Congress To Grill US Patent and Trademark Office Amid Policy Upheaval

Why it Matters

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is undergoing a period of significant policy upheaval — from proposed restrictions on patent challenges to a brewing controversy over mysterious trademark filings — and Congress is stepping in. The House Judiciary Committee's Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence and the Internet Subcommittee has scheduled a USPTO oversight hearing for March 25, 2026, and the backdrop is anything but routine. At stake: the integrity of the patent system that underpins American innovation, the rights of inventors and companies challenging weak patents, and questions about whether the agency is being used for purposes that have nothing to do with intellectual property.

The "Board of Peace" Controversy

Perhaps the most combustible issue heading into this patent office oversight session is a direct confrontation between a committee member and the USPTO director himself.

On March 18, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD-8) sent a letter to USPTO Director John Squires accusing the agency of helping conceal the legal structure and ownership behind the "Board of Peace" by filing two unprecedented trademark applications. According to Raskin's letter, the USPTO claimed it was "stewarding the mark on an interim basis" but disclosed no information about the entities or individuals behind the initiative. Reuters reported that Raskin accused the agency of facilitating concealment in potential violation of the Emoluments Clauses.

Raskin sits on the subcommittee holding this hearing. It is fair to expect fireworks.

Restricting Patent Challenges at the PTAB

Beyond the trademark controversy, the USPTO has proposed what observers describe as dramatic restrictions on inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). IPR is the primary mechanism companies use to challenge patents they believe were improperly granted — a tool Congress created through the America Invents Act in 2011.

Federal News Network reported on the proposed rulemaking, and a February 2026 Willkie alert noted the PTAB announced a new institution policy barring parallel validity challenges. The BSA (Software Alliance) explicitly urged Congress to "exercise its oversight authority to ensure USPTO follows the system established by the AIA."

This USPTO congressional hearing gives lawmakers a direct channel to press Director Squires on whether the agency is undermining a system Congress itself designed.

Workforce Upheaval and Examination Quality

The agency's internal operations are also under scrutiny. Mondaq reported that the USPTO eliminated union representation for Patent and OCIO employees by classifying the Patents business unit as "national security work" — a move that circumvented collective bargaining agreements protecting telework arrangements. The same analysis raised concerns about increased production goals for patent examiners, limited interview opportunities, and the potential downstream impact on examination quality.

The Legal Intelligencer noted that "over the last 13 months, major changes have occurred at the USPTO" that are "reshaping the IP prosecution and litigation landscape."

AI Patent Policy Shifts

The trademark office review will also likely touch on the agency's evolving posture toward artificial intelligence. Mass Lawyers Weekly reported that under Director Squires, the USPTO has shifted its approach to AI-related patent applications, creating new opportunities for companies developing AI technologies while requiring greater precision in claim drafting and specification development.

Patent Reform Legislation in the Wings

A Ropes & Gray alert published in March discussed ongoing patent reform legislation — including the PATENTS Act, PREVAIL Act, and RESTORE Act — and their interplay with current USPTO policy. Notably, Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA-3), a member of the subcommittee holding this hearing, is cited as a co-sponsor of legislation aimed at restoring patent protections.

Lobbying Pressure on the USPTO Oversight Hearing

The hearing arrives amid active lobbying by intellectual property stakeholders. Over the past year, organizations including the High Tech Inventors Alliance, Intellectual Property Owners Association, Council for Innovation Promotion, and the Coalition for Patent and Trademark Information Dissemination all filed lobbying disclosures related to USPTO and patent policy. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and patent-holding companies Maxell Ltd. and Netlist Inc. also registered lobbying activity on patent and IP rights issues during this period.

On the campaign finance side, the AIPLA PAC — associated with the intellectual property law community — made contributions to subcommittee member Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC-7) and committee member Rep. Raskin, among others. The B4IP PAC, linked to the Council for Innovation Promotion, contributed to several members of Congress including Sen. Thom Tillis, a key patent policy voice.

Who's Running the USPTO Oversight Hearing

The subcommittee is chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA-48), with Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA-4) serving as ranking member. The hearing is scheduled for 2:00 p.m. in 2141 Rayburn House Office Building. The full parent committee is chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH-4). The subcommittee's membership includes several lawmakers with established track records on intellectual property — Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA-18), Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY-4), Rep. Deborah Ross (D-NC-2), and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA-36) among them.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.