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 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 responsive papers, if filed, must be filed with[in] fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of service of the patent owner pre-order paper.”
• On April 2, the USPTO announced AI enhancements to trademark search and Trademark Center.  These enhancement included a beta search in the USPTO’s search system allowing for image searches, and as of April 27, a mark description and color claim generator in Trademark Center. 
• On April 8, the USPTO announced implementation of a PCT Informed Examination Request (PIER) Pilot Program to assess the inventory and efficiency impacts of requiring an application to request examination in view of applicable PCT international phase work products.  Select applications will be issued “a requirement for information referencing the applicable international phase work products and requiring applicant to indicate whether applicant opts to: proceed with examination, delay examination, or expressly abandon the application.”
• On April 8, the USPTO held a USPTO Hour on PTAB updates and priorities, with speakers including Kalyan Deshpande, Chief Administrative Patent Judge, and Michelle Ankenbrand, Acting Deputy Chief Administrative Patent Judge.  Topics included PTAB institution guidance, search disclosure declarations, real parties in interest, Director decisions de-instituting review, PTAB appeal statistics, PTAB trial statistics, and precedential and informative decisions.  Slides and a recording from the event are available on the USPTO Hour webpage. 
• On April 10, the USPTO announced that “[f]or the first time in nearly a decade, the number of first office actions within a fiscal year is exceeding the number of new applications being filed within that year.”  The press release included statements from Director Squires commenting on the news.
• On April 16, the USPTO extended the “Artificial Intelligence Search Automated Pilot Program (ASAP!) until June 1, 2026, in order to obtain more information to evaluate the effectiveness of the program.”  The USPTO also “waived the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(f) for petitions filed under 37 CFR 1.182 in order to participate in the program.”

Leadership Changes 

• On May 1, the USPTO updated their Organizational Structure with Robin Evans as Acting Commissioner for Patents, replacing Valencia Martin-Wallace who retired April 30.  The USPTO published a new Organizational Chart detailing the structure, including new Deputy Commissioners.  The USPTO’s prior Organizational Chart can be found here. 

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
• There are no new Informative PTAB Decisions
• New Director Review Decisions
• smaXtec Inc. v. ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC, IPR2024-00875
• Order delegating Director Review to a Delegated Rehearing Panel – Paper 52 (Squires April 2, 2026) (holding that, because “the parties are in agreement that Board erred in finding that Patent Owner ‘does not separately argue’ claim 18” and that “Board’s findings as to claims 6, 19, and 20 need to be reconciled,” convening a Director Review Patent was appropriate).