Insights

Proposed Rulemaking Aims to Change Access to IPR

Proposed Rulemaking Aims to Change Access to IPR Proceedings, PTAB Litigation Blog

Visit the PTAB Litigation Blog

On October 17, 2025, the USPTO issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (“Notice”) regarding the rules of practice for inter partes review before the PTAB.  The proposed rules do not apply to post grant review petitions, cementing statements that Director Squires has made that earlier challenges are favored. The proposed changes, adding provisions to the end of 37 C.F.R. 42.108, would (1) require petitioners to stipulate not to pursue invalidity challenges under anticipation or obviousness grounds in other venues, (2) limit the circumstances in which a petition for IPR can be brought when claims were previously found not invalid (or not unpatentable) by a district court, the ITC, or in another USPTO proceeding, and (3) limit the availability of challenges based on the timing of parallel litigation proceedings.  Each of these changes will be discussed in more detail below.  Comments on the proposed changes are due December 2, 2025.  The USPTO stated that the proposed changes in the Notice will “increase the reliability of patent rights and the predictability of patent disputes,” and decrease the costs of litigation and transaction costs associated with licensing.

Read the full article at ptablitigationblog.com. 

Insights by Jones Day should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only and may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the Firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request permission to reprint or reuse any of our Insights, please use our “Contact Us” form, which can be found on our website at www.jonesday.com. This Insight is not intended to create, and neither publication nor receipt of it constitutes, an attorney-client relationship. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Firm.