Seven U.S. Patent Law Issues from 2025 What EPO and Southeast Asian Applicants Should Know

Based on analysis by Professor Dennis Crouch (University of Missouri School of Law / Patently-O), with additional context and practice pointers for international audiences.

2025 was an unusually consequential year for U.S. patent practice. Inter partes review (IPR) - the PTAB trial process that many international companies relied on as a fast, comparatively cost-contained validity challenge - effectively slowed to a crawl. At the same time, U.S. courts tightened scrutiny of damages experts, while the USPTO moved to fill policy gaps on patent eligibility (§ 101) and AI-related inventorship issues.

Below are seven developments worth keeping on your radar, written to be understandable without U.S.-centric assumptions.

Quick takeaways

• IPR is no longer a predictable"go-to" invalidation route; plan district court and alternative PTO pathways earlier.
• Damages wins are increasingly fragile on appeal unless the damages expert ties royalty numbers to claim limitations and concrete evidence.
• The USPTO’s new Subject Matter Eligibility Declaration (SMED) framework encourages applicants to build an evidentiary record of technical improvement for § 101.
• USPTO policy is trending toward "don’t ask, don’t tell" on AI involvement - but inventorship law (and litigation risk) has not changed.
• Prosecution laches remains rare, but continuation strategy should be documented with legitimate reasons to avoid an "ambush" narrative.
• Two Supreme Court petitions highlight growing power of abandoned applications and later-published filings as prior art (including "secret springing" art).
• For pharmaceuticals, "skinny labels" are not a guaranteed safe harbor if marketing and public statements are read as encouraging a patented use.

👉 Download the full article to understand what has changed — and how to respond strategically.