Yesterday the U.S. Senate confirmed John A. Squires as the new Director / Under Secretary for IP at the USPTO. His confirmation brings with it statements and commitments that should give startups, inventors and IP stakeholders cause for comfort — but also make clear that a potential overreaction could create unintended problems down the road. https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/09/18/squires-confirmed-uspto-recapping-statements-plans-office/id=192298/ AND for once someone competent in the role!
What gives reason for optimism
-
Backlog & Pendency Addressed
Squires has pledged to reduce the massive backlog of patent applications and speed up examination without sacrificing quality. For those of us who have seen novel ideas languish or risk being scooped or rendered obsolete by slow processes, that is good news.
-
“Born Strong” Patents & Quality Improvements
He talks about making sure grants are of “provable quality,” and about refining front-end examination (e.g. prior art search, enablement, written description, definiteness) as well as improving post-grant review accuracy.
-
Use of AI as a Tool, Not a Panacea
Squires supports integrating AI tools into the examination process, particularly for repetitive tasks, searching prior art, etc., to help examiners. That could be a force multiplier if done with good guardrails.
-
Balance & Transparency in PTAB / Post-Grant Proceedings
He seems to be aware of concerns about how PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) proceedings have been used (and perhaps abused), and has committed to stakeholder engagement, improving transparency (including funding of litigation), and preserving access to review.
But: Why startups / patent actors should also stay alert
Given these good signals, there is potential risk — especially if we in the startup / inventor community misinterpret leniency or pro-patent leanings as carte blanche to accelerate filings indiscriminately. Here are some warning flags:
-
Quality vs Quantity Trade-off
If the USPTO pushes too hard to clear backlog or approve faster, there’s always risk that “speed” comes at cost to examination rigor. Weak patents issued too fast can become liabilities: easy to challenge, worthless when enforced, or worse, open avenues for litigation risk. As someone with 7 patents (and more underway), I’ve seen what strong claims look like — and what weak ones regretfully become.
-
Encouraging a Rush Could Create a Patent “Bubble”
If many inventors start racing to file simply because they expect easier or faster examination / looser thresholds, we could see an inflation of low-value patents. That could burden the system (more prior art to search against, more invalidity proceedings), increase uncertainty, litigation risk, and dilute the value of strong patents.
-
Legislative & Regulatory Uncertainty Remains
Even with Squires’ commitments, many of the critical elements (e.g. patent eligibility rules under Section 101, PTAB reform, third-party litigation funding, standing requirements, etc.) are still in flux. Startups must plan with uncertainty in mind: what seems “good now” could be modified.
-
Overreliance on AI Without Adequate Oversight
While AI tools can help examiners, they’re only as good as the training data, the controls, and oversight. Mistakes (missed prior art, bias, misuse) could propagate. Guardrails, validation, continuous evaluation are essential.
-
Potential for Abuse or Gaming
Even with improved transparency, patent trolls or “predatory arbitrage” players may try to exploit weaker patents, or use disputes over eligibility / invalidity just to force settlements. Ensuring there are clear mechanisms for challenging weak patents efficiently, and defending legitimate ones, will be essential.
My take — what I’ll be watching closely (as someone with 7 patents, and more in the works)
-
Will “born strong” really mean stronger upfront examination, or just more verbal kudos with same old thresholds?
-
Will AI applications actually reduce examiner pendency and maintain high disclosure / prior art standards?
-
How will fees / enforcement / litigation risk shift? Will stronger patents mean more enforcement opportunities, but also more risk?
-
How will startups with constrained budgets handle changing demands (e.g. stronger disclosures, more expensive search requirements, etc.)?
-
How will global IP competition (e.g., from China) shape how the USPTO positions itself? Will this push toward hyper-protection even at cost of overbroad grants?
Conclusion
John Squires’ confirmation is broadly good news for innovators, startups, and the IP ecosystem. It signals a willingness to rebuild trust in the system: faster, more predictable, and more meaningfully protective of inventions. But we must not let optimism lead to a free fall toward quantity over quality. As in any system, incentives matter — what the USPTO rewards through examination policy, what Congress legislates, what courts interpret — that will determine whether this turns into a sustainable boon for innovation, or a source of future drag and conflict.
#Patents #Innovation #IPPolicy #Startups #USPTO #PatentQuality #PatentRisk #AIinIP
No comments:
Post a Comment