Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 04 AUGUST 2026

USPTO Proposes To End Anonymous Ex Parte Patent Reexamination Requests

Wiggin and Dana LLP
Wiggin and Dana LLP
Contributor
Wiggin and Dana LLP

Wiggin and Dana LLP

Wiggin and Dana is a full-service law firm of highly talented, creative and experienced lawyers...

View firm profile
Explore more from Wiggin and Dana LLP

An EPR request allows anyone, a third party or even the patent owner, to ask the PTO to reexamine an issued patent’s claims based on prior patents or printed publications raising a substantial new question of patentability. A “third-party requester” is any person filing an EPR request other than the patent owner.

United StatesIntellectual Property
Thomas Landman
Thomas Landman
Anthony D. Sabatelli
Anthony D. Sabatelli
Pierre R. Yanney
Pierre R. Yanney

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has proposed a significant change to ex parte reexamination (EPR) practice: third-party requesters would no longer be able to remain anonymous to the Office. In a notice of proposed rulemaking published July 22, 2026, the USPTO proposed adding 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(7), which would require every third-party request for ex parte reexamination to include a statement identifying all real parties in interest. 1 Comments to the proposed rule are due by August 21, 2026. Because the Office views this as a procedural rather than substantive rulemaking, however, the proposed change could be finalized relatively quickly.

An EPR request allows anyone, a third party or even the patent owner, to ask the PTO to reexamine an issued patent’s claims based on prior patents or printed publications raising a substantial new question of patentability. A “third-party requester” is any person filing an EPR request other than the patent owner. Historically, requesters

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

UMG v. DistroKid: When AI Becomes A Consumer Protection Issue

Universal Music Group's lawsuit against DistroKid raises a critical question about AI disclosure in consumer markets: when does the use of artificial intelligence become material information that must be disclosed to consumers? The case centers on allegations that DistroKid distributed mass-generated AI music while creating the impression it was created by legitimate human artists, potentially violating existing consumer protection laws even without specific AI disclosure requirements.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Article

PTAB/USPTO Update - October 2026

The USPTO has released new templates and guidance for AIA trial proceedings, announced key appointments including a Chief AI Officer, and published updated procedures for patent applications and subject matter eligibility declarations. Director Squires delivered multiple addresses emphasizing the constitutional importance of intellectual property rights while the agency expanded its community engagement efforts and international collaboration through WIPO's Global IP Assignment Platform pilot program.
United StatesIntellectual Property
WilmerHale
WilmerHale
Article

The Trademark Scam Field Guide: Look-Alike Filing Sites, Fake USPTO Notices, And How To Get Out If You’ve Been Caught

A business decides to file a trademark. Someone on the team searches for a familiar online legal-services brand, clicks the first result, and lands on a site with a similar-sounding name, a polished design, five-star reviews, and a low flat fee. The application gets filed. Months later the business learns the “service” was not who they thought it was, the filing was signed by someone with no authority to sign it, and the USPTO has suspended the application along with hundreds or thousands of others from the same shop.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Harness IP
Harness IP
Article

Is This Real? Navigating AI Impersonation Under New And Existing Laws

Is this AI-generated, or is it real? As generative AI tools have become increasingly capable of creating realistic images, videos, and audio, they have also made it easier to impersonate real people without their consent. In response, states are increasingly adopting laws that impose civil and criminal liability for certain AI-generated content that replicates an individual’s identity, likeness, voice, or other personal attributes.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Wiley Rein
Wiley Rein
Article

New Connecticut Law Targets Employee Monitoring And Surveillance Practices

Connecticut has enacted sweeping changes to workplace electronic monitoring requirements, mandating that employers provide detailed location-specific notices about surveillance activities and inform new hires about prohibited conduct that may be monitored. The new law, effective October 2026, significantly expands existing notice obligations while introducing carve-outs for security purposes and investigations of suspected misconduct.
United StatesEmployment and HR
Wiggin and Dana LLP
Wiggin and Dana LLP
Article

Recent Significant Federal Merger Enforcement Developments

The Justice Department has resumed targeted Second Request investigations to expedite merger reviews, while major entertainment industry consolidation faces legal challenges and the FTC secures record penalties for Hart-Scott-Rodino Act violations. These developments signal a shifting landscape in federal merger enforcement, balancing efficiency with rigorous antitrust scrutiny across multiple industries.
United StatesAntitrust/Competition Law
Wiggin and Dana LLP
Wiggin and Dana LLP
Article

Second Circuit Adopts Expansive Interpretation Of Protected Activity But Declines To Broadly Construe Ending Forced Arbitration Act

On September 21, 2026, the Second Circuit handed down its opinion in Newton v. LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc., a significant decision addressing both the scope of protected activity under Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision and the applicability of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (“EFAA”) to claims accruing before the statute’s enactment.
United StatesEmployment and HR
Wiggin and Dana LLP
Wiggin and Dana LLP
Article

The Creator Economy Meets Estate Planning: Protecting And Transferring Digital Businesses

As the creator economy continues to expand, individuals who derive income from digital platforms face a critical estate planning question. For those who already have an estate plan, that plan may not adequately address the unique challenges of managing, valuing and transferring digital businesses, leaving these increasingly valuable assets vulnerable to confusion, lost revenue and family conflict.
United StatesWealth Management
Wiggin and Dana LLP
Wiggin and Dana LLP
Article

2026 Legislative Session: CUTPA Developments Advisory

Connecticut's 2026 legislative session transformed the state's Unfair Trade Practices Act into a primary vehicle for technology regulation, creating fifteen new per se violations while systematically excluding private enforcement rights for AI and tech-related provisions. This shift represents a fundamental change in how Connecticut regulates technology companies, concentrating enforcement power exclusively with the Attorney General for areas ranging from AI companion safety to surveillance pricing.
United StatesCorporate/Commercial Law
Wiggin and Dana LLP
Wiggin and Dana LLP
Article

Public PAIR: The Newest Tool to Monitor the Filing and Prosecution of Competitor Patents

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently announced a new electronic database as part of its effort to make the patent examination process fully transparent to the public. The new database, known as the Public PAIR (Patent Application and Information Retrieval) system, allows anyone with Internet access to track the status of a public patent application as it moves from publication to final disposition.
United StatesMedia, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment
Wiggin and Dana LLP
Wiggin and Dana LLP