Director Squires Reshapes Director Review in Light & Wonder

On June 22, 2026, USPTO Director John Squires issued a precedential decision in Light & Wonder, Inc. v. Evolution Malta Ltd., IPR2025-01072 et seq., Paper 30.

The decision is notable for expanding the practical scope of Director Review and revising timing rules governing requests for Director Review—developments that will impact PTAB strategy in instituted proceedings.

Case Background

After the Board instituted inter partes review in December 2025, the district court in the parallel proceeding granted Petitioner’s motion to dismiss, holding all asserted claims patent ineligible under Section 101. The Board subsequently granted Patent Owner authorization to file a Motion to Terminate the IPRs, but the panel ultimately denied the Motion, concluding it lacked authority to terminate on discretionary grounds.

The Director’s Decision

Director Squires initiated sua sponte review of the institution decisions pursuant to his authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.75(b). He determined that “[b]ecause all the challenged claims now stand invalid [in view of the District Court decision], it is unnecessary and inefficient to maintain these IPRs to further review the claims for unpatentability under other grounds.” Thus, he vacated the institution decisions and denied institution.

Director Review Policy Changes

The Director noted that changed circumstances can arise after the time period for Director Review of an institution decision has elapsed. Because “parties should be able to seasonably raise issues affecting institution,” Director Squires announced the following changes to Director Review:

• New 30-day deadline to request review of an institution decision. The Office is waiving the 14-day time period under 37 C.F.R. § 42.75(c)(1) for requests for Director Review of a decision to institute a trial and extending the deadline to thirty days.
• The Office may further extend the deadline in exceptional circumstances upon a showing of good cause. If the trial “has not progressed meaningfully,” the Office may further extend the deadline for filing a Director Review request of a decision on institution. Example circumstances include:
  • dismissal of all or substantially all claims in a co-pending litigation;
  • findings of fact and conclusions of law that render all or substantially all challenged claims invalid in litigation; and
  • a violation of a Sotera stipulation.

Key Takeaways

This decision reflects a continued expansion of Director authority over AIA proceedings, allowing greater flexibility to revisit institution decisions and broader avenues for review. Institution is not a fixed milestone but remains subject to ongoing oversight. Parties should closely monitor parallel litigation and be prepared to raise or respond to post-institution developments that may impact whether institution is maintained.