Apple Inc. v. Squires: Federal Circuit Upholds USPTO Director’s Guidance
In a decision issued on February 13, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in Apple Inc. v. Squires on a long-running challenge brought by Apple and several other major technology companies. The case centered on certain instructions issued by the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. These instructions guided the Board’s use of its delegated authority to decide whether to start (or “institute”) inter partes review (IPR) proceedings— a process that allows parties to challenge the validity of issued patents outside of regular court litigation. Apple argued that the guidance, which included factors for when the Board might decline to proceed due to parallel court cases, was flawed under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The core dispute was whether the Director’s instructions qualified as formal “rules” that required public notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures before taking effect. Apple contended they were substantive rules that effectively changed how IPR petitions were handled and should have followed strict APA processes. The Federal Circuit disagreed, affirming the lower court’s ruling. The court explained that the instructions were merely a “general statement of policy”—non-binding guidance that advises how the agency intends to exercise its broad discretionary power. Importantly, there is no legal right to have an IPR instituted, and decisions not to start one are generally shielded from judicial review. The instructions applied only to the Board as the Director’s delegate and did not restrict the Director’s own ultimate authority to override them.
This outcome reinforces that the USPTO Director retains significant flexibility in managing IPR institution decisions without needing formal rulemaking for internal policy guidance. While the specific instructions at issue (often referred to as the NHK-Fintiv framework) have since been modified or rescinded in other agency actions, the Federal Circuit’s reasoning clarifies the boundary between policy statements and binding regulations under the APA. The decision provides practical clarity for patent holders, challengers, and the USPTO on the limits of administrative challenges to agency discretion in this area.
Read the full court opinion at CAFC Opinion.