USPTO Announces Key Leadership Changes and Procedural Updates in July 2026

On July 1, 2026, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) congratulated former Deputy Director Laura Peter on her nomination as Deputy Director General (DDG) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)’s Patents and Technology Sector. This appointment underscores the growing international engagement of USPTO leadership in global intellectual property governance.

Earlier in June, the USPTO announced a pivotal update to its Director Review process. Effective immediately, the deadline for decisions instituting trial has been extended from 14 days to 30 days. Furthermore, the Office may, under exceptional circumstances, grant additional extensions for filing requests for Director Review of institution decisions, provided that the trial has not progressed meaningfully. This procedural change aims to provide greater flexibility and thoroughness in post-institution reviews.

On June 25, USPTO Director Kathi Vidal delivered remarks at the Great American State Fair ribbon cutting, emphasizing the foundational role of innovation and intellectual property rights in driving American technological progress, national security, and economic prosperity since the nation’s founding.

In leadership developments, Deborah Stephens was appointed Chief Information Officer (CIO) of the USPTO on June 16. In this role, Stephens will serve as the principal advisor on the design, development, and management of the agency’s information systems and technology infrastructure.

A significant regulatory change will take effect on July 20, 2026, requiring all patent applicants and patent owners domiciled outside the United States or its territories to be represented by a registered patent practitioner. This mandate, published in the Federal Register (91 Fed. Reg. 13510, March 20, 2026), aims to ensure proper representation and procedural compliance by foreign applicants and owners.

Additionally, the USPTO revised its practice concerning petitions based on unintentional delay. As announced in the Federal Register (91 Fed. Reg. 37826, June 24, 2026), the Office now requires additional information for delays exceeding one year, a reduction from the previous two-year threshold. This change is intended to enhance the timeliness and integrity of patent prosecution.

The USPTO also launched the Standards Participation and Representation Kudos Pilot Program (91 Fed. Reg. 33155, June 3, 2026). Under this pilot, examination of certain patent applications and ex parte appeals to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) may be expedited if the U.S.-domiciled juristic applicant has meaningfully participated in a voluntary consensus-based standards development organization and meets specified criteria.

Several notable PTAB decisions were issued in June 2026. In Light & Wonder, Inc. v. Evolution Malta Ltd. (IPR2025-01072, -01073, -01078), the Director Review process was applied sua sponte to waive the deadline for filing requests for Director Review of institution decisions to 30 days, identify exceptional circumstances for further extensions, and vacate institution due to a district court’s prior invalidity finding of the challenged claims (Paper 30, June 22).

In Tesla, Inc. v. Bulletproof Property Management, LLC (IPR2026-00204, -00205, -00219, -00222, -00227, -00228, -00229), the PTAB declined to deny institution discretionarily. The decision considered factors including the vacated trial date in parallel district court litigation, a broad stipulation submitted by the petitioner, demonstrated Office error, early patent challenges, and evidence of U.S. manufacturing related to the accused products (Paper 14, June 15).

In Facebook, Inc. v. Express Mobile, Inc. (IPR2021-01226), the Delegated Director Review vacated the remand Final Written Decision, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-4 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168 B2 were unpatentable. The Board emphasized that where substantially the same evidence and arguments are presented in district court and PTAB proceedings, a different PTAB outcome requires a clear explanation, which was lacking (Paper 68, June 25).

Similarly, in Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. Pictiva Displays International Ltd. (IPR2024-01095), the PTAB vacated in part and remanded for further proceedings due to insufficient explanation for differing outcomes on claim 2 compared to the district court’s adjudication (Paper 63, June 22).

These developments reflect the USPTO’s commitment to procedural clarity, rigorous review standards, and international cooperation in patent administration.

For further information, contact David L. Cavanaugh, Partner and Vice Chair of the Intellectual Property Department and Chair of the Post-Grant Proceedings Group, at [email protected] or +1 202 663 6025, or Patrick Nyman, PhD, Senior Associate, at [email protected] or +1 202 663 6126.