USPTO News

• On February 6, USPTO updated the certification regarding the filing of anonymous requests for ex parte reexamination.   If at least one claim of the patent for which ex parte reexamination is being requested was previously challenged in an IPR and/or PGR proceeding that resulted in any final written decision(s) for that claim, a party submitting an anonymous reexamination request should provide an affirmative statement in the request that the real party in interest to the request is not the petitioner of the prior IPR and/or PGR proceeding(s), or the real party in interest or privy of the petitioner.
• On February 19, USPTO announced the selection and grand opening of a new community engagement office location at the University of Utah to serve innovators in part of the eight-state area formerly serviced by the Rocky Mountain Regional Outreach Office.
  • USPTO Director Squires’s remarks at the opening emphasized that the new office is intended to provide hands on support, education, and access to USPTO patent and trademark resources by engaging directly with inventors, researchers, startups, and businesses at the local and regional level.
• On February 26, USPTO announced the launch of a new monthly training series, “Learning from Outcomes to Optimize Patents (LOOP),” which brings together the Patents business unit and the PTAB to share examples from PTAB proceedings that highlight effective examination practices and identify areas for improvement in patent examination.
• On February 27, USPTO and the Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in Collision Communications, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, reaffirming the importance of preserving incentives to innovate, which are key to growth and dynamic competition in the U.S. economy and fundamental to the U.S. patent system.

Final Rules

• There are no new final rules.

Interim Rules

• There are no new interim rules.

Proposed Rules

• There are no new proposed rules. 

General Notices

• There are no new general notices.

PTAB Decisions

• New Precedential PTAB Decisions
  • There are no new precedential PTAB decisions.
• New Informative PTAB Decisions
  • Curium US LLC v. Universität Heidelberg, IPR2025-01582, Paper 11 (February 25, 2026) (designated: February 25, 2026) (according the Petition a new filing date where Petitioner updated its mandatory notices to identify new RPIs after filing the initial Petition, and Petitioner was not time-barred based on the new filing date)

• New Director Review Decisions
  • Sinclair Pharma Limited v. Hydrafacial LLC, IPR2025-00145
    • Decision vacating decision granting institution, and denying institution – Paper 41 (Squires February 12, 2026) (vacating decision granting institution and denying institution where the ITC already has adjudicated validity of the challenged patent based on the same challenges asserted in this IPR).
  • Aylo Freesites Ltd v. DISH Technologies LLC, IPR2024-00940
    
    • Decision vacating Final Written Decision, and terminating the proceeding – Paper 75 (Squires February 3, 2026) (according the Petition a new filing date where the Petition was corrected to disclose additional RPIs, and Petitioner was time-barred based on the new filing date).
  • Revvo Technologies, Inc. v. Tire Stickers LLC, IPR2025-00631
    • Decision vacating decision granting institution, and denying institution – Paper 34 (Squires February 3, 2026) (rejecting Petitioner’s “wait and see” explanation that it “could not simply wait for the district court’s claim construction before timely filing the Petition” for why it is proposing alternative claim constructions before the Board and the district court).
  • Generac Power Systems, Inc. v. Champion Power Equipment, Inc., IPR2025-00805 & IPR2025-00951
    • Decision vacating decision granting institution, and denying institution – Paper 40 (Squires February 3, 2026) (finding that Petitioner is seeking different claim constructions in related litigation and before the Board without adequate explanation, and that the “settlement and termination of the proceedings as to some petitioners here . . . does not negate the different claim construction positions [Petitioner] has taken”).