PTAB Pending Inventory Falls Below 2,000 for First Time in 20 Years as Director Squires Denies All IPR Petitions

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s total pending inventory fell to 1,866 cases as of March 31, 2026, breaking below 2,000 for the first time in twenty years, according to a report by Patently-O. The figure represents a return to levels last seen before inter partes review existed, when the board operated as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Average pendency has dropped from approximately 28 months in May 2025 to roughly 9 months today. Acting PTAB Vice Chief Judge Stacey White disclosed the numbers in a recent report.

From 27,000 to 1,866: A Dramatic Contraction

PTAB’s caseload peaked at roughly 27,000 pending matters in fiscal year 2012, the first full year of IPR operations under the America Invents Act. Over the subsequent decade it declined steadily but remained in the thousands. The current drop to sub-2,000 levels is qualitatively different: it reflects not just administrative efficiency but a sharp reduction in the number of IPR petitions being granted institution in the first place.

Director Squires and the All-Denial Record

USPTO Director John Squires took personal control of the institution decision process in October 2025. As of April 2026, Squires had issued decisions on 34 IPR institution requests and denied all 34. The primary doctrinal basis for many of these denials has been the so-called settled expectations doctrine: where a patent has been in force for six or more years, the director has held that the patent owner’s reliance interests presumptively justify declining to institute review. This doctrine emerged through a series of director-level decisions in 2025 and has effectively created a near-categorical bar for most older patents.

Google’s Certiorari Petition Targets the Doctrine

On April 27, 2026, Google LLC filed a petition for certiorari in Google LLC v. VirtaMove, Corp., asking the Supreme Court to consider two questions: first, whether the AIA grants the director statutory authority to deny IPR on the ground of a patentee’s settled expectations after a patent has been in force for six years; and second, whether Article III courts retain jurisdiction to review such denials when the petitioner contends they exceed statutory authority. The Federal Circuit had previously denied mandamus in the underlying dispute. Whether the Supreme Court grants the petition will be a critical signpost for the future of the IPR system.

Practical Implications for Patent Defendants

IPR has for years functioned as a cost-effective parallel track for challenging patent validity alongside district court litigation. The current near-complete closure of that track forces defendants to refocus on district court invalidity arguments under 35 U.S.C. sections 103 and 112, and to invest earlier in claim construction and expert preparation. Early settlement incentives increase when no administrative shortcut is available to test patent validity.

For patent owners, the current environment substantially strengthens the negotiating position in licensing discussions: the threat of IPR as a rapid invalidity tool has receded. The practical equilibrium between patent holders and accused infringers will depend heavily on what the Supreme Court does with the VirtaMove petition and, if certiorari is granted, how it rules on the settled expectations doctrine.