U.S. patent system. 

On inauguration day, Ms. Coke Morgan Stewart was sworn in as the new deputy director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). During her tenure as “acting director,” Ms. Stewart made significant changes to the discretionary denial analysis² involved at the institution stage of inter partes reviews (IPR)³ and post-grant reviews (PGRs).⁴

These changes increased the percentage of IPR petitions that were discretionarily denied and have thereby effectively decreased the number of patents invalidated during IPRs. Two statistics are exemplary: (1) in FY 2024, 68% of IPR petitions were instituted, while, as of Q3 2025, that percentage was down to 60%;⁵ and (2) in FY 2024, all claims of 284 patents were invalidated, while, through Q3 2025, all claims of only 160 patents were invalidated.⁶

Ms. Stewart presided over the USPTO as acting director until September 22, when Mr. John Squires was officially installed as the director (an appointment that requires Senate confirmation). When Mr. Squires took over, he indicated that the trend toward more discretionary denials in IPRs and PGRs would continue.⁷ For example, on October 31, Mr. Squires denied institution of 13 petitions for IPR en masse in a single order that did not include an opinion.⁸

Under his direction, the USPTO has also proposed new rules regarding the institution of IPRs, including new mandatory stipulations not to pursue invalidity in other forums and categorical preclusions on the institution of IPRs based on prior validity findings and parallel litigation that would result in a validity finding before an IPR final written decision.⁹

In addition, Mr. Squires has made clear that he disagrees with the decades-long trend of a narrow view of patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (“Section 101”).¹⁰ For context, since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l decision in 2014,¹¹ U.S. district courts have, with some regularity, granted early motions to dismiss patent infringement cases involving, e.g., computer-implemented patents, on the ground that those patents involved “abstract ideas,” and are therefore patent ineligible under Section 101.

Mr. Squires appears to think this trend has gone too far. For example, on his first day, Mr. Squires signed into issuance two patents: (1) a crypto/DL business method and (2) a medical diagnostic.¹² In October, Mr. Squires stated his position explicitly: “Section 101 should not be misused as a blunt instrument to exclude entire technological fields. To do so risks disqualifying exactly the kinds of advances America needs most—advances in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and data science.”¹³ And, with respect to AI, on October 8, Mr. Squires launched an AI-assisted Automated Search Pilot Program (ASAP!), which is essentially a tool for identifying prior art that the USPTO will test on new utility patent applications.¹⁴  

Only time will tell whether political sentiment—and practical changes like these—will bring U.S. patent infringement litigation back into prominence. In the short term, companies should be prepared for the following potential effects: (1) an increase in demand letters (due to a perceived potential for increased settlement value); (2) an increase in patent infringement lawsuits (due to an increase in litigation funding); and (3) an increase in offers to purchase patent portfolios.

Footnotes

1. The Inaugural Address (Jan. 20, 2025).

2. See Interim Process for PTAB Workload Management (March 26, 2025)

3. IPR is an effective, quasi-judicial administrative proceeding that defendants frequently use in patent infringement litigation to collaterally challenge the validity of already-issued patents.

4. PGRs are similar to IPRs, with a major difference in timing: a petition for PGR must be filed on or prior to the date that is 9 months after the grant of the patent or issuance of a reissue patent. 

5. See PTAB Trial Statistics FY 25 Q3 Outcome Roundup

6. Compare id. with PTAB Trial Statistics FY24 End of Year Outcome Roundup IPR, PGR

7. See Director Institution of AIA Trial Proceedings (Oct. 17, 2025), (explaining that the director, as opposed to panels of PTAB administrative law judges, will decide whether to institute IPR).

8. Notice of Decisions on Institution, IPR2025-01014, IPR2025-01105, IPR2025-01106, IPR2025-01114, IPR2025-01117, IPR2025-01118, IPR2025-01137, IPR2025-01139, IPR2025-01154, IPR2025-01166, IPR2025-01167, IPR2025-01221, IPR2025-01240, Paper No. 9 (Oct. 31, 2025) (PTAB Director).

9. Revision to Rules of Practice Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

10. See Statement by Director Squires before the United States Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Committee on the Judiciary (Oct. 10, 2025), 

11. 573 U.S. 208 (2014).

12. See USPTO Director John A. Squires Issues First Patents of Tenure (Sept. 24, 2025)

13. Id.

14. See USPTO Launches New AI Pilot for Pre-Examination Utility Application Search (Oct. 8, 2025)