- within Tax topic(s)
- with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy industries
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) continues its rapid evolution of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) practice with yet another major policy shift. In a memorandum dated Oct. 28, 2025, Director John Squires announced the restoration of the USPTO's pre- SharkNinja approach to Real Party in Interest (RPI) disclosures—requiring petitioners to identify all RPIs before institution of inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings.
This move is the latest in a series of changes that have reshaped the landscape for IPRs and PGRs. Over the past year, we have seen the USPTO reassign discretionary denial review authority, propose new rules for IPR institution and centralize decision-making authority with the Director. The USPTO has explained that each change addresses concerns about fairness, transparency, and the integrity of the patent system.
The Original Rule: RPI Disclosure as a Gatekeeper
Under the America Invents Act (AIA), a petition for IPR or PGR "may be considered only if ... the petition identifies all real parties in interest." 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2); § 322(a)(2). Initially, the USPTO interpreted this requirement strictly: unless all RPIs were properly disclosed, the Director could not institute trial. This approach was reflected in cases such as Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband Inc., IPR2014-00440, paper 68 (PTAB Aug. 18, 2015).
The Change: SharkNinja
The PTAB relaxed enforcement of RPI disclosures in SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., IPR2020-00734, paper 11 (PTAB Oct. 6, 2020), citing the practical difficulties in determining RPIs in complex corporate structures. Policy concerns about administrative burden and uncertainty led to a more flexible approach, allowing some petitions to proceed even when RPI identification was disputed.
The New Old Rule: Returning to Strict RPI Enforcement
Director Squires' memorandum reverses course. By designating Corning Optical as precedential, the USPTO returns to its original, stricter interpretation: petitioners must identify all RPIs before institution, and any properly raised RPI issue must be addressed prior to trial. The rationale? Policy justifications alone cannot override the statutory mandate, and recent developments have highlighted the risks of opacity in RPI disclosures.
The Premise: National Security and System Integrity
Director Squires views this change as more than a procedural nicety. Meaningful RPI disclosure is a national security imperative. Increasing attempts by foreign state-backed actors to manipulate the U.S. intellectual property system and PTAB proceedings through opaque investment structures threaten U.S. technological leadership. The USPTO's renewed focus on transparency aims to prevent misuse of AIA proceedings and protect the integrity of the patent system. As Squires notes, "The integrity of PTAB proceedings depends on knowing who is behind a petition—who funds it, directs it, and/or benefits from it. Any opacity in that chain of control invites exploitation ... and serves only to undermine public confidence in the integrity of the patent system."
Practical Implications
For petitioners, the message is clear: full and accurate RPI disclosure is once again a prerequisite for institution. Practitioners should review their procedures to ensure compliance, especially in cases involving complex ownership or funding structures. For patent owners, the restored rule offers a renewed opportunity to challenge petitions on RPI grounds, potentially preventing institution where disclosure is incomplete.
Conclusion
Director Squires' memorandum marks another decisive shift in PTAB practice, reinforcing transparency and statutory fidelity. As the USPTO continues to refine its approach to IPRs and PGRs, stakeholders should stay alert for further changes and ensure their practices keep pace with the evolving rules of the road.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
