IP Intelligence

Home | IP Intelligence

As challengers increasingly turn to ex parte reexamination as an alternative to PTAB proceedings, the USPTO is adding greater scrutiny before reexamination begins. In April, the Office began allowing patent owners to submit pre-order papers before it determines whether a request raises a substantial new question of patentability. A recent decision now shows that procedure has teeth: The Office denied reexamination after finding the patent owner’s arguments persuasive. At the same time, a proposed rule would require third-party requesters to disclose all real parties in interest to the Office so it can evaluate statutory estoppel. These developments, along with the Office’s increasing consideration of whether the same prior art or arguments were previously presented via IPR, make the threshold stage increasingly important for both challengers and patent owners.

core/paragraph

Proposed Requester Disclosures and Estoppel Review

core/heading

Under existing regulations, a requester can use a registered practitioner to file anonymously, allowing the identity of the real party in interest to remain concealed from both the public and the Office. Under the <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/07/22/2026-14793/requirement-to-identify-all-real-parties-in-interest-to-a-third-party-request-for-an-ex-parte" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">proposed rule</a>, however, the USPTO would require a third-party requester to submit a separate statement identifying the requester and all real parties in interest to the reexamination request. The statement can be kept out of the publicly available patent and reexamination files upon request, and the Office says it intends to use data security measures to maintain that confidentiality.

The USPTO explained that Section 301(e) protects a requester’s identity from the public, not from the Office itself. Sections 315(e) and 325(e) may prevent a petitioner, real party in interest, or privy from later requesting or maintaining another Office proceeding, including ex parte reexamination, on grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in an IPR or PGR that resulted in a final written decision. To determine whether estoppel applies, the Office needs to know who is behind a request.

This concern is not theoretical. The USPTO noted that a significant number of recent reexamination requests concern patents previously challenged in America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings. The proposed rule would not apply to a patent owner seeking reexamination of its own patent, and it would not eliminate anonymous prior-art submissions under Section 1.501. It instead targets third-party requests under Section 1.510, where the Office believes the existing certification that estoppel does not apply may provide too little information to evaluate a disputed real-party-in-interest issue.

The proposal would change how practitioners evaluate anonymity before filing. A requester could still seek confidentiality from the public, but it would need to assume that the Office will know who is behind the request and that it may use that information to assess estoppel under Sections 315(e) and 325(e).

Prior Proceedings Can Matter Even Without Estoppel

An earlier AIA proceeding may also affect reexamination even when statutory estoppel never attaches. Section 325(d) allows the USPTO Director to reject a reexamination request when the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.

In a recent matter, the Office denied a reexamination request under Section 325(d) after an earlier IPR involving the same or substantially the same art or arguments had been denied on discretionary grounds without reaching the merits. That result illustrates a separate form of threshold scrutiny. In other words, while Sections 315(e) and 325(e) focus on whether the requester or a related party is estopped after a final written decision, Section 325(d) focuses on whether the art or arguments previously were presented and may apply even without a merits determination.

The First Fruits of the Pre-Order Procedure

The USPTO introduced the <a href="https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/og-preorder-snq-apr2026.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">pre-order procedure</a> in April in response to the increased volume of ex parte reexamination requests. Under the prior process, the Office generally made the substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) determination based on the request, without the benefit of patent-owner input. The new procedure allows a patent owner to explain why the teachings asserted in the request do not raise an SNQ before the Office decides whether to order reexamination.

A recent decision in ex parte reexamination 90/016,237 provides an early example of how the procedure can affect that determination. Unified Patents requested reexamination of claims 1 through 18 based on two obviousness grounds. Before the Office made its SNQ determination, patent owner Malikie Innovations Ltd. submitted a pre-order paper arguing that the references did not disclose all limitations of the challenged claims.

Malikie relied on the prosecution history and focused on limitations addressed before allowance. The USPTO denied the request, found that it did not raise an SNQ, and expressly found Malikie’s pre-order arguments persuasive.

The significance of this decision is not merely that the Office previously created an opportunity for an early patent-owner submission. Rather, the decision shows that a focused pre-order paper may influence whether reexamination begins at all. If a patent owner can identify a missing claim limitation or show that the asserted teaching is no stronger than what the Office previously considered, the Office may deny the request without even opening the proceeding.

For requesters, the initial filing matters more than ever. They should evaluate real-party-in-interest, estoppel, and Section 325(d) issues before filing and should assume that the patent owner may respond before the Office decides whether to order reexamination. A request relying on art similar to that considered during prosecution should clearly identify the new teaching and explain how it supplies any limitation that drove allowance.

For patent owners, the recent decision demonstrates the value of a focused pre-order paper. The submission should identify the relevant claim limitation, explain why the requester’s art does not supply it, and tie that deficiency directly to the SNQ standard.

As ex parte reexamination requests rise, the USPTO is developing additional ways to determine at the threshold which requests should proceed. Together, the proposed disclosure rule, Section 325(d) and the first application of the pre-order procedure make that stage increasingly important for requesters and patent owners.

As Ex Parte Reexamination Requests Rise, the USPTO Expands Its Threshold Review