USPTO News 

• Starting June 18, the USPTO will require registration for access to the Open Data Portal (ODP), which is the USPTO’s platform to extract USPTO data for free.  The steps to register can be found on the Register for ODP Access page.  Users that have a USPTO.gov account are already registered.
• On May 29, the USPTO announced the Applicant Pre-Docketing Notice pilot program, under which the USPTO will send applicants a notice approximately three months before the date when the application is expected to be docketed to an examiner for substantive examination.  The notice informs the applicant that examination will soon begin, reminds them to verify (and correct or update if needed) certain application-related information, and informs them of steps they can take to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of examination.  No response to the notice is required, and applications will proceed to examination in the normal course if no action is taken.  If applicants would no longer like to proceed with prosecution, they can expressly abandon the application and be refunded the search and excess claim fees.
• On May 29, the USPTO published an updated Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP), incorporating relevant precedential decisions issued since the November 2025 TMEP revision and before February 28, 2026.
• On May 4, Director Squires delivered a keynote address at the International Trademark Association (INTA) Annual Meeting held in London.  His address, entitled, “Where the Puck is Going: Branding America’s Branding Agency to Meet NIL and the Trademark Issues of Tomorrow” focused on the intersection of collegiate athletics and professional sports, like name, image and likeness. 

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

• Extension and Modification of the Fast-Track Appeals Pilot Program, 91 Fed. Reg. 24524 (May 6, 2026) (extending until May 6, 2028 the Fast-Track Appeals Pilot program, which permits appellants before the PTAB to file a petition to expedite the review of the appeal, and reducing the target time for reaching a decision on each ex parte appeal that enters the program from six months to four months) [the USPTO announced the extension here]

 PTAB Decisions

• New Precedential PTAB Decisions
• Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Kurin, Inc., IPR2026-00097, Paper 17 (May 14, 2026) (designated: May 14, 2026) [Explaining the Director’s standard for exercising discretion to deny AIA reviews, including a discussion of Congressional intent behind AIA reviews, and discretionarily denying institution where the Director found Petitioner’s use of an AIA review to be counter to that intent] [the USPTO published a summary of the decision here]
• New Informative PTAB Decisions
• Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLC, IPR2025-01342, -01383, -01524, Paper 27 (May 12, 2026) (designated: May 13, 2026) [Vacating notices granting institution of inter partes review and denying institution where the Director determined that Petitioner advanced indefiniteness arguments in district court after institution without sufficient justification for inconsistency with its Board position, and offered a stipulation to withdraw its arguments in district court only after Patent Owner brought the inconsistency to the Office’s attention]
• Terumo BCT, Inc. v. Haemonetics Corp, IPR2025-01374, -01391, Paper 20 (May 12, 2026) (designated: May 13, 2026) [Vacating notices granting institution of inter partes review and denying institution where the Director determined that Petitioner advanced indefiniteness arguments in district court after institution without sufficient justification for inconsistency with its Board position, and Petitioner’s post-institution conduct demonstrated that it was not using the IPR process as a district court alternative]
• TikTok, Inc. v. Shopsee, Inc, IPR2025-01485, Paper 13 (January 16, 2026) (designated: May 13, 2026) [Discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review where the Petitioner advanced different claim construction positions in the petition and in district court and subsequently stipulated not to pursue the different claim construction in district court upon institution, because the Director determined that Petitioner did not sufficiently explain why the different claim constructions are warranted and the stipulation did not sufficiently reduce duplication or minimize potential for different outcomes]
• The USPTO published a summary of the three newly designated informative decisions here.
• New Director Review Decisions
• There are no new Director Review decisions