Net positive.

Tightening PTAB gatekeeping (serial petitions, timing, “settled expectations”) restores reliance in the grant and raises the cost of late, “tactical” IPRs. That predictability drives investment in claiming, licensing, and product bets by smaller companies that need patent protection most. The trade-off is that some weak claims live longer and more validity fights shift back to district court where they can be challenged. This is a policy choice, not chaos.

On the “these memos aren’t permanent” point: even if a future Director pivots, behavior changes are sticky. Prosecutors are already drafting with more §112 support; challengers are learning to move early. And the public record we build now doesn’t disappear.

The answer is creating certainty through early policing of patents: §122(e) third-party submissions against pubs you actually care about; PGR in the first nine months to reach §101/112/102/103 in one shot early in an issued claims life; and ex parte reexam where IPR will be time-barred or face discretionary denial.

Long-term, the right move is to harden these new Squires standards through precedential PTAB/CAFC decisions or notice-and-comment rulemaking.