USPTO News

• On March 16, the USPTO responded to a recent release of U.S. Chamber of Commerce 14th annual International IP Index report, which ranked the United States No. 1 on the index.  Director Squires’ remarks, delivered on March 12 at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, reflected on the report and the U.S. intellectual property system.
• On March 19, the USPTO announced the release of an artificial intelligence (AI) agent that handles some of the most time-consuming elements of trademark application pre-processing.  Director Squires stated that the USPTO was “providing specific, task-directed AI agents, which can efficiently tackle the toughest, most information intensive aspect of pre-examination—often the slowest step to achieve a complete application.”  Director Squires also stated the tool could cut classification and design search coding from five months to “five minutes or even five seconds.”
• On March 25, Director Squires testified before the House Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet.  Director Squires’ opening remarks emphasized the Office’s use of AI in both patent and trademark prosecution to reduce backlog and improve examination.
• On April 1, the USPTO announced a pre-order procedure regarding substantial new question determination in ex parte reexamination proceedings.   This “new process allows for patent owners to provide information on why an argued teaching(s) in a request for reexamination would not raise a substantial new question of patentability.”  The paper should not address discretion under 35 U.S.C. §325(d).  Requesters may not file a response unless an exception applies and a paper is accompanied by a petition under 37 CFR 1.182.  Patent owner pre-order papers “must be filed as soon as possible, but no later than the date that is 30 days from the date of service of the request on the patent owner,” and “third party requester respcionsive papers, if filed, must be filed with[in] fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of service of the patent owner pre-order paper.”

Final Rules

• On March 19, the USPTO stated it was issuing a final rule to amend the Rules of Practice in patent cases to require patent applicants and patent owners whose domicile is not located within the United States or its territories (foreign applicants/inventors and patent owners) to be represented by a practitioner registered to practice and in good standing before the Office.  The Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on March 20. 

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
• Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. v. LG Display Co., Ltd., IPR2025-01579, Paper 12 (March 18,  2026) (designated: March 18, 2026) (holding that a foreign government is not permitted to be a petitioner in an AIA proceeding, and vacating and denying institution where Petitioner has not provided sufficient argument and evidence for the Office to determine whether the Petition identifies all RPIs) (Director Review decision)
• New Informative PTAB Decisions
• There are no new Informative PTAB Decisions
• New Director Review Decisions
• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. d/b/a MeshDynamics, IPR2025-01303
• Decision vacating decision granting institution, and denying institution – Paper 14 (Squires March 3, 2026) (determining that, after Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer disclaiming each claim and the entire term of the challenged patent, that “denying institution under these circumstances is a more efficient use of the Office’s resources rather than entering an adverse judgment,” which would “also encourage[] similarly situated patent owners to file a disclaimer prior to institution”). 
• Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. XtreamEdge, Inc., IPR2025-00223, IPR2025-00478 & IPR2025-00486
• Order initiating Director Review and authorizing additional briefing – Paper 25 (Squires March 13, 2026) (determining that Director Review of an Institution decision “is appropriate to consider whether Petitioners have violated their Sotera stipulation”).
• Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. v. LG Display Co., Ltd., IPR2025-01579
• Decision denying institution of Inter Partes Review – Paper 12 (Squires, March 18,  2026) (holding that a foreign government is not permitted to be a petitioner in an AIA proceeding, and vacating and denying institution where Petitioner has not provided sufficient argument and evidence for the Office to determine whether the Petition identifies all RPIs).
• TikTok Inc. v. CellSpin Soft, Inc., IPR2024-00757, IPR2024-00759, IPR2024-00760, IPR2024-00767, IPR2024-00768, IPR2024-00769 & IPR2024-00770
• Order initiating Director Review – Paper 34 (Stewart June 5, 2025) (initiating director review on the Board’s denial of Patent Owner’s motion to terminate the Petitioner’s IPRs, including the Board’s rejection of arguments that Petitioner failed to name the CCP as a real party-in-interest, which is not a “person” under Return Mail).
• Order authorizing additional briefing – Paper 38(Squires January 23, 2026) (authorizing additional briefing on “(1) whether the evidence Patent Owner submitted is sufficient to put Petitioner’s RPI identification into dispute; and (2) what effect, if any, does the announced Joint Venture have on these proceedings” in view of Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v. Micron Technology, Inc., IPR2025 00098, -00099, Paper 38 (Director Jan. 15, 2026) (informative) and the announcement of Petitioner’s Joint Venture).
• Order Vacating the Decision Granting Institution and Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review – Paper 42 (Squires March 30, 2026) (holding that “Petitioner failed to carry its burden to establish that a foreign government was not an RPI at the time of its petition” and vacating the above-captioned IPRs under Tianma, while ordering the Board to determine instituting of IPR2025-00102, IPR2025-00103, and IPR2025-00104 filed by LifeScan, Senseonics, and Ascenia should be instituted on the own rather than joined with the above-captioned IPRs).