First Institutions Under Squires: Trends, Impact of Stipulations, and Practice Pointers

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has experienced significant shifts in discretionary-denial policy over the last year. Under Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart, PTAB expanded the bases for discretionary denial and introduced the settled expectations doctrine. And when Director John Squires assumed leadership, he reclaimed institutional authority and initially issued only summary denials. Following industry concern, Director Squires has now instituted 11 inter partes reviews and two post grant reviews, marking a notable shift and providing initial pointers on securing institution under Director Squires.

RECENT TREND OF DENYING PETITIONS

Throughout this year, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under Acting Director Stewart had increasingly denied inter partes review (IPR) petitions on discretionary grounds. In iRhythm v. Welch Allyn,[1] she denied institution based on the new “settled expectations” factor even though several Fintiv factors weighed against discretionary denial. This decision effectively introduced a temporal limitation on IPR challenges for patents more than six years old, although the precise threshold remains undefined and may vary based on petitioner knowledge and conduct.

Acting Director Stewart also reversed guidance from former Director Kathi Vidal that allowed Sotera stipulations to create an automatic exit from discretionary denials.[2] And in Motorola v. Stellar, she vacated four PTAB institutions because the board placed “too much weight” on the Sotera stipulation and “too little weight” on district court investment.[3] Sotera stipulations remained relevant to the overall Fintiv analysis but no longer opened up an automatic exit from discretionary denials. Subsequent decisions demonstrated that Sotera-Plus stipulations—which waive system-art combinations corresponding to IPR references—were increasingly necessary to avoid discretionary denial.

This trend favoring discretionary denials seemed poised to continue under Director Squires. He proposed new rules seeking to require Sotera-Plus stipulations as a necessary but not sufficient precursor to securing institution.[4] In his October 31, 2025 and November 6, 2025 decisions, Director Squires issued summary denials without detailed explanation, leaving it unclear how much weight Director Squires would place on Sotera and Sotera-Plus stipulations.

His more recent notices—on November 20, 2025, December 1, 2025, and December 11, 2025—likewise included summary denials. But Director Squires additionally began listing petitions that had overcome discretionary denial and are now being considered on the merits. His December 1 and December 11 decisions also instituted the first IPRs and post-grant reviews (PGRs) of his tenure. With these newer waves of summary referral and institution notices, we now have a few initial data points from which to discern some initial themes impacting institution outcomes.

A SUDDEN CHANGE: 13 INSTITUTIONS GRANTED

On December 1, Director Squires instituted four IPRs and two PGRs—the first institutions of his tenure. Neither PGR petition (PGR2025-00055 and -00057) involved patents with co-pending litigation, but all four IPR petitions (IPR2025-01122, -01140, -01171, and -01215) did. The petitioners highlighted the early stages of these litigations and the likelihood that a final written decision would precede resolution on the merits in those litigations. They also included standard Sotera stipulations with three petitions (-01122, -01140, -01215), and the fourth included a Sotera-Plus stipulation waiving system-art combinations (-01171).

Each petitioner included arguments addressing “settled expectations.” In two proceedings (-01122, -01140), the patents at issue were less than two years old. In the -01215 proceeding, the petitioner highlighted how the challenged patent, though older, had been permitted to lapse for roughly four years between 2021 and 2025.[5] And in the -01171 proceeding, the petitioner highlighted how the patent owner (a foreign patent assertion entity) had abandoned similar claims in reexamination proceedings for a related patent.[6]

Director Squires instituted another seven IPRs on December 11, six of which involved patents with co-pending litigations. Notably, while half of these included either a Sotera (‑01241, -01242) or Sotera-Plus stipulation (-01153), the other half did not include any such stipulation (-01042, -01179, -01264). All six proceedings involved patents less than six years old, such that patent owners had limited opportunities to make persuasive settled expectations arguments. Five of the six petitions (including all three involving no Sotera stipulations) presented relatively atypical circumstances:

In the -01153 proceeding, the petitioner also addressed settled expectations, highlighting a potential material error in prosecution where prior art had been used to reject similar claims in a child application.[9]

SOTERA AND SOTERA-PLUS STIPULATIONS IN REFERRED IPR AND PGR PETITIONS

Through December 11, Director Squires has referred a total of 84 petitions for merits consideration. 75 of those petitions involved patents with co-pending litigation. Of those, Director Squires’s referrals heavily weighed toward petitions with either Sotera or Sotera-Plus stipulations (77%):

Of the petitions without any Sotera or Sotera-Plus stipulations, 14 of 17 appear to involve patents that are being asserted in multiple litigations simultaneously, not just a single co-pending litigation.

WHY THE SUDDEN CHANGE AND WHAT COMES NEXT

Although Director Squires’s institution and referral decisions are limited in number and were summarily issued without explanation, a few observations can be gleaned.

1. Sotera and Sotera-Plus Stipulations Remain Important

The heavy weighing of merits referrals toward Sotera and Sotera-Plus stipulations (77%), and their presence in many of the instituted proceedings, indicates that Director Squires will continue to emphasize such stipulations and avoid duplicate efforts in co-pending litigation. As discussed above, the only instituted proceedings without such stipulations presented somewhat atypical circumstances.

That said, the relatively large proportion of merits-referred and instituted petitions with only a Sotera stipulation is somewhat inconsistent with Acting Director Stewart’s and Director Squires’s emphasis on including Sotera-Plus stipulations. These figures may raise the question, is Director Squires’s view on the necessity of Sotera-Plus stipulations changing or does this reflect a temporary transitional period before his proposed rules requiring Sotera-Plus stipulations take effect? Either way, the prevalence of Sotera and Sotera-Plus stipulations in future decisions will be an important factor to monitor.

2. Weak Settled Expectations Arguments Are Key

Petitioners must have a clear explanation for why “settled expectations” does not apply. The instituted petitions weigh heavily toward patents that were less than six years old, and in many cases, significantly younger. This is largely consistent with the practice established under Acting Director Stewart.

However, for certain patents that are six or more years old, the instituted petitions demonstrate that “settled expectations” arguments can be overcome with the right evidence. The petitioners here succeeded on older patents by concisely identifying intervening events that disrupted any expectations of enforceability the patent owner may have had. When seeking to challenge older patents, parties should look for similar evidence: lapsed patent rights and successful patentability challenges involving like-in-kind claims of related patents and/or applications.

3. Internal Policy Recalibration

After a universal denial streak and growing stakeholder concern, the sudden approval of 13 petitions and 84 merit referrals has prompted stakeholder discussion regarding whether the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is responding to concerns about predictability and balance. Director Squires’s decisions do not explicitly attribute the shift to industry feedback but may indicate a recalibration that is seeking to balance discretionary authority with stakeholders’ expectations for transparency.

4. Revvo, Tesla in Light of the General Lack of Guidance

In centralizing review of petitions, Director Squires has stated that he aims to “enhance transparency and public trust” in the process.[10] Yet recent actions have decreased predictability for stakeholders. Summary denials reduce transparency. A period of universal denial followed by an unexplained series of institutions provides little guidance on what criteria matter. The absence of public policy statements has increased uncertainty rather than reduced it.

USPTO filing data indicates that only 66 IPR petitions were filed in November 2025, compared with a historical monthly average of more than 100. This more than 33% decrease may reflect increased petitioner hesitation amid heightened uncertainty. Given the continuing opacity, filing rates are unlikely to rebound soon.

Given the lack of explicit policy statements from the Patent Office, practitioners should continue following the PTAB’s recent Revvo and Tesla decisions.[11] There, the PTAB clarified that speculative trial schedules do not justify denial, that Sotera stipulations strongly favor institution, and that eliminating overlap minimizes the weight of other Fintiv factors. The instituted petitions here largely fit that same profile—they involve instituted proceedings largely involved in co-pending litigation with no imminent trial dates and minimal district court investment, as well as Sotera and Sotera-Plus stipulations removing overlap.

CONCLUSIONS

The PTAB continues to evolve through shifting discretionary considerations, heightened director involvement, and changing expectations surrounding stipulations. Although the USPTO has stated a goal of increasing certainty, recent developments suggest that clarity is still emerging. Continued monitoring will be essential as the Patent Office balances competing policy goals, stakeholder concerns, and statutory mandates.

It also remains early in Director Squires’s tenure, and additional clarity may emerge as the PTAB makes additional institution decisions under his leadership.