Former USPTO Official Urges Senate to Confirm John Squires Amid Leadership Crisis
Former USPTO Official Urges Senate to Confirm John Squires Amid Leadership Crisis
“Thomas Krause Slams USPTO’s Discretionary Denials Under Acting Director Stewart”
In a sharply worded letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, former USPTO Solicitor and Deputy General Counsel for Intellectual Property, Thomas Krause, has raised the alarm over what he terms “unaccountable governance” under Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart. Krause, who served more than two decades at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, is now urging the Senate to swiftly confirm John Squires as the next Director, warning that continued delay risks further erosion of the Office’s credibility and alignment with legislative intent.
Departure and Evolving Criticism
Since departing the USPTO earlier this year through the Department of Government Efficiency’s exit program, Krause has become a vocal critic of the Office’s direction. Through posts on his Substack, he has challenged the agency’s evolving policies, especially under interim leadership.
Notably, Krause had initially opposed John Squires’ confirmation in a 49-page letter sent to the Committee in May. At the time, he expressed concern over Squires’ pro-patent positions, which he argued could result in over-strengthening patents in ways detrimental to innovation and market competition. However, in his recent correspondence, Krause made it clear that while his objections to Squires remain, the urgency to end the current leadership vacuum has overtaken those concerns.
“My concerns about Mr. Squires have not changed. What’s changed is that the USPTO’s current acting leadership... is pursuing an aggressive and probably unlawful patent-maximalist agenda that no politically accountable leader would dream of implementing,” Krause wrote.
Controversy Over Discretionary Denials and Governance
Krause’s most pointed criticism focuses on Stewart’s interim policies—especially her expanded use of Director Discretionary Denial decisions in inter partes review (IPR) cases. Under her leadership, hundreds of such denials have been issued without stakeholder engagement or prior notice.
He draws a direct line between these practices and legislative overreach, citing prior Congressional objection to similar, but far more modest, proposals made by former Director Kathi Vidal in 2023. At that time, members of the House Judiciary Subcommittee had voiced strong reservations about expanding discretionary denial authority, viewing it as contrary to the spirit of the America Invents Act.
“Today’s practices... go far beyond those proposals, in clear defiance of Congress’s intent in enacting the AIA,” Krause argued.
Contradictions and Fee Controversies
Krause’s recent letter also highlights what he sees as internal contradictions in current USPTO policy positions. Most notably, he calls attention to a June 2025 Statement of Interest filed by the Office in Radian Memory Sys., LLC v. Samsung, where the USPTO acknowledged that patent value is inherently difficult to determine. Yet just a month later, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick proposed new fees that would be levied as a percentage—between 1% and 5%—of the patent’s overall value.
“These positions are irreconcilable: the Office cannot claim patent value is unknowable while also proposing to levy fees based on that value,” Krause wrote, adding further concern about the policy’s legal and economic implications. The proposed fee changes have sparked backlash from conservative advocacy groups, who have appealed to Secretary Lutnick to reconsider in light of their potential to harm independent inventors and small patent holders.
Broader Concerns About Administrative Integrity
Beyond policy disagreements, Krause raised structural and administrative issues within the USPTO under Stewart’s leadership. He noted the Office's failure to push back on return-to-office mandates issued during the Trump Administration, instability within the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) leadership, and delays in reconstituting the Patent and Trademark Public Advisory Committees. These concerns, according to Krause, represent not just mismanagement, but a systemic failure to provide stable, accountable leadership at a time when the patent system faces increasing pressure from competing global innovation economies.
John Squires and the Road Ahead
John Squires was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in June with a bipartisan 20-2 vote, with only Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) opposing the nomination. During his confirmation hearing, Squires outlined a vision centred on strengthening patents during the examination phase to reduce reliance on post-grant procedures such as IPR.
In written testimony, Squires emphasized that society benefits most from patents that are “born strong” and thoroughly vetted at the outset of the application process: “I believe it is to the benefit of all stakeholders if prior art is identified and applied at the earliest stage of examination... as we benefit as a society from patents ‘born strong,’ beginning with the original patent grant,” he stated.
Thomas Krause’s recent intervention in the USPTO leadership debate underscores deepening divisions within the U.S. patent system and the urgent need for stable, accountable leadership. While his ideological concerns about Squires remain, Krause's latest letter represents a pragmatic shift—prioritizing governance and legal integrity over policy preferences. With rising tensions around patent valuation, stakeholder engagement, and administrative transparency, the Senate now faces the task of not only confirming a new Director but also restoring credibility and consistency to an agency at the heart of American innovation.
