[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 20, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43249-43252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15475]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

 Patent and Trademark Office

[Docket No. PTO-P-2022-0023]


Request for Comments on Director Review, Precedential Opinion 
Panel Review, and Internal Circulation and Review of Patent Trial and 
Appeal Board Decisions

AGENCY: Patent Trial and Appeal Board, United States Patent and 
Trademark Office, U.S. Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Request for Comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or 
Office) seeks public comments on practices and policies for the review 
of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) decisions. The USPTO 
has implemented a number of processes that promote the accuracy, 
consistency, and integrity of PTAB decision-making in Leahy-Smith 
America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) proceedings. The USPTO plans to 
formalize those processes through notice-and-comment rulemaking. To 
inform such rulemaking, and to inform any modifications to the interim 
processes pending formalization, the USPTO seeks public comments. 
Specifically, the USPTO seeks input on the current interim Under 
Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the 
United States Patent and Trademark Office (Director) review process 
that allows a party to request Director review of a PTAB final written 
decision in inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) 
proceedings, and also provides the Director the option to sua sponte 
initiate the review of any PTAB decisions (at the Director's 
discretion), including institution decisions and decisions on 
rehearing. The USPTO also seeks input on the Precedential Opinion Panel 
(POP) process. Finally, the USPTO seeks input on the current interim 
process for PTAB decision circulation and internal PTAB review. These 
processes, implemented by the PTAB prior to issuing decisions and 
implemented without Director input, are modeled after practices of the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

DATES: Comment Deadline Date: Written comments must be received on or 
before September 19, 2022, to ensure consideration.

ADDRESSES: For reasons of Government efficiency, comments must be 
submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the portal, enter docket 
number PTO-P-2022-0023 on the homepage and click ``Search.'' The site 
will provide a search results page listing all documents associated 
with this docket. Find a reference to this Request for Comments and 
click on the ``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields, and 
enter or attach your comments. Attachments to electronic comments will 
be accepted in ADOBE[supreg] portable document format or MICROSOFT 
WORD[supreg] format. Because comments will be made available for public 
inspection, information that the submitter does not desire to make 
public, such as an address or phone number, should not be included in 
the comments.
    Visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal (www.regulations.gov) for 
additional instructions on providing comments via the portal. If 
electronic submission of comments is not feasible due to a lack of 
access to a computer and/or the internet, please contact the USPTO 
using the contact information below for special instructions regarding 
how to submit comments by mail or by hand delivery, based on the 
public's ability to obtain access to USPTO facilities at the time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kalyan Deshpande, Vice Chief 
Administrative Patent Judge; Amanda Wieker, Acting Senior Lead 
Administrative Patent Judge; or Melissa Haapala, Vice Chief 
Administrative Patent Judge, at 571-272-9797.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Development of This Request for Comments

    On September 16, 2011, the AIA was enacted into law (Pub. L. 112-
29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011)). The AIA established the PTAB, which is made 
up of administrative patent judges (APJs) and four statutory members, 
namely the USPTO Director, the USPTO Deputy Director, the USPTO 
Commissioner for Patents, and the USPTO Commissioner for Trademarks. 35 
U.S.C. 6(a). The Director is appointed by the President, by and with 
the advice and consent of the Senate. 35 U.S.C. 3(a)(1). APJs are 
appointed by the Secretary of Commerce in consultation with the 
Director. Id. 6(a). The PTAB hears and decides ex parte appeals of 
adverse decisions by examiners in applications for patents; appeals of 
reexaminations; and proceedings under the AIA, including IPRs, PGRs, 
covered business method (CBM) patent reviews,\1\ and derivation 
proceedings, in panels of at least three members. Id. 6(b), (c). Under 
the statute, the Director designates the members of each panel. Id. 
6(c). The Director has delegated that authority to the Chief Judge of 
the Board. See PTAB Standard Operating Procedure 1 (Rev. 15) (SOP1), 
Assignment of Judges to Panels, https://go.usa.gov/xtdt2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under section 18 of the AIA, the transitional program for 
post-grant review of CBM patents sunset on September 16, 2020. AIA 
18(a). Although the program has sunset, existing CBM proceedings, 
based on petitions filed before September 16, 2020, remain pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35 U.S.C. 6(c) states that ``[o]nly the Patent Trial and Appeal 
Board may grant rehearings'' of Board decisions. In United States v. 
Arthrex, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court (Court) held that the 
Appointments Clause of the Constitution (art. II, sec. 2, cl. 2) and 
the supervisory structure of the USPTO require that the Board's final 
decisions must be subject to review by the Director, a principal 
officer of the United States. See United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 
S. Ct. 1970, 1986 (2021). The Court determined that ``35 U.S.C. 6(c) is 
unenforceable as applied to the Director insofar as it prevents the 
Director from reviewing the decisions of the PTAB on his own.'' Id. at 
1987. The Court explained that:

    this suit concerns only the Director's ability to supervise APJs 
in adjudicating petitions for inter partes review. We do not address 
the Director's supervision over other types of adjudications 
conducted by the PTAB, such as the examination process for which the 
Director has claimed unilateral authority to issue a patent.

Id. The Court thus held that the Director has the discretion to review 
IPR final written decisions rendered by APJs, and, upon review, the 
Director may issue decisions on behalf of the Board. Id. at 1988.
    On June 29, 2021, the USPTO implemented an interim process for 
Director review. At that time, the interim Director review process 
provided that the Director may initiate Director review of any PTAB 
final

[[Page 43250]]

written decision sua sponte, and a party to a PTAB proceeding may 
request Director review of an IPR or PGR final written decision. To 
request Director review, a party to a final written decision must 
concurrently: (1) enter a Request for Rehearing by the Director into 
PTAB E2E, the PTAB's filing system, and (2) submit a notification of 
the Request for Rehearing by the Director to the USPTO by email to 
[email protected], copying counsel for all 
parties. Id.
    The USPTO further published Arthrex Q&As, updated on December 4, 
2021, available at https://go.usa.gov/xtDnS (superseded on April 22, 
2022, by the ``Interim process for Director review'' web page, 
available at https://go.usa.gov/xuHwP). As explained in the Arthrex 
Q&As, Director review is a de novo review that may address any issue of 
fact or law. A party may not make new arguments or submit new evidence 
with a request for Director review unless permitted by the Director. 
Also, a party may only request Director review of a final written 
decision issued in an IPR or PGR. At this time, the USPTO does not 
accept requests for Director review of other decisions, including 
decisions on institution and Board ex parte appeal decisions. Third 
parties may not request Director review or submit comments concerning 
Director review of a particular case unless comments are requested by 
the Director. Further, the POP review process outlined in the Board's 
Standard Operating Procedure 2 (Rev. 10), available at https://go.usa.gov/xu4PT, remains in effect and unchanged.
    On April 22, 2022, the USPTO published two web pages to increase 
openness as it formalizes the Director review process. The USPTO 
published an ``Interim process for Director review web page,'' setting 
forth more details on the interim process and some additional 
suggestions for parties who wish to request Director review. The 
suggestions include guidance on focusing and prioritizing issues, and 
strongly encourage parties to provide a priority-ranked list of the 
issues being raised, with a brief explanation of each issue and a brief 
explanation of the rationale for the prioritized-ranking of them. The 
USPTO also published a web page providing the status of all Director 
review requests, available at https://go.usa.gov/xuHwE. The status web 
page includes a spreadsheet that is updated monthly, as well as 
information about the proceedings in which Director review has been 
granted.
    On May 25, 2022, and June 17, 2022, the USPTO further updated the 
``Interim process for Director review'' web page. The first update 
explains that although the Office does not accept requests for Director 
review of institution decisions in AIA proceedings, the Director has 
always retained and continues to retain the authority to review such 
decisions sua sponte after issuance. If the Director sua sponte 
initiates Director review of an institution decision, the parties and 
the public will be notified, and the Director may order party and 
amicus briefing. The second update made two modifications. First, the 
update specifies that if a requesting party believes that the issue 
presented for Director review is an issue of first impression, the 
party should indicate that in the email requesting Director review. 
Second, the update explains that, in anticipation of this Request for 
Comments, any preliminary feedback to the Director review suggestion 
email box ([email protected]) could be submitted 
through July 11, 2022.

The Interim Director Review Process

    The interim Director review process follows existing PTAB rehearing 
procedures under 37 CFR 42.71(d) and Standard Operating Procedure 2. 
Under the interim process, a Request for Rehearing by the Director must 
be filed within 30 days of entry of the Board's final written decision 
or a decision by the Board granting rehearing of a final written 
decision. See 37 CFR 42.71(d)(2). A request for Director review of a 
decision remanded by the Federal Circuit for further proceedings 
consistent with Arthrex must be filed within 30 days of the remand 
order, unless the Federal Circuit sets a different deadline for filing 
the Director review request. The Director may choose to extend the 
rehearing deadline for good cause on a party's request before the due 
date. A timely Request for Rehearing by the Director will be considered 
a request for rehearing under 37 CFR 90.3(b) and will reset the time 
for appeal or civil action as set forth in that rule. Requests for 
Rehearing by the Director are limited to 15 pages (see 37 CFR 
42.24(a)(1)(v)), and the Director will not consider new evidence or 
arguments submitted with a Director review request. At this time, there 
is no fee for requesting Director review.
    Moreover, under the interim process, parties are limited to 
requesting either: (1) Director review, or (2) rehearing by the 
original Board panel. Parties may also request Director review of a 
Board decision that results from a rehearing grant, but not a Board 
decision to deny rehearing. Requests for both Director review and panel 
rehearing of the same decision are treated as a request for Director 
review only.
    When a party submits a request for Director review, the USPTO 
catalogs the request and reviews it to ensure compliance with the 
interim Director review requirements. If the request is compliant, it 
is entered into the record of the corresponding proceeding as ``Exhibit 
3100--Director Review Request.'' If the request is not compliant, the 
USPTO will attempt to work with the party making the request to rectify 
any areas of noncompliance. If the request is not compliant, for 
example, because it was submitted after the deadline, it will not be 
considered because it will be untimely.
    Each request for Director review is then routed to and considered 
by an Advisory Committee that the Director has established to assist 
with the process. The Advisory Committee currently has 11 members and 
includes representatives from various business units within the USPTO, 
who serve at the discretion of the Director. The Advisory Committee 
currently comprises members from the Office of the Under Secretary (not 
including the Director), the PTAB (not including members of the 
original panel for each case under review), the Office of the 
Commissioner for Patents (not including any persons involved in the 
examination of the challenged patent), the Office of the General 
Counsel, and the Office of Policy and International Affairs. The 
Advisory Committee meets periodically to evaluate each request for 
Director review and recommends to the Director which decisions to 
review. Advisory Committee meetings may proceed with less than all 
members in attendance, as long as a quorum of seven members is present 
for each meeting.
    The Advisory Committee reviews each Director review request for, 
among other things, issues that involve an intervening change in the 
law or USPTO procedures or guidance; material errors of fact or law in 
the PTAB decision; matters that the PTAB misapprehended or overlooked; 
novel issues of law or policy; issues on which PTAB panel decisions are 
split; issues of particular importance to the USPTO or the patent 
community; or inconsistencies with USPTO procedures, guidance, or 
decisions.\2\ The Advisory Committee

[[Page 43251]]

then presents the Director with each Director review request, the 
associated arguments and evidence, and the recommendation of the 
Advisory Committee to determine whether to grant or deny the request. 
The Director also may consult others in the USPTO on an as-needed 
basis, so long as those individuals do not have a conflict. Although 
the Advisory Committee and other individuals in the USPTO may advise 
the Director on whether a decision merits review, the Director has sole 
discretion to grant or deny review.\3\ The Director's decision to grant 
or deny a request will be communicated directly to the parties in the 
proceeding through PTAB E2E. Director review grants will be posted on 
the Director review status web page. Director review denials can be 
found on the Director review status spreadsheet, which is updated 
monthly and posted on the Director review status web page.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ No member of the Advisory Committee may participate in 
considering a request for Director review if that member has a 
conflict of interest under the U.S. Department of Commerce USPTO 
Summary of Ethics Rules, available at https://go.usa.gov/xJ7wF. PTAB 
APJs who are Advisory Committee members will also follow the 
guidance on conflicts of interest set forth in the Board's SOP1, and 
will recuse themselves from any discussion involving cases on which 
they are paneled.
    \3\ If the Director has a conflict with the parties, patent, or 
counsel in the decision, she will be recused, and the required 
action will be taken by the Deputy Director. If the position of the 
Deputy Director is vacant, or if the Deputy Director also has a 
conflict of interest, the required action will be taken by the 
Commissioner for Patents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to allowing parties to request Director review under 
the interim process, the Director may choose to conduct a sua sponte 
Director review. The Director may initiate a sua sponte review of any 
PTAB decision, including institution decisions, or a corresponding 
decision on rehearing (whether denying or granting rehearing). As 
explained in more detail below, PTAB Executive Management (the PTAB 
Chief Judge, Deputy Chief Judge, Vice Chief Judges, and Senior Lead 
Judges) may identify decisions as candidates for sua sponte Director 
review. The Director may also convene the Advisory Committee to make 
recommendations on decisions that the Director is considering for sua 
sponte Director review. If the Director initiates a sua sponte review, 
the parties will be given notice and may be given an opportunity for 
briefing. The public also will be notified, and the Director may 
request amicus briefing. If briefing is requested, the USPTO will set 
forth the procedures to be followed.
    At this time, the USPTO does not accept requests for Director 
review of decisions on institution in AIA proceedings or appeal 
decisions. To request review of those types of decisions (and other 
decisions), parties may request review by the POP, which, by default, 
includes the Director, the Commissioner for Patents, and the PTAB Chief 
Judge. As a general matter, the interim process for Director review 
does not alter the current POP process. As explained above and below, 
however, the USPTO seeks comments on the POP process in view of the 
Director review process.
    On July 6, 2022, the USPTO further updated the ``Interim process 
for Director review'' web page to make clear that: (1) decisions made 
on Director review are not precedential by default, and instead are 
precedential only upon the Director's designation; and (2) final 
written decisions by the Director after Director review are appealable 
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit using the same 
procedures for appealing Board final written decisions. See ``Interim 
process for Director review'' web page, Sec. Sec.  2, 14; 37 CFR 90.3.
    As of July 5, 2022, the USPTO had received 204 requests for 
Director review under the interim process. Of those requests, the 
Director review process was completed for 198 requests. Of the 198 
completed requests, 5 requests were granted, 1 request was withdrawn, 
and the remaining requests were denied. Eleven requests did not meet 
the requirements for Director review and were not considered. 
Additionally, Director Kathi Vidal has initiated sua sponte Director 
review in four cases. Andrew Hirshfeld, former Commissioner for 
Patents, who was performing the functions and duties of the Director 
prior to Director Vidal's confirmation, granted Director review and 
rehearing in Ascend Performance Materials Operations LLC v. Samsung SDI 
Co., IPR2020-00349, Paper 57 (Nov. 1, 2021) (Order granting Director 
review request); Proppant Express Investments, LLC v. Oren 
Technologies, LLC, IPR2018-00733, Paper 95 (Nov. 18, 2021) (Order 
granting Director review request); and each of Apple Inc. v. 
Personalized Media Communications LLC, IPR2016-00754, Paper 50 (Mar. 3, 
2022), and IPR2016-01520, Paper 47 (Mar. 3, 2022) (Orders granting 
Director review requests).\4\ Recently, Director Vidal sua sponte 
ordered a Director review of the Final Written Decisions in each of 
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Ger[auml]te Ges.m.b.H. v. Advanced Bionics 
AG, IPR2020-01016, Paper 43 (June 1, 2022), and IPR2021-00044, Paper 41 
(June 1, 2022) (Orders initiating Director review); and of the 
Decisions on Institution in OpenSky Industries, LLC v. VLSI Technology 
LLC, IPR2021-01064, Paper 41 (June 7, 2022) (Order initiating Director 
review), and Patent Quality Assurance, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLC, 
IPR2021-01229, Paper 31 (June 7, 2022) (Order initiating Director 
review). Director Vidal also granted a request for Director review of 
the Final Written Decision in Nested Bean, Inc. v. Big Beings USA Pty 
Ltd., IPR2020-01234, Paper 36 (June 17, 2022) (Order granting Director 
review and authorizing additional briefing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld Mr. 
Hirshfeld's authority to decide requests for Director review, 
finding that the delegation of the function of Director review did 
not violate the Appointments Clause (U.S. Const. art. II, Sec.  2, 
cl. 2); the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (5 U.S.C. 3345 et seq.); or 
the Constitution's separation of powers (U.S. Const. art. II, Sec.  
2, cl. 2) [Is it correct that this citation should be the same as 
the one for the Appointments Clause?]. See Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & 
Nephew, Inc., 35 F.4th 1328, 1333-1340 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The USPTO plans to formalize the Director and POP review processes 
through notice-and-comment rulemaking. To inform such rulemaking, and 
to inform any modifications to the interim processes pending 
formalization, the USPTO seeks public comments.

The Interim Process for PTAB Decision Circulation and Internal PTAB 
Review

    Since May 2022, the USPTO has been using an interim process for 
PTAB decision circulation and internal PTAB review to promote 
consistent, clear, and open decision-making. See ``Interim process for 
PTAB decision circulation and internal PTAB review,'' available at 
https://go.usa.gov/xJ7fq. Under the interim process, certain categories 
of PTAB decisions are circulated to a pool of non-management judges 
(the Circulation Judge Pool (CJP)) prior to issuance. These decisions 
include all AIA institution decisions; AIA final written decisions; AIA 
decisions on rehearing; decisions on remand from the Federal Circuit; 
inter partes reexamination appeal decisions; and designated categories 
of ex parte appeal, ex parte reexamination appeal, and reissue appeal 
decisions. Judges may, at their option, circulate other types of 
decisions for CJP review.
    The CJP comprises a representative group of at least eight non-
management PTAB judges who collectively have technical/scientific 
backgrounds and legal experience representative of the PTAB judges as a 
whole. The CJP is modeled after both the Federal Circuit's previous 
office of the Senior Technical Assistant and the Federal Circuit's 10-
day circulation process for precedential decisions. See United States 
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Internal Operating 
Procedures, Redlined Copy, 18 (Mar. 1, 2022), available at https://go.usa.gov/xJ7fx (describing the previous office of the Senior 
Technical Assistant); and United States Court of

[[Page 43252]]

Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Internal Operating Procedures, 10.5 
(Mar. 1, 2022), available at https://go.usa.gov/xJ7fg (describing the 
10-day circulation process for precedential decisions).
    For each reviewed PTAB decision, the CJP provides the panel with 
information regarding potential conflicts or inconsistencies with 
relevant authority, including PTAB precedential decisions, Director-
written guidance, and other USPTO policies. The CJP also provides the 
panel with information regarding potential inconsistencies with 
informative or routine PTAB decisions and suggestions for improved 
readability and stylistic consistency. The panel has the final 
authority and responsibility for the content of a decision and 
determines when and how to incorporate feedback from the CJP. Judges 
are required to apply pertinent statutes, binding case law, and written 
guidance issued by the Director or the Director's delegate that is 
applicable to PTAB proceedings. There is no unwritten guidance 
applicable to PTAB proceedings that judges are required to apply.
    The CJP also identifies, and brings to the attention of PTAB 
Executive Management, notable draft decisions, such as decisions that 
address issues of first impression or that appear to be inconsistent 
with USPTO policy or involve areas where policy clarification may be 
needed. PTAB Executive Management may discuss decisions after issuance 
with the Director and/or the Director review Advisory Committee for 
consideration for sua sponte Director review, or with the POP Screening 
Committee \5\ for consideration for POP review. The CJP has periodic 
meetings with PTAB Executive Management to discuss potentially 
conflicting panel decisions and general areas for potential policy 
clarification. PTAB Executive Management may discuss these issues with 
the Director for the purpose of considering whether to issue new or 
updated policies through regulation, precedential or informative 
decisions, and/or a Director guidance memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The POP Screening Committee provides recommendations to 
Precedential Opinion Panel. The Screening Committee comprises of the 
members of the Precedential Opinion Panel, or their designees, 
typically in equal numbers (for example, 3 designees of each of the 
Chief Judge, Commissioner for Patents, and Director). See PTAB 
Standard Operating Procedure 2 (Rev. 10) (SOP2), Precedential 
Opinion Panel to Decide Issues of Exceptional Importance Involving 
Policy or Procedure and Publication of Decisions and Designation or 
De-Designation of Decisions as Precedential or Informative, https://go.usa.gov/xPMqx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any panel member, at his or her sole discretion, may also 
optionally consult with one or more members of PTAB management (i.e., 
PTAB Executive Management and Lead Judges) regarding a decision prior 
to issuance. If consulted, PTAB management may provide information 
regarding the consistent application of USPTO policy, applicable 
statutes and regulations, and binding case law. Adoption of any 
suggestions provided by PTAB management based on such consultation is 
optional. Unless consulted by a panel member, PTAB management does not 
make suggestions to the panel on any pre-issuance decisions, either 
directly or indirectly through the CJP.
    The Office recognizes that it is important that the PTAB maintain a 
consistent and clear approach to substantive areas of patent law and 
PTAB-specific procedures, while maintaining open decision-making. The 
interim PTAB decision circulation and internal review processes promote 
decisional consistency and open decision-making by reinforcing that the 
adoption of all CJP and requested PTAB management feedback is optional, 
that members of PTAB management do not provide feedback on decisions 
pre-issuance unless they are a panel member or a panel member requests 
such feedback, and that the PTAB panel has the final authority and 
responsibility for the content of a decision. Additionally, the process 
provides a mechanism by which the Director may be made aware of 
decisions to consider for sua sponte Director review or POP review, and 
of areas to consider for issuing new, or modified, USPTO policy to 
promote a strong intellectual property system. The interim process 
makes clear that the Director is not involved, pre-issuance, in 
directing or otherwise influencing panel decisions.
    The USPTO seeks feedback on the PTAB decision circulation and 
internal review processes.

Request for Public Comments

    The USPTO seeks written public comments on the interim Director 
review process, the POP review process, and the PTAB decision 
circulation and internal review processes. The USPTO welcomes any 
comments from the public on the processes and is particularly 
interested in the public's input on the questions and requested 
information noted below.
    1. Should any changes be made to the interim Director review 
process, and if so, what changes and why?
    2. Should only the parties to a proceeding be permitted to request 
Director review, or should third-party requests for Director review be 
allowed, and if so, which ones and why?
    3. Should requests for Director review be limited to final written 
decisions in IPR and PGR? If not, how should they be expanded and why?
    4. Should a party to a proceeding be able to request both Director 
review and rehearing by the merits panel? If so, why and how should the 
two procedures interplay?
    5. What criteria should be used in determining whether to initiate 
Director review?
    6. What standard of review should the Director apply in Director 
review? Should the standard of review change depending on what type of 
decision is being reviewed?
    7. What standard should the Director apply in determining whether 
or not to grant sua sponte Director review of decisions on institution? 
Should the standard change if the decision on institution addresses 
discretionary issues instead of, or in addition to, merits issues?
    8. Should there be a time limit on the Director's ability to 
reconsider a petition denial? And if so, what should that time limit 
be?
    9. Are there considerations the USPTO should take with regard to 
the fact that decisions made on Director review are not precedential by 
default, and instead are made and marked precedential only upon 
designation by the Director?
    10. Are there any other considerations the USPTO should take into 
account with respect to Director review?
    11. Should the POP review process remain in effect, be modified, or 
be eliminated in view of Director review? Please explain.
    12. Are there any other considerations the USPTO should take into 
account with respect to the POP process?
    13. Should any changes be made to the interim PTAB decision 
circulation and internal review processes, and if so, what changes and 
why?
    14. Are there any other considerations the USPTO should take into 
account with respect to the interim PTAB decision circulation and 
internal review processes?

Katherine K. Vidal,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of 
the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2022-15475 Filed 7-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P