The USPTO as the Central Bank of Innovation: Director Squires’ 2026 Chamber of Commerce Address
On March 12, 2026, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and USPTO Director John A. Squires addressed the U.S. Chamber of Commerce regarding the fourteenth edition of the International IP Index.
The address framed the agency’s identity, explicitly comparing its function to a financial regulatory body. Director Squires asserted that the United States maintains its top global ranking, scoring “roughly 95 percent — a position it has held every year since the Index was first launched” (¶ 8).
The newly released 2026 IP Index provides specific data points corroborating the Director’s concerns, offering patent attorneys, in-house counsel, and inventors additional context regarding international intellectual property enforcement, artificial intelligence implementation, and shifting diplomatic strategies at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
An Economic Framework for Intellectual Property
The speech introduced a specific economic framework for the USPTO. Drawing on his background at Goldman Sachs, Squires characterized financial indexes as “decision tools” that reveal “where capital is flowing, where risk is building, and where the next opportunities might emerge” (Address, ¶ 4).
He applied this exact mechanism to innovation policy, stating that “ideas behave a lot like capital” (¶ 4). In his view, capital moves to environments that are “predictable, protected, and capable of supporting long‑term investment” (¶ 4).
For intellectual property professionals, this framing signals a highly macroeconomic approach to agency administration. Squires stated, “That is why we see the USPTO as the Department of Commerce’s Central Bank of Innovation” (¶ 12).
The director detailed that the agency’s mandate mirrors a central bank’s duty to maintain economic stability. Instead of monetary policy, the USPTO manages innovation policy, injecting “soft-dollar intellectual property assets into the stream of commerce” (¶ 17). Every patent and trademark application functions as “the conversion of human ingenuity into a definable, translatable, economic asset class” (¶ 15).
The scale of this economic engine remains massive. The Director noted that IP-intensive industries account for “roughly 41 percent of U.S. economic output” and support “more than 63 million American jobs” (¶ 22). He further stated that IP-intensive services account for about 31 percent of total U.S. services exports (¶ 23).
The Index confirms this assessment, noting that the U.S. services exports surplus contributes “$1.1 trillion to the U.S. economy” (p. 4). Recognizing this scale, the USPTO plans to hire “over 1000 new examiners this year” to fortify the examination process and support increasing filing volumes (¶ 10).
Artificial Intelligence Integration in Examination
Technological progression continues to reshape the examination process. Squires detailed immediate operational updates involving artificial intelligence. Examiners currently utilize AI-enabled platforms “such as Similarity Search, More Like This Document, and image-based design searching” (Address, ¶ 28). Additional capabilities are scheduled for release shortly.
The trademark division has seen aggressive acceleration from these systems. Squires reported that specific classifications and searches that previously required “five months, now takes five minutes. Sometimes, five seconds” (¶ 29).
Beyond artificial intelligence, Squires emphasized the “examination fundamentals of quality and pendency, the basic blocking and tackling side we need to get right” (¶ 29). He defined confidence in an IP system as “inherently and inexorably the three-legged stool of quality, clarity, and timeliness” (¶ 29).
Concurrently, the Index warns that the “rapid expansion of broad AI-related policies created new ambiguities for both rights holders and AI developers” (p. 5).
Intellectual property owners and practitioners generally favor reduced pendency times. Faster initial reviews yield quicker paths to commercialization or clearer signals for pivoting away from unpatentable subject matter.
At the same time, reliance on automated search systems—with less human oversight—warrants caution.
Market Engagement and Standard-Essential Patents
The address outlined the new Standard-Essential Patent (SEP) Working Group. Squires observed that SEPs represent “significant investment, ingenuity, and risk-taking by American inventors as they enable interoperability, create markets, and unlock innovation” (¶ 31).
According to the director, the SEP environment has grown “increasingly hostile amidst widespread efforts to devalue contributions, unclear rules about rights, and systematic suppression of licensing rates” (¶ 32).
The Index provides direct evidence of this trend, reporting that Chinese agencies issued an opinion cementing the government’s role in the SEP licensing process, and the UK launched an SEP consultation that could “introduce uncertainty into SEP licensing markets and devalue the IP of innovative companies” (p. 8).
The creation of the USPTO working group represents a direct administrative intervention into licensing disputes. The stated goal aims to secure “meaningful protection” for American inventors (¶ 32).
For patent holders heavily invested in telecommunications or interoperable software standards, this initiative provides a structured forum to address systemic devaluation efforts.
International Concerns and WIPO Scrutiny
A significant portion of the address focused on global risks. Squires warned that the IP systems of some advanced economies “are in atrophy and decline,” risking the normalization of “lower global standards” (¶ 34).
The Index explicitly corroborates this, reporting that score declines “were largely concentrated in high-income economies traditionally seen as global IP standard-setters, with scores in eight EU Member States declining” (Index, p. 4).
A primary driver involves the EU’s General Pharmaceutical Legislation, which “weakened the framework for IP protection and enforcement” (p. 5) by expanding the Bolar exemption to include commercial activities (p. 6) and shortening the term of regulatory data protection (p. 7).
The USPTO is actively pushing back against this decline through specific enforcement demands. Squires highlighted efforts to “eliminate or narrow overbroad copyright exceptions” abroad (¶ 37). He advocated for “strong civil, criminal, and border enforcement around the world, including satellite and cable signal piracy” (¶ 38). Specifically, the agency supports ex parte authority to allow “the suspension of suspected counterfeit goods without requiring a right holder complaint” (¶ 38).
His remarks directed unusually pointed criticism at WIPO. Squires indicated that WIPO frequently entertains proposals that “weaken intellectual property rights, or attempt to redefine IP rights in ways that undermine the incentives that drive invention” (¶ 39). He stated plainly that the international body’s foundational mission statement “is being forgotten” (¶ 41) and promised that the USPTO “will” remind them of their obligations (¶¶ 42-43).
Squires reminded the audience that WIPO “is the United Nations agency that serves the world’s innovators and creators — ensuring that their ideas travel safely to the market and improve lives everywhere” (¶ 40).
By highlighting this specific mandate, the Director positioned the United States as the true defender of WIPO’s original purpose, contrasting American policy with foreign actors pushing to weaken standards.
For multi-national IP portfolios, this signals an upcoming period of aggressive diplomatic engagement. The USPTO plans to leverage the IP Attaché Program, adding a new post in Seoul, alongside frameworks like IP5, ID5, and TM5 to advocate for American interests abroad (¶¶ 44, 45).
Headwinds in Domestic Pharmaceutical Policy
Yet, IP practitioners should note that the Index identifies specific risks within the United States. The report cautions that U.S. life sciences innovation faces headwinds from “the imposition of Most-Favored Nations drug pricing and proposals to expand march-in rights” (p. 5).
The report flags a new National Institutes of Health policy requiring licensees to submit access plans for medicinal products (p. 8). This context suggests that, alongside international challenges, domestic patent strategies in the biopharmaceutical sector require careful risk assessment regarding government intervention in pricing and licensing.
Thoughts and Considerations
The implementation of artificial intelligence search functions materially reduces wait times for trademark and patent applicants. Accelerated prosecution allows inventors and corporations to secure funding and market positions faster, a goal supported by the agency’s plan to hire over 1000 new examiners.
Recognizing intellectual property as an economic asset class identical to financial capital aligns the USPTO’s mission with broader Department of Commerce objectives. This economic approach validates the heavy financial investments made by in-house counsel and corporate research departments.
Patent owners could benefit from targeted support through the dedicated SEP Working Group, which provides a specialized resource to combat licensing rate suppression in highly standardized technological sectors. Trademark owners receive stronger, immediate defenses at international borders through the agency’s advocacy for ex parte authority against counterfeit goods.
Driving policy changes at WIPO and combating international intellectual property decline requires significant diplomatic leverage. Securing alignment across conflicting jurisdictions remains structurally difficult for multinational filers.
Internally, examining divisions face the task of balancing swift processing times—such as the five-second turnaround in certain trademark classifications—with the statutory mandate for rigorous examination. Practitioners will need to monitor office actions closely to verify that algorithmic speed does not compromise substantive review.
Artificial intelligence models utilized for prior art searches introduce specific vulnerabilities, as they can hallucinate or overlook nuanced technical distinctions. If examiners overly rely on automated similarity features, highly unique or non-obvious inventions might face improper obviousness rejections based on superficial keyword clustering.
On an international scale, the potential fracture between the USPTO and WIPO over fundamental policy directions presents a severe threat. If these entities diverge, intellectual property owners face the prospect of encountering fundamentally incompatible patent enforcement regimes across different continents.
Corporate research investments may migrate to jurisdictions offering the highest protection, leaving multinational filing strategies deeply fractured. For biopharmaceutical innovators, European legislative changes reducing data protection and expanding exemptions present a high risk of eroded market exclusivity.
In the United States, proposed march-in rights and new NIH licensing conditions threaten to restrict the commercial viability of federally funded pharmaceutical inventions.
Conclusion
The March 2026 address establishes a clear, aggressive agenda for the USPTO. By adopting the posture of a Central Bank of Innovation, Director Squires signaled that intellectual property rights are foundational economic assets requiring strong defense against domestic inefficiencies and international dilution.
This outward administrative posture aligns perfectly with broader efforts under Director Squires to promote the agency as explicitly open for business. Recent initiatives reinforce this position, including expanding trademark protections for Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights, creating Category 30 for sound and motion marks to protect against AI fakes, and centralizing Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) discretion within the Director’s office.
However, the agency’s optimistic public messaging appears incongruent with ongoing executive branch workforce interventions. Recent legal developments, specifically the Ninth Circuit’s ruling permitting the decertification of the Patent Office Professional Association over national security classifications, create significant internal friction. Coupled with proposed Reduction in Force (RIF) rules shifting the agency from a seniority-based system to a metric-driven structure, the USPTO faces severe operational headwinds.
While these new policies aim to strengthen intellectual property frameworks and improve examination quality, the resulting structural instability threatens to deplete the agency’s manpower and institutional knowledge. Patent practitioners and intellectual property owners face a dynamic environment marked by swift technological integration, forceful diplomatic initiatives abroad, and internal administrative volatility.
Continual monitoring of the SEP Working Group, WIPO negotiations, domestic biopharmaceutical policies, and agency staffing levels provides the soundest strategy for anticipating future shifts in enforcement and patentability standards.
Disclaimer: This is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or financial advice. To the extent there are any opinions in this article, they are the author’s alone and do not represent the beliefs of his firm or clients. The strategies expressed are purely speculation based on publicly available information. The information expressed is subject to change at any time and should be checked for completeness, accuracy and current applicability. For advice, consult a suitably licensed attorney and/or patent professional.