Aerospace technology companies often decide between patenting an innovation or keeping it as a trade secret. Typically, the analysis involves comparing the potential strength of patent protection that is likely to result. If a strong patent is likely, then it may be worth the risk of divulging the details of the technology to competitors (via publication of the patent application). Recent trends at the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), including changes related to challenging issued patents, may affect this analysis for aerospace intellectual property (IP) strategists.
Inter Partes Review (IPR)
Since 2013, accused patent infringers often challenge the validity of the asserted patent at the USPTO. One common challenge is inter partes review (IPR). This procedure accounted for 95% of all challenges made at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in fiscal year 2025. A former Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit (the appellate court overseeing most appeals involving patent infringement) labelled the PTAB trials as “death squads killing property rights.”
In the last fiscal year (ending September 30, 2025), aerospace and other patents in the mechanical arts have been challenged at the PTAB. For FY 2025, 20% of all PTAB petitions were in the technology group including mechanical patents. That number rises to 67% for electrical/computer patents, which may have aerospace uses. Further, among those petitions filed against the group including mechanical patents, 60% of the petitions were instituted and proceeded to trial. Across all technologies, 18% of all petitions filed resulted in finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
Recent USPTO Updates
Due to a recent rule proposal and implemented policy changes at the USPTO, fewer IPRs may be filed and/or fewer filed IPR petitions may be successful. As Knobbe Martens recently reported, in USPTO Proposes Rule and Director Implements Policy Likely to Limit Multiple Patent Validity Challenges, the “USPTO’s proposed rule would restrict multiple challenges to the same patent in multiple IPRs or in both an IPR and district court or the ITC.”
Further, the recently sworn-in USPTO Director John Squires announced that, as of October 20, 2025, he will make all IPR institution decisions (i.e. whether to allow the challenge to proceed). One reason was the prior procedure reportedly “inadvertently produced extraordinarily high institution rates” for cases referred to the PTAB, suggesting he “may use his institution-decision authority to limit PTAB validity challenges.”
Changes may already be afoot. It was reported that Director Squires, on October 31, 2025, “issued a one-page Notice of Decisions on Institution denying institution in thirteen pending inter partes review proceedings” and did so “without a single word of explanation.”
Aerospace Patent Strategy & Litigation
What does this mean for aerospace patents? The IPR process may be used less frequently by patent challengers and/or may not be as successful in invalidating the patent due to non-institution of the challenge. In such cases, the result may be stronger patent protection for aerospace innovations. This could urge IP strategists more toward patent protection and away from reliance on trade secrets (the latter of which provides no protection for innocent reverse engineering of proprietary technology).
Another possible consequence is increased assertion of aerospace patents and IP in the courts. If the patents are less susceptible to being killed via IPR, patent owners may be more likely to risk assertion of those patents in a lawsuit. Further, there may be less concern that the accused party will seek an IPR of the company’s other, non-asserted patents.
We have already seen recent activity in litigation involving aerospace company patents and other IP. For example, it was reported that on November 3, 2025, “Howmet Aerospace Inc. accused Stanley Black & Decker Inc. subsidiaries of infringing its patent for a one-sided ‘blind’ fastener.” While such technology includes uses for solar-panel installations, other recent litigations involve pure aerospace applications. Some recent examples include Honeywell’s patent infringement allegations related to aircraft operational analytics software, Textron accusing DJI of willful infringement of patents related to drone flight control systems, and Boeing’s Wisk suing electric aircraft taxi maker Archer for infringement of patents related to aircraft rotors and battery charging.
Conclusion
It is uncertain what effect, if any, these USPTO updates have on aerospace IP strategy and the patent litigation landscape. There is likely to be some effect, at least in the near term during the present U.S. administration, as policy changes are already underway. But the rule is just a proposal at this point (the public may submit comments here on the proposed rule until December 2, 2025). Further, some groups are opposing the changes. Various manufacturing groups reportedly are urging the U.S. administration to stop the PTAB changes, alleging such changes “are harming their ability to defend themselves in infringement litigation and will end up ‘looting’ the economy.” Time will tell if patents fly higher for aerospace IP strategists.
Subscribe for News and Updates
