House Oversight Hearing Highlights Emerging USPTO Shifts on PTAB Challenges and Trademark Filings

The March 25, 2026 House oversight hearing on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) underscored a practical point for businesses: patent and trademark policy at the agency remains in motion. The hearing focused on proposed Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reforms, questions about agency independence, and the USPTO’s unusual decision to file trademark applications for “Board of Peace.”

Background

A central topic was the USPTO’s October 2025 notice of proposed rulemaking for inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the PTAB. An IPR is an administrative process that allows a party to challenge the validity of an issued patent at the USPTO. The proposal would narrow when the PTAB may institute review, with the stated goal of focusing IPRs on claims that have not already been challenged in court or were only involved in litigation that ended early.

The USPTO issued that proposal in October 2025 and, at the same time, withdrew a 2024 proposal from former Director Kathi Vidal addressing discretionary institution practice. That change signaled a sharper policy shift on PTAB access and parallel validity challenges.

Why the hearing matters

Lawmakers pressed Director John Squires on whether the proposed PTAB reforms would make it harder to challenge patent validity through inter partes review, or IPR. For companies involved in patent disputes, that question matters because IPR can offer a faster and less expensive path than district court litigation.

Members also raised conflict and independence concerns tied to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s patent portfolio and the Department of Commerce’s oversight of the USPTO. Although the hearing did not produce a formal outcome on those issues, it increased pressure on the agency to explain and justify major policy choices more clearly.

The hearing also spotlighted the USPTO’s filing of two trademark applications for “Board of Peace.” That move drew criticism because trademark applications are typically filed by the business or organization that owns the mark, or that has a bona fide intent to use it in commerce.

What the USPTO said

Director Squires defended the trademark filings by saying the agency acted quickly to address cybersquatting and preserve the name until a legal entity could take ownership. Public reporting also attributes to him the view that the filings were tied to national security concerns and an immediate effort by third parties to capture the mark.

On PTAB policy, the hearing produced no final vote or immediate rule change. Even so, the discussion made clear that any final rule limiting IPR access is likely to face close scrutiny from Congress, patent owners, accused infringers, and industry groups.

Key takeaways

This was not a court decision, but it was a meaningful signal about where USPTO policy may be heading and the issues businesses should be watching now.

• PTAB access may narrow. The USPTO’s October 2025 proposal would limit repeated or overlapping IPR challenges and place greater weight on whether another forum is already addressing patent validity.
• Forum strategy is becoming more important. If IPR becomes harder to access, companies may need to make earlier and more deliberate choices about whether to proceed in district court, before the PTAB, or in both forums.
• Trademark ownership remains foundational. The Board of Peace filings are a reminder that a trademark application should generally be filed by the party that owns the mark or has a bona fide intent to use it in commerce.
• Expect continued pressure for transparency. Members of Congress repeatedly focused on process, reasoning, and accountability. That scrutiny is likely to continue as the USPTO finalizes rules and defends them publicly.

What companies should do now

Companies that enforce patents should reassess how heavily they rely on PTAB proceedings as part of their broader litigation strategy. If institution becomes harder to obtain, patent owners may gain leverage, but only if they are prepared for more validity disputes to remain in district court.

Companies accused of infringement should evaluate forum strategy early. The cost, timing, and leverage of a dispute can shift quickly if IPR becomes less available or carries broader procedural constraints. Delay may narrow strategic options.

Brand owners should also treat the trademark issue as a practical reminder. Before launching a new initiative, companies should confirm who will own the brand, who will use it, and who has authority to file. Resolving those issues early is generally less costly than correcting them after launch.

The broader takeaway is straightforward: USPTO policy is evolving, and companies should not assume that current patent challenge and trademark filing practices will remain static. Businesses with active patent disputes, important brands, or high-value portfolios should monitor these developments closely and adjust strategy as needed.