USPTO Tightens Real Party-in-Interest Disclosure: What Patent Owners and Challengers Should Know

In November 2025, the USPTO under Director John A. Squires announced a major reversal of its prior, more lenient practice regarding “Real Party-in-Interest” (RPI) disclosures in inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review proceedings. This shift signals the agency’s increasing focus on transparency and procedural integrity in patent-challenge processes—and has important implications for both patent owners and those who challenge patents.

What Changed and Why

Background on RPI in IPRs

An IPR allows any party to petition the USPTO to review an existing U.S. patent for validity on certain grounds (e.g., § 102 or § 103). One key procedural element is disclosure of the “Real Party-in-Interest” (RPI) and “Necessary Party” (NP) associated with the petition. The purpose: to ensure all entities with a financial stake in the proceeding are known to the USPTO and the patent owner.

Previously, the USPTO had allowed a somewhat relaxed approach to RPI disclosures—particularly where petitioners were funded by third-party litigation funders or had complex corporate structures.

What Director Squires Has Done

Under the new directive, the USPTO will enforce stricter RPI disclosure requirements in IPR and other post-grant proceedings. For example:

  • Petitioners must provide clearer, more detailed disclosure of all entities that have a “material interest” in the outcome of the proceeding.

  • The USPTO may require disclosure earlier in the process and enforce penalties for non-disclosure or misleading disclosures.

  • The agency has signaled it will more frequently challenge failures to disclose, and may institute sanctions such as denial of institution or adverse decisions.

This change reverses the more permissive approach in prior years, reflecting Squires’s broader policy goal of strengthening the integrity of the patent review process and ensuring the Trademark and Patent Registers’ reliability.

Why This Matters for Patent Owners & Challengers

For Patent Owners

  • More transparency helps: If you are a patent owner facing an IPR petition, stricter RPI disclosures mean you’ll have a clearer view of who is behind the challenge. That can help in preparing your defence or settlement strategy.

  • Increased risk of abuse detection: Entities that have tried to mask involvement through funders or shell companies may now be exposed. This could increase the deterrent effect of IPRs for frivolous or strategically abusive petitions.

  • Valuation and portfolio-management implication: Knowing that opposing parties must disclose deeper interests may affect how you assess risk of challenge, which could influence licensing, enforcement or divestment decisions.

For Challengers / Petitioners

  • Higher burden of upfront disclosure: If you’re preparing an IPR petition, you must ensure your RPI disclosures are accurate, complete and timely. Oversights may lead to denial of the petition or later procedural complications.

  • Potential cost and strategic implications: Some third-party funders or corporate structures used to remain more opaque; under the new guidance, they may face greater scrutiny—possibly slowing the process or increasing costs.

  • Timing and risk-management: Because the USPTO may enforce stricter scrutiny on RPI disclosures, petitioners should include RPI strategy in their early filing plan rather than as an afterthought.

Key Action Steps for Both Sides

Here’s a short checklist for both patent owners and challengers aligning with the new USPTO direction:

  • Audit your ownership and funding structure: Know every entity with a “material interest” in the patent or the petition.

  • Ensure your legal team reviews RPI disclosures carefully: Confirm that disclosure is not just technically compliant but also factual and defensible.

  • Watch for USPTO notices or drafts: The agency may publish implementation guidance or begin pilot enforcement initiatives—being early is an advantage.

  • Keep documentation of relationships: Agreements, funder documents, contingency fee arrangements, corporate ownership charts—all help if disclosure is questioned.

  • Update your internal protocols: If your organisation files or is involved in IPRs, embed an RPI-disclosure checklist in the filing workflow.

The USPTO’s shift toward tighter RPI-disclosure requirements marks an evolution in how patent challenges are managed. It underscores a broader message: the integrity of the system matters as much as the outcome.

For brand-owners, inventors and companies alike, this is not a marginal change—it’s a signal that your IP strategy needs to account for who’s behind the curtain, not just the mark or invention itself.

At Borderless Counsel, we help clients analyse these procedural changes, assess how they impact patent-challenge risk, and build compliance-forward filing strategies. If you’d like help reviewing your IPR exposure, disruption risk or RPI-disclosure readiness, we’re here to guide you.

Guest User