[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 22, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46038-46042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-14793]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
37 CFR Part 1
[Docket No. PTO-P-2025-0545]
RIN 0651-AD94
Requirement To Identify All Real Parties in Interest to a Third
Party Request for an Ex Parte Reexamination
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or
Office) is proposing to amend the rules of practice to require a third
party request for ex parte reexamination to include a statement by the
third party requester identifying all real parties in interest to the
ex parte reexamination request. This statement would be kept
confidential upon request. This proposed requirement would provide the
Office with a mechanism to evaluate statutory estoppel provisions. It
would also enhance the Office's ability to respond to false
certifications, misrepresentations, and fraud.
DATES: Comments must be received by August 21, 2026 to ensure
consideration.
ADDRESSES: For reasons of Government efficiency, comments must be
submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at: https://www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the portal, one should
enter docket number PTO-P-2025-0545 on the homepage and select the
``Search'' button. The site will provide search results listing all
documents associated with this docket. Commenters can find a reference
to this notice and select the ``Comment'' button, complete the required
fields, and enter or attach their comments. Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Adobe[supreg] portable document format
(PDF) 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.
Please visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal for additional
instructions on providing comments via the portal. If electronic
submission of, or access to, 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.
The docket for this rulemaking in the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov contains a plain language summary of this
proposed rule, as required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Fulk, Legal Advisor, at 571-
270-0072, or Nicole Haines, Senior Legal Advisor, at 571-272-7717, with
the Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Deputy
Commissioner for Patents.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
Currently, a third party requester may submit an ex parte
reexamination request anonymously without identifying the real
party(ies) in interest to the request (i.e., the identity of the
requester and any other real parties in interest). See 37 CFR 1.501(d)
and Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) (9th ed., Rev. 01.2024,
[[Page 46039]]
November 2024) section 2214, subsection I. 35 U.S.C. 302 states ``[a]ny
person at any time may file a request for reexamination by the Office
of any claim of a patent on the basis of any prior art cited under the
provisions of section 301.'' Under 35 U.S.C. 301(e), a person citing to
the Office prior art or written statements may request that the
``person's identity [ ] be excluded from the patent file and kept
confidential.'' When enacting Section 301(e), Congress explained that,
``[w]ithout the confidentiality provision, competitors of a patent
owner might be reluctant to cite prior art to the [Office].'' H.R. Rep.
96-1307, 6, 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6460, 6465. 37 CFR 1.501(d) further
states ``[i]f the person making the submission wishes his or her
identity to be excluded from the patent file and kept confidential, the
submission papers must be submitted anonymously without any
identification of the person making the submission.''
Therefore, under the Office's current rules and procedures, the
identity of the party(ies) seeking the reexamination may be concealed
from both the public and the Office. While the Office recognizes the
importance and continuing applicability of Section 301(e), that
provision only requires keeping the requester's identity confidential
from the public, not from the Office. Similarly, current 35 U.S.C.
315(e), which was enacted years after Sections 301 and 302, requires
the Office to administer estoppels triggered by the identity of the
party(ies) seeking reexamination. The Office is proposing to amend the
rules of practice to require a third party request for ex parte
reexamination to include a statement by the third party requester
identifying all real parties in interest to the ex parte reexamination
request. Upon request, that statement would be excluded from the patent
and reexamination files and kept confidential.
II. Background
A. 2012 AIA Rulemaking
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
(2011)), effective in 2012, contains statutory estoppel provisions in
35 U.S.C. 315(e)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 325(e)(1) regarding proceedings
before the Office. Specifically, these estoppel provisions prevent a
petitioner in an inter partes review or post-grant review of a claim in
a patent that results in a final written decision under 35 U.S.C.
318(a) or 328(a), or the real party in interest or privy of the
petitioner, from requesting or maintaining a proceeding before the
Office with respect to that claim on any ground that the petitioner
raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review
or post-grant review. When enacting the Leahy-Smith America Invents
Act, a member of Congress stated ``[t]he Office recognizes that it will
need to change its regulations and require that ex parte reexamination
requesters identify themselves to the Office in order for the Office to
be able to enforce this new [estoppel] restriction.'' 157 Cong. Rec.
S1376 (Mar. 8, 2011) (Sen. Kyl).
In January 2012, the Office issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
that proposed new 37 CFR 1.510(b)(6) and (b)(7). See Changes to
Implement Miscellaneous Post Patent Provisions of the Leahy-Smith
America Invents Act, 77 FR 442 (Jan. 5, 2012) (``January 2012 Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking''). Proposed Sec. 1.510(b)(6) introduced a
certification requirement that was adopted with some modification in a
final rule. See Changes to Implement Miscellaneous Post Patent
Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 77 FR 46615 (Aug. 6,
2012) (``August 2012 Final Rule''). As adopted, Sec. 1.510(b)(6)
requires that a third party request for ex parte reexamination contain
a certification by the third party requester that the statutory
estoppel provisions of inter partes review and post-grant review at 35
U.S.C. 315(e)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 325(e)(1), respectively, do not bar the
third party from requesting ex parte reexamination.
Proposed 37 CFR 1.510(b)(7) required identification of the real
party(ies) in interest to a request for ex parte reexamination, but it
was not adopted by the Office. See August 2012 Final Rule, 77 FR at
46621-22. At that time, the Office considered the certification
requirement of Sec. 1.510(b)(6), coupled with a party's obligations
under 37 CFR 11.18 when transacting business before the Office,
sufficient to ensure compliance with the statutory estoppel
requirements. Id. Several comments in response to the 2012 proposed
rule suggested that requiring identification of the real party(ies) in
interest could have a chilling effect on the submission of ex parte
reexamination requests. See Comment 20, August 2012 Final Rule, 77 FR
at 46621. Several other comments pointed out that, should the Office
retain the requirement for identification of the real party(ies) in
interest, procedures for safeguarding anonymity are critical. See
Comment 25, August 2012 Final Rule, 77 FR at 46622. Further, a number
of comments suggested that the statement identifying the real
party(ies) in interest be deleted because it is unnecessary in view of
the certification in Sec. 1.510(b)(6). Id.
Thus, as adopted, the 2012 rules allowed the identity of real
party(ies) in interest to a request for ex parte reexamination to
remain concealed from both the Office and the public.
B. Anonymous Requests for Ex Parte Reexamination
Currently, a real party in interest that wishes to remain anonymous
when filing a request for reexamination under Sec. 1.510 can do so by
utilizing the services of a registered practitioner. See MPEP 2214,
subsection I. In such an instance, the registered practitioner
submitting a request for reexamination on behalf of the real party in
interest to the request would be certifying, pursuant to Sec.
1.510(b)(6), that the real party in interest was not estopped under 35
U.S.C. 315(e)(1) or 325(e)(1) from filing the request.
Under 37 CFR 11.18(b), a party presenting a paper to the Office
must certify, among other things, that: (1) all statements made therein
are true or believed to be true, and that knowingly and willfully
making any false or fraudulent statement is subject to criminal
penalties; and (2) to the best of the party's knowledge, information
and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,
the paper is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to
harass someone or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in
the cost of any proceeding before the Office, and the legal contentions
therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for
the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the
establishment of new law. As previously discussed, the certification
requirement under Sec. 1.510(b)(6), coupled with the party's Sec.
11.18 certification obligations, had been considered sufficient to
ensure compliance with the inter partes review and post-grant review
statutory estoppel requirements.
However, this ability to file an anonymous request for ex parte
reexamination is in tension with the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C.
315(e)(1) and 325(e)(1). The Office cannot independently ascertain
whether the party is estopped if the identity of the requester, and all
real parties in interest to the request, are not identified.
III. Requirement To Identify All Real Parties in Interest to a Third
Party Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
The Office is currently receiving a significant number of ex parte
reexamination requests under 35 U.S.C. 302 that are directed to patents
[[Page 46040]]
previously challenged in inter partes or post-grant review proceedings.
Thus, there is risk that the statutory estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C.
315(e)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 325(e)(1) may apply to the real party(ies) in
interest to an ex parte reexamination request. Additionally, because
the issue of whether a party is a real party in interest can be a
disputed question, there is a possibility that the Office's reliance on
a party's 37 CFR 1.510(b)(6) certification alone, even if provided in
good faith, could result in ordering reexamination on a request that
otherwise should be barred by the statutory estoppel provisions of 35
U.S.C. 315(e)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 325(e)(1). Under the current
certification practice, the Office does not know the identity of the
real party(ies) in interest to an anonymous request. That can lead to
inefficient use of Office resources when considering whether estoppel
applies, including when considering petitions by patent owners
disputing a third party requester's Sec. 1.510(b)(6) certification.
Requiring disclosure to the Office of all real parties in interest to
the request will promote complete and efficient evaluation of whether
estoppel applies, thereby protecting patent owners from requests that
are subject to estoppel. Ultimately, proceeding with a reexamination
request where one or more parties should be estopped would not only be
statutorily improper, but would waste Office resources in conducting an
improper reexamination proceeding, and would be unfair to the patent
owner to have to defend against a reexamination proceeding that should
have been barred by statute.
In view of these shortcomings, the Sec. 1.510(b)(6) certification
and the obligations of Sec. 11.18(b) are no longer deemed sufficient
to ensure compliance with the statutory estoppel provisions. The Office
has determined that it needs the identity of all real party(ies) in
interest to the reexamination request in order to effectively and
efficiently evaluate 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 325(e)(1)
estoppel.
The Office is proposing to amend the rules of practice to add Sec.
1.510(b)(7), requiring a request for ex parte reexamination to include
a statement by a third party requester identifying all real parties in
interest to the ex parte reexamination request, which statement would
be retained in confidence upon request. Specifically, the Office is
requiring identification of the requester and any other real parties in
interest to the request. The Office recognizes the public's concerns
about ensuring confidentiality of the requester's identity that are
reflected in the comments to the January 2012 Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and will take appropriate steps to alleviate those concerns.
When a third party requester files the proposed Sec. 1.510(b)(7)
statement according to parameters established by the Office and
requests the statement remain confidential, the Office intends to
provide robust data security measures to exclude the statement from the
patent and reexamination files and keep the statement confidential.
These measures would assist in providing the critical safeguarding of
the confidential information desired by stakeholders and required by 35
U.S.C. 301(e) and 302, thereby reducing any chilling effect on the
submission of ex parte reexamination requests. Furthermore, the Office
recognizes that it may need to rely on the confidential real party(ies)
in interest information in making determinations and decisions during
the course of the reexamination proceeding. The Office will take
reasonable steps to ensure that any decision will not disclose the
confidential information.
The proposed Sec. 1.510(b)(7) statement requiring identification
of all real parties in interest to the ex parte reexamination request
is expected to provide more efficient and effective evaluation of the
estoppel provisions while still maintaining the confidentiality of a
requester's identity as required by 35 U.S.C. 301(e) and 302. Also, the
proposed Sec. 1.510(b)(7) statement would better serve Congress's
intent in enacting the Section 315(e)(1) and 325(e)(1) estoppel
provisions to ``significantly reduce the ability to use post-grant
procedures for abusive serial challenges to patents.'' 157 Cong. Rec.
S936, S952 (daily ed. Feb. 28, 2011) (statement of Sen. Grassley).
Further, the identification requirement in proposed Sec. 1.510(b)(7)
is consistent with the existing inter partes review and post-grant
review practice of identifying all real parties in interest. See, e.g.,
35 U.S.C. 312(a)(2) (requiring a petition for inter partes review to
identify all real parties in interest).
The proposed Sec. 1.510(b)(7) statement would also be beneficial
should the Office implement the recently proposed changes to 37 CFR
42.108 (``Institution of inter partes review'') regarding the rules of
practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). See Revision
to Rules of Practice Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 90 FR
48335 (Oct. 17, 2025) (``PTAB Notice of Proposed Rulemaking'').
Proposed Sec. 42.108(e)(5) would preclude inter partes review of a
claim if it was found patentable following a prior ex parte
reexamination request filed by someone other than the patent owner or
the patent owner's real party in interest or privy. PTAB Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 90 FR at 48341. A comment in response to proposed
Sec. 42.108(e)(5) raised concerns that a requester's ability to file
an ex parte reexamination request anonymously would undercut this
provision. See Comment PTO-P-2025-0025-2022, page 8 (available at
www.regulations.gov/docket/PTO-P-2025-0025). This proposed Sec.
1.510(b)(7) statement would ensure that the Office is aware of the
identity of all real parties in interest to the ex parte reexamination
request when determining whether to allow an inter partes review to
proceed.
The benefits of the proposed Sec. 1.510(b)(7) identification
requirement also extend to situations where there are no prior inter
partes review or post-grant review proceedings involving the same
patent. Gathering information regarding the real parties in interest to
a third party request for ex parte reexamination would facilitate fraud
mitigation. For example, the USPTO currently issues show cause orders
in reexamination proceedings where an apparent misrepresentation has
been made, such as unauthorized practice before the USPTO. Having the
real party(ies) in interest information available upon filing of a
request could eliminate ambiguities in such instances or permit the
USPTO to act more efficiently when it is clear a misrepresentation was
made in the request, thereby protecting the integrity of the U.S.
patent system.
IV. Discussion of Specific Sections
The USPTO proposes to amend 37 CFR part 1 as follows:
Section 1.501(d)
Proposed Sec. 1.501(d) would be revised to clarify that papers
submitted ``under this section'' (i.e., mere citations of prior art and
written statements) can be submitted anonymously without any
identification of the person making the submission. The language
``under this section'' would be added to distinguish citations of prior
art and written statements submitted under Sec. 1.501, which may still
be submitted anonymously, from ex parte reexamination requests under
Sec. 1.510, which would now require identification of all real parties
in interest to the request.
Section 1.510(b)
Proposed Sec. 1.510(b)(7) would require a third party requester to
submit a statement identifying all real parties in interest to the ex
parte reexamination request (i.e., the requester and any other
[[Page 46041]]
real parties in interest). The statement would be required to be
submitted electronically according to the parameters established by the
Office and published on the website of the Office. To be consistent
with 35 U.S.C. 301(e) and 302, proposed 37 CFR 1.510(b)(7) would
further permit the statement identifying all real parties in interest
to be excluded from the patent and reexamination files and kept
confidential upon request. The requirements of proposed Sec.
1.510(b)(7) would apply only to a third party request for
reexamination, and would not apply to a reexamination request submitted
by a party that identifies itself in the request as the patent owner.
Although, Sec. 1.11(d) requires all papers relating to a reexamination
proceeding which have been entered of record in the patent or
reexamination file to be open to inspection by the general public, the
statement under proposed Sec. 1.510(b)(7) would not be entered of
record in the patent or reexamination file if a requester asks that it
be kept confidential. Accordingly, confidential information submitted
under proposed Sec. 1.510(b)(7) would not be made available to the
public under Sec. 1.11(d).
Determining whether a party is a real party in interest to the
request is a highly fact-dependent question that is determined on a
case-by-case basis. See Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPC
Corp., 897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see generally Taylor v.
Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008). For guidance in making this
determination under Sec. 1.510(b)(6) and proposed Sec. 1.510(b)(7),
parties may consult prevailing Federal Circuit precedent, precedential
and informative Board decisions, and Office guidance, including the
Office's Consolidated Trial Practice Guide concerning the determination
of real parties in interest in PTAB proceedings. See Trial Practice
Guide, October 2025, section I(D)(1), https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/trial-practice-guide.
V. Rulemaking Considerations
A. Administrative Procedure Act: This rulemaking would revise the
procedures governing the filing of a request for ex parte reexamination
with the Office to require a third party request for ex parte
reexamination to include a statement by the third party requester
identifying all real parties in interest to the ex parte reexamination
request. The proposed changes do not change the substantive criteria of
patentability. Therefore, the changes in this rulemaking involve rules
of agency practice and procedure and/or interpretive rules and do not
require notice-and-comment rulemaking, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).
See Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92, 97, 101 (2015)
(explaining that interpretive rules ``advise the public of the agency's
construction of the statutes and rules which it administers'' and do
not require notice-and-comment when issued or amended); Cooper Techs.
Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (5 U.S.C. 553,
and thus 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(B), do not require notice-and-comment
rulemaking for ``interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or
rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice''); In re Chestek
PLLC, 92 F.4th 1105, 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (noting that rule changes
that ``do[ ] not alter the substantive standards by which the USPTO
evaluates trademark applications'' are procedural in nature and thus
``exempted from notice-and-comment rulemaking''); JEM Broadcasting Co.
v. F.C.C., 22 F.3d 320, 328 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (``[T]he `critical
feature' of the procedural exception [in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)] `is that
it covers agency actions that do not themselves alter the rights or
interests of parties, although [they] may alter the manner in which the
parties present themselves or their viewpoints to the agency.' ''
(quoting Batterton v. Marshall, 648 F.2d 694, 707 (D.C. Cir. 1980))).
However, the USPTO has chosen to seek public comment before
implementing the rule to benefit from the public's input.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: For the reasons set forth herein,
the Senior Counsel for Regulatory and Legislative Affairs, Office of
General Law, of the USPTO has certified to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that changes in this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). This proposed rule would revise 37
CFR 1.510(b) to add a new provision requiring any third party request
for ex parte reexamination to include a statement by a third party
requester identifying all real parties in interest to the ex parte
reexamination request. Third party requesters can be any person other
than the owner of the patent being challenged. In fiscal year 2025, the
USPTO received 452 requests for ex parte reexamination. In 174 (38%) of
those 452 requests, the requesters paid the small entity fee. The USPTO
will consider those 174 requesters who paid the small entity fee to be
small entities for the purposes of this analysis. Ex parte
reexamination requests could involve any patent issued in any
technology area, thus the proposed new requirement may impact any
industry. Although a substantial number of small entities may be
impacted by the new requirement that third party requesters supply the
identity of the real parties in interest, the proposed new requirement
would result in only a de minimis additional burden on third party
requesters over the current certification practice. This proposed rule
does not impose any additional fees on impacted entities. Thus, for the
foregoing reasons, the changes in this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
C. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review): This
rulemaking has been determined to be significant under section 3(f)
Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993).
D. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review): The USPTO has complied with Executive Order 13563 (Jan. 18,
2011). Specifically, and as discussed above, the USPTO has, to the
extent feasible and applicable: (1) reasonably determined that the
benefits of the rule justify its costs; (2) tailored the rule to impose
the least burden on society consistent with obtaining the agency's
regulatory objectives; (3) selected a regulatory approach that
maximizes net benefits; (4) specified performance objectives; (5)
identified and assessed available alternatives; (6) involved the public
in an open exchange of information and perspectives among experts in
relevant disciplines, affected stakeholders in the private sector, and
the public as a whole, and provided online access to the rulemaking
docket; (7) attempted to promote coordination, simplification, and
harmonization across government agencies and identified goals designed
to promote innovation; (8) considered approaches that reduce burdens
while maintaining flexibility and freedom of choice for the public; and
(9) ensured the objectivity of scientific and technological information
and processes.
E. Executive Order 14192 (Deregulation): This regulation is not an
Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it results in de
minimis costs on respondents.
F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): This rulemaking pertains
strictly to federal agency procedures and does not contain policies
with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a
Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 1999).
G. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation): This rulemaking
will not: (1) have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian
tribes; (2) impose substantial direct compliance costs on
[[Page 46042]]
Indian tribal governments; or (3) preempt tribal law. Therefore, a
tribal summary impact statement is not required under Executive Order
13175 (Nov. 6, 2000).
H. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects): This rulemaking is not a
significant energy action under Executive Order 13211 because this
rulemaking is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of
Energy Effects is not required under Executive Order 13211 (May 18,
2001).
I. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform): This rulemaking
meets applicable standards to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity,
and reduce burden as set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988 (Feb. 5, 1996).
J. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children): This rulemaking
does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may
disproportionately affect children under Executive Order 13045 (Apr.
21, 1997).
K. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property): This
rulemaking will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Mar. 15, 1988).
L. Congressional Review Act: Under the Congressional Review Act
provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (5 U.S.C. 801, et seq.), the USPTO will submit a report containing
the final rule and other required information to the United States
Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the Government Accountability Office. The changes in this
rulemaking are not expected to result in an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, a major increase in costs or prices,
or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and
export markets. Therefore, this rulemaking is not expected to result in
a ``major rule'' as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
M. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995: The changes set forth in
this rulemaking do not involve a Federal intergovernmental mandate that
will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, of $100 million (as adjusted) or more in any one
year, or a Federal private sector mandate that will result in the
expenditure by the private sector of $100 million (as adjusted) or more
in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. See 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.
N. National Environmental Policy Act: This rulemaking will not have
any effect on the quality of the environment and is thus categorically
excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969. See 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
O. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act: The
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) are not applicable because
this rulemaking does not contain provisions which involve the use of
technical standards.
P. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: The Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA) requires that the USPTO consider
the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens
imposed on the public. The rules of practice pertaining to requests for
ex parte reexamination have been reviewed and approved by the OMB under
the PRA under OMB control number 0651-0064 (Patent Reexaminations,
Supplemental Examinations, and Post Patent Submissions). This OMB
control number will be updated if necessary to reflect this action.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required
to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure
to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements
of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
Q. E-Government Act Compliance: The USPTO is committed to
compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet
and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities
for citizen access to Government information and services, and for
other purposes.
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Biologics, Courts, Freedom
of information, Inventions and patents, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Small businesses.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the USPTO proposes to amend
37 CFR part 1 as follows:
PART 1--RULES OF PRACTICE IN PATENT CASES
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Section 1.501 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.501 Citation of prior art and written statements in patent
files.
* * * * *
(d) Identity: If the person making the submission under this
section wishes his or her identity to be excluded from the patent file
and kept confidential, the submission papers must be submitted
anonymously without any identification of the person making the
submission.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 1.510 is amended by adding new paragraph (b)(7) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.510 Request for ex parte reexamination.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(7) A separate statement by the third party requester identifying
all real parties in interest to the ex parte reexamination request. The
statement must be submitted according to the parameters established by
the Office. Upon the written request of the third party requester, the
statement will be excluded from the patent and reexamination files and
kept confidential.
* * * * *
John A. Squires,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of
the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2026-14793 Filed 7-21-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P