PTAB Inventory Falls Below 2,000 for First Time in 20 Years — IPR Restrictions Reshape U.S. Patent Challenge Landscape

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s pending ex parte appeals inventory has dropped to 1,866 as of March 31, 2026—falling below 2,000 for the first time in the Board’s 20-year history and representing a 93% decline from the FY2012 peak of 26,570 cases. Reported by Patently-O in April 2026, the milestone reflects a dramatic acceleration in case dispositions, with average pendency plunging from 28 months in May 2025 to approximately 9 months today.

The data was provided by Acting PTAB Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge Stacey White, who oversees the Board’s operations division (Division 3). The last time inventory stood below 2,000 was in 2006, before the America Invents Act (AIA) created the modern inter partes review (IPR) system and dramatically expanded the Board’s workload.

Director Squires and the IPR Transformation

The inventory collapse is inseparable from USPTO Director John Squires’ sweeping policy changes to AIA trial proceedings. On October 20, 2025, Director Squires assumed personal control of all IPR institution decisions—an unprecedented centralization of authority. According to IPWatchdog, the IPR institution rate has plummeted 43%, from approximately 65% in October 2024 to roughly 37% by February 2026. In the immediate aftermath of Squires’ takeover, the rate dropped to near zero, with 91 consecutive petitions denied—all on discretionary grounds without substantive explanation.

On January 9, 2026, Director Squires designated four discretionary-denial rulings as precedential and nine as informative, formalizing a framework governing joinder, time bars, repeat challenges, parallel litigation, and inconsistent claim constructions. This precedential framework gave structure to what had initially appeared as ad hoc denial decisions.

Q1 2026 Filing Data: IPR Down, Reexamination Up

Unified Patents’ Q1 2026 Patent Dispute Report, published April 14, 2026, quantifies the cumulative impact. Total PTAB petitions fell 64.2% year-over-year to just 131 in Q1 2026—a historic low. IPR-specific filings dropped 66.3%. The institution rate against non-practicing entities (NPEs) stood at 24.6%, well below the 40.5% rate for operating companies, creating a measurable disparity in access to the PTAB system.

As IPR has become increasingly inaccessible, patent challengers have pivoted to ex parte reexamination (EPR). EPR requests surged 157.1% year-over-year in Q1 2026, recording the second-highest volume on record behind only Q4 2025. The USPTO has responded with procedural adjustments: an April 2026 Official Gazette notice introduced a new “pre-order paper” procedure allowing patent owners to submit a 30-page response within 30 days of service of an EPR request—giving patent owners an early opportunity to contest the reexamination before the Office makes its institution-equivalent decision.

Implications for Patent Owners and Challengers

For patent owners, the current environment represents an unprecedented strengthening of patent rights. The PTAB—once described as a “patent death squad” by former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Rader—has been effectively neutralized as a primary challenge venue. Patents that would previously have faced IPR proceedings now carry significantly reduced invalidation risk, enhancing portfolio value and licensing negotiation leverage.

For patent challengers, the strategic calculus has fundamentally changed. With IPR largely unavailable, companies facing patent assertions must prepare for full-scale district court litigation from the outset, forgoing the PTAB as an intercept mechanism. EPR provides an alternative, but it is a one-sided proceeding in which the challenger has no standing to participate after filing the initial request—the USPTO examiner alone evaluates the validity questions.

Judicial Oversight Constraints

The Federal Circuit’s November 2025 decision in In re Motorola Solutions, Inc. has further insulated the Director’s discretionary authority. The ruling limits judicial review of the Director’s IPR institution decisions, establishing that discretionary denials are largely unreviewable. This means Squires’ policy framework operates with minimal appellate oversight, concentrating significant power in the Director’s office.

Broader Context: Patent System Balance

The PTAB’s historic low inventory is a structural shift in the U.S. patent system’s balance of power. Since the AIA’s 2012 enactment, the Board had served as the primary mechanism for challenging questionable patents outside of expensive district court litigation. Under the Squires administration, that function has contracted substantially.

The consequences are already visible in litigation data. According to Unified Patents, NPE litigation share reached record highs in 2025, a trend that patent reform advocates attribute partly to the reduced availability of efficient patent challenges. Whether the current regime produces a more innovation-friendly patent system or merely shifts costs from the PTAB to district courts—at far greater expense to all parties—remains the central policy question as Congressional attention to patent reform intensifies.