Patents and politics part 2: Director Squires administers an “America First IP agenda”

In March, Mr. John Squires, officially installed as United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director in September 2025, explicitly stated as much in remarks to the House Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts, intellectual property, artificial intelligence, and the internet:

[I]t’s incumbent upon the USPTO to have an “America First IP” agenda built atop the unique legacy our Founders bestowed upon us. And we’re doing exactly that, with the urgency of now.²

Under Director Squires’ leadership, the trends at the USPTO since President Trump took office have continued: discretionary denials have increased³ and the number of Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions filed has decreased.⁴ Institution rates are now at a record low.⁵ And, in response to those trends, an oft overlooked USPTO proceeding—ex parte reexamination—has resurged,⁶ suggesting a shift in how parties approach validity challenges.

With respect to discretionary denials, on March 11, 2026, Director Squires issued new guidance identifying additional factors that are intended to assess the U.S.-ties of the parties involved: (1) the extent to which any products accused of infringement in a parallel proceeding are manufactured in the United States or are related to investments in American manufacturing operations; (2) the extent to which any products made, sold, or licensed by the patent owner that compete with the accused products are manufactured in the United States; and (3) whether the petitioner is a small business that has been sued for infringement of the patent at issue.⁷  

And, on May 14, 2026, Director Squires designated as precedential a discretionary denial decision in which he explained his views regarding: the legislative intent behind America Invents Act (AIA) review proceedings (IPRs and Post-Grant Reviews (PGR))—i.e., an “alternative to district court patent litigation for resolving disputes over patent validity”; how over the years AIA review proceedings have not been used as that alternative, but instead as a mechanism to gain leverage or to harass; the concentration of petitions among a handful of large companies (many associated with foreign governments); the role of AIA review proceedings involving public interests rather than simply private disputes; and several illustrative precedential or informative decisions involving (i) examiner error, (ii) differing claim constructions across forums, (iii) foreign sovereigns, and (iv) settled expectations.⁸

With respect to prosecution at the USPTO, the integration of artificial intelligence into examination through the Artificial Intelligence Search Automated Pilot Program (ASAP!) has contributed to a reduction in backlog and increased throughput, issuing more first office actions than new filings for the first time in nearly a decade.⁹ Under ASAP!, applicants receive an Automated Search Results Notice identifying key prior art before the first office action, with an opportunity to submit preliminary amendments.¹⁰ The pilot (currently set to run through June 1, 2026)¹¹ may represent an early step toward broader AI-enabled examination, as well as broader use of AI in claim charting and prior art searching in U.S. district court litigation.

With respect to district court litigation, renowned Judge Alan Albright, who brought innovative procedure and a wealth of patent experience to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, will retire in August 2026.¹² His retirement removes a key patent-focused jurist and may shift venue strategy.

Given the developments at the USPTO and district court, litigants involved in U.S. patent disputes should carefully analyze venue-related considerations, particularly for cases in Texas, as well as whether the relatively slim chances of institution at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) are worth filing a petition for IPR or whether an alternative proceeding, such as ex parte reexamination might be worth considering.

Footnotes 

1. See Patents and Politics: Is the U.S. in an America First Patent Regime?

2. See Opening Statement by Director Squires before the House Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet.

3. See PTAB Trial Statistics April 2026.

4. Id.

5. See id.; see also Squires’ Institution Flips Are Increasing Uncertainty at PTAB.

6. See Reexamination Statistics.

7. See Additional Discretionary Institution Considerations––U.S. Manufacturing and Small Business Use of AIA Proceedings (March 11, 2026).

8. Magnolia Medical Techs., Inc. v. Kurin, Inc., IPR2026-00097 (PTAB May 14, 2026),

9. See USPTO Turns the Corner on Unexamined Patent Application Backlog Reduction (Apr. 10, 2026),

10. Id.

11. See USPTO Extends the Artificial Intelligence Search Automated Pilot Program (ASAP!) (Apr. 16, 2026).

12. See Judge Albright, Texas Patent Magnet, Leaving Bench in August (Apr. 21, 2026).