PTAB/USPTO Update - September 2026

PTAB/USPTO Update - September 2026

Client Alert

Authors

USPTO News

  • On August 3, the USPTO released the latest edition of its series of reports highlighting the profound economic contributions of industries that predominantly rely on intellectual property protection, including patents, trademarks, and copyrights, titled “Intellectual property and the U.S. economy in 2024.”
  • On August 18, the USPTO announced the selection of a new community engagement office in North Carolina to further the agency’s outreach efforts in the Southeast Region.

Final Rules

  • Effective January 1, 2027, the USPTO will incorporate classification changes adopted by the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks (Nice Agreement).  International Trademark Classification Changes, 91 Fed. Reg. 54963  (Aug. 26, 2026).

Interim Rules

  • There are no new interim rules.

Proposed Rules

  • There are no new proposed rules.

General Notices

PTAB Decisions

  • New Precedential PTAB Decisions
    • Ex parte Baurin, Appeal 2024-00290 (Aug. 6, 2026) (Appeals Review Panel sua sponte rehearing decision) (designated: Aug. 6, 2026) (reversing the PTAB’s decision and reinstating the examiner’s obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP) rejection, concluding that the Federal Circuit has recognized the anti-harassment rationale as a legitimate policy justification for OTDP even in the absence of evidence that patent issuance would extend the duration of an applicant’s patent monopoly, but nevertheless questioning whether a standalone anti-harassment rationale may hinder innovation and warrant reconsideration by the court, while proposing a framework intended to streamline and enhance the predictability of the Office’s future OTDP analyses) [news alert
  • New Informative PTAB Decisions
    • Ex parte Chowdhury, Appeal 2025-002261 (Feb. 5, 2026) (designated: Aug. 25, 2026) (reversing the examiner’s rejection of claims for reciting improper Markush groupings and holding that a Markush grouping is proper if it recites members of a subgenus and the specification describes those recited members as performing similar functions in the context of the invention) [news alert
  • New Director Review Decisions
    • There are no new Director Review Decisions.

Authors

Notice

We appreciate your interest in WilmerHale. While we are pleased to have you contact us, please keep in mind that merely contacting WilmerHale does not create an attorney-client relationship. Such a relationship will not arise until the Firm agrees in writing to represent you in connection with a particular matter. Importantly, unless and until this has occurred, you should not provide us with any confidential information, and we have no duty to keep confidential any information that we may receive from you. Thank you for your understanding.