USPTO News 

• On July 1, USPTO congratulated Former USPTO Deputy Director Laura Peter on her nomination as Deputy Director General (DDG) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)’s Patents and Technology Sector.
• On June 29, USPTO updated the Director Review process to extend the deadline for decisions instituting trial from 14 days to 30 days.  Additionally, in exceptional circumstances, the Office may further extend the deadline for filing a request for Director Review of a decision on institution, so long as the trial has not progressed meaningfully.
• On June 25, USPTO Director Squire delivered remarks at the Great American State Fair ribbon cutting.  The remarks emphasized that innovation and intellectual property rights have been central to driving American technological progress, national security, and economic prosperity since the nation’s founding.
• On June 16, Deborah Stephens was appointed as the Chief Information Officer (CIO) for the USPTO.  As CIO, Stephens will serve as principal advisor to the agency on the design, development, and management of its information systems and technology. 

Final Rules

• Effective July 20, 2026, patent applicants and patent owners whose domicile is not located within the U.S. or its territories will be required to be represented by a registered patent practitioner. Required Use by Foreign Applicants and Patent Owners of a Patent Practitioner, 91 Fed. Reg. 13510 (Mar. 20, 2026) [news alert].
• Conditions for Additional Information and Fee in Petitions Filed in Patent Applications and Patents Based on Unintentional Delay, 91 Fed. Reg. 37826 (June 24, 2026) (The USPTO is “revising its practice of requiring additional information for delays in taking certain actions in patent applications and patents from requiring additional information for delays exceeding two years to requiring additional information for delays exceeding one year.”). 

Interim Rules

• There are no new interim rules.

Proposed Rules

• There are no new proposed rules. 

General Notices

• Standards Participation and Representation Kudos Pilot Program, 91 Fed. Reg. 33155 (June 3, 2026) (“Under the pilot program, examination of certain patent applications and ex parte appeals to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) may be expedited if the U.S.- domiciled juristic applicant meaningfully participated in a voluntary consensus-based [standards development organization] and meets the requirements specified in this notice.”). 

 PTAB Decisions

• New Precedential PTAB Decisions
• Light & Wonder, Inc. v. Evolution Malta Ltd., IPR2025-01072, -01073, -01078, Paper 30 (June 22, 2026) (designated: June 22, 2026) (waiving deadline for filing requests for Director Review of decisions to institute to 30 days, identifying exceptional circumstances for further extending the deadline for Director Review requests of institution decisions, and vacating institution because a district court has already found the challenged claims invalid) (sua sponte Director Review decision) [news alert].
• New Informative PTAB Decisions
• Tesla, Inc. v. Bulletproof Property Management, LLC, IPR2026-00204, -00205, -00219, -00222, -00227, -00228, -00229, Paper 14 (June 15, 2026) (designated: June 15, 2026) (declining to discretionarily deny institution where: (1) the trial date in the co-pending parallel district court litigation was vacated and the petitioner submitted a broad stipulation; (2) the petitioner demonstrated an apparent Office error; and (3) the petitioner brought an early challenge to the patents.  Petitioner’s evidence of U.S. manufacturing specific to the accused products also weighed against discretionary denial.) [news alert].
• New Director Review Decisions
• Facebook, Inc. v. Express Mobile, Inc., IPR2021-01226,
  • Delegated Director Review of Final Written Decision on Remand – Paper 68 (June 25, 2026) (vacating the remand Final Written Decision (Paper 60) and holding that Petitioner did not “demonstrate[] by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-4 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168 B2 are unpatentable” because where “the same or substantially the same” evidence and arguments are presented during a district court trial, a different PTAB result requires a clear explanation, and Petitioner did not identify any “meaningfully different evidence and arguments” that would “warrant a different outcome”).
• Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. Pictiva Displays International Ltd., IPR2024-01095
  • Decision vacating-in-part Final Written Decision, and remanding for further proceedings – Paper 63(Squires June 22, 2026) (vacating in part and remanding for further proceedings when “the Board did not explain why its outcome as to claim 2, which differed from that of the district court’s adjudication, is warranted”).