Congressional Oversight Hearing Highlights Continued PTAB Policy Fault Lines

At a March 25, 2026, oversight hearing, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet questioned U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John A. Squires about Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) policy and broader USPTO operations. Prominently featured in the discussion were three topics, namely: (1) discretionary denial and institution practice, (2) transparency and reasoned decisionmaking, and (3) real-party-in-interest (RPI) disclosures — particularly in the context of foreign sovereign and state-actor involvement.

Key takeaways

• Discretion remains the center of gravity. Director Squires described efforts intended to reduce repeated challenges and promote earlier finality (including his “one, join, and done” framing).
• Transparency concerns were front and center. Multiple members raised concerns over summary decisions on discretionary denial, characterizing them as offering limited written reasoning to the frustration of predictability and accountability.
• RPI disclosure was framed as essential to national security. Director Squires emphasized the important role of RPI identification and referenced the recent Tianma decision in describing limits that the agency has imposed on foreign sovereign/state actors when identified as RPIs.
• Practical impacts on cost and forum strategy. Questions focused on the PTAB’s role in offering a lower-cost alternative to district court litigation and the insufficiency of the ex parte tools that pre-dated inter partes review (IPR); the Director reiterated that other USPTO pathways exist, including reexamination and post-grant review.

Discretionary denial: The pressure points

Summary discretionary denial decisions

A recurring theme was whether the Office is providing sufficient reasoning when it declines institution on discretionary grounds. Members highlighted examples of denials described as “bare-bones,” contrasting them with prior decisions that included more detailed explanations.

Timing and perceived fairness

Chairman Darrell Issa noted that Congress intended that a first-filed, credible IPR would automatically proceed to consideration on the merits. As set forth by Chairman Issa, the Director would exercise discretion only after a first adjudication on the merits. Members also expressed concern that under current jurisprudence, manufacturers would never proceed with worldwide manufacturing in the U.S., since manufacturing in the U.S. would subject all products, including those intended for export, to attack by plaintiffs. Other members expressed to skepticism about “pulling back” a proceeding late in the process and emphasizing that such action may deprive the parties of a merits decision after significant expense.

Finality and “serial petition” framing

Director Squires described the Office’s effort to address multiple/serial filings and to encourage early consolidation through joinder (“one, join, and done”). Chair Issa questioned whether the scale of serial filings warrants broad structural changes affecting all petitioners and all cases, citing research showing that serial petitions historically account for less than 1% of all filings.

RPI/Tianma: A national security throughline

Members repeatedly framed RPI transparency as a core safeguard, including in the context of foreign or state-linked actors, opaque petitioners, and third-party funding. In response, Director Squires pointed to RPI disclosure requirements and referenced Tianma as supporting the proposition that foreign sovereign/state actors are not permitted to participate at the PTAB when identified as RPIs.

Practical implications

For petitioners

• Front-load coordination and narrative. The hearing suggests heightened scrutiny of discretionary considerations and continued emphasis on earlier coordination/joinder. Director Squires repeatedly encouraged parties to “tell us your story” for institution decisions.
• Strengthen RPI diligence. Expect continued attention to whether RPIs are fully identified and supported, particularly where foreign/state actor issues may be raised.

For patent owners

• Discretionary briefing remains consequential. The hearing suggests continued receptivity to arguments framed around fairness, transparency, and broader policy equities (including the identity and relationships of those behind a petition).
• Leverage RPI investigations. Patent owners may continue probing petitioner relationships where the facts support an RPI challenge.

For both sides

• Watch institution decisions for two indicators: (1) the level of written reasoning provided in discretionary denials and (2) the way the USPTO applies discretionary factors over time, including in cases raising national security concerns.

We are monitoring PTAB institution trends and Director-level guidance, including developments concerning discretionary denial briefing, RPI identification, and the practical interaction between PTAB proceedings and parallel litigation. If you would like to discuss how the hearing record and ongoing policy shifts may affect your PTAB strategy — whether as petitioner or patent owner — please contact your Fish team.