USPTO Leadership Tightens Scrutiny, Causing 70% Drop in Software Patent Challenge Filings
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has significantly reduced its acceptance of Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions challenging low-quality software patents. Official data shows a nearly 70% year-over-year decline in filings in Q3 2026, alongside a historic drop in institution rates. This administrative shift weakens the primary defense mechanism for tech companies against patent trolls, likely increasing legal risks and development costs across the industry.
A recent report by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) highlights a dramatic collapse in the number of Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a unit of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Established by Congress in 2012, IPR allows the public to challenge improperly granted patents within the Patent Office at a fraction of the cost of federal court litigation. It has been a crucial line of defense against low-quality software patents used by patent trolls. However, USPTO leadership is increasingly refusing to consider well-founded challenges for reasons unrelated to their merits, rendering the process so unreliable that many potential challengers have stopped filing altogether.
According to USPTO trial statistics, only 97 IPR petitions were filed in the third quarter of 2026 (July–September), down from 327 during the same period in 2025—a drop of over 70%. Furthermore, the institution rate (the percentage of petitions accepted for full review) plummeted to 41% in fiscal year 2026, compared to a historical range of 66–68% between fiscal years 2022 and 2024. This means fewer people are attempting challenges, and those who do face significantly lower odds of having their case heard.
Beyond higher barriers to entry, USPTO Director John Squires has engaged in unprecedented retroactive intervention by vacating cases that had already been instituted. The report notes that Squires has vacated at least 29 institution decisions, terminating proceedings before a final written decision on the merits. In one notable example, Revvo Technologies v. Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, the Director reversed two separate institution decisions based on inconsistencies in claim construction arguments between different courts. Such actions destroy the predictability that previously encouraged companies to invest in IPRs as a viable defense strategy.