2026 Recent Activity on Patents from USPTO

By Sahil Chiniwala

1.      Fast Track Appeals Pilot

a.      The Fast Track Appeals Pilot is an existing program that the USPTO extended to end May 6th, 2028. This program is designed to expedite ex parte appeals to the PTAB, and its only requirement is that petitioners currently have an application in appeal and that they pay the $452 fee associated with the fast tracking. In the last 6 years, the PTAB has granted approximately 600 fast track appeals with an average decision time of 3 months. Under the extension, the USPTO is maintaining a policy of accepting a maximum of 125 fast track applications per quarter and have currently granted 0 petitions this quarter (starting on May 6th, 2026). This is the third extension for the Fast Track Appeals Pilot program, with the first extension happening on July 12th, 2021, and the second on October 4th, 2022. The petition for Fast Track Appeal must be filed with the USPTO’s electronic filing system, and the USPTO has a target of issuing decisions within 4 months of when the petition is granted. Once the petition is granted and a hearing has been scheduled, the hearing cannot be delayed without the application being removed from the Fast Track program. Program Information

2.      PIERS Pilot

a.      The PIERS Pilot program is a program designed to expedite the processing of international utility patents by selecting certain pending applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) and entering them into the program. Entrance into the program is solely at the discretion of the USPTO. Once an application is entered into the program, the USPTO will send the applicant a requirement for information form asking whether the applicant would like to (a) proceed with the examination, (b) delay examination for 12 months, or (c) expressly terminate the application. Failure to respond to the requirement for information will result in the application being terminated.

PDF download link -Requirement for Information Form

3.      Pre-Docketing Notice Pilot

a.      The Pre-Docketing Notice Pilot is another program implemented by the USPTO to streamline the utility patent application process and make it more transparent for applicants. Under this program, nonprovisional utility patent applicants will receive a notice 3 months before their application is expected to be docketed before an examiner. Taking no action will result in the application proceeding as normal, but the notice gives applicants an opportunity to withdraw, amend, and/or verify information related to their application to avoid foreseeable rejections. The goal of the program is to mitigate wasted resources by the USPTO. Program Information

4.      Suggestion to Include SMEDs

a.      At the end of last year on December 4th, 2025, the USPTO director issued a memorandum encouraging patent applicants to submit Subject Matter Eligibility Declarations (SMED) with or following their patent applications, specifically in the fields of machine learning, medical diagnostics, and crypto technology. Critically, under ex parte Desjardins the USPTO reiterated that the Alice framework for patentable subject matter that includes abstract ideas or laws of nature still applies to these areas. This means that a SMED should not only answer foreseeable objections concerning whether the invention contains a process, material, machine, or article of manufacture but also objections on the grounds that the invention does not contain additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. Ultimately, this memorandum is just a recommendation but gives insight on potential ways to pre-empt 35 USC §101 rejections to patent applications.

PDF download link -  Memorandum

5.      Recent Denials of IPR

a.      AIA Related to Foreign Governments

                                                              i.      USPTO in Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. v. LG Display Co., Ltd. Issued a decision that reinforced the idea that foreign countries are not permitted to be petitioners or real party interests (RPI) in any post-grant proceedings. This aligns with the idea that the US is not allowed to be petitioners or RPIs in post-grant proceedings and ensures that foreign states are not given more power to deny patent protection in the US than the US itself. Ultimately, this decision was made on the grounds that a company had an RPI that was a foreign government, but exactly the extent of control a company needs to have over a subsidiary to qualify as an RPI remains unclarified. -- PDF download link -- Tianma Case and --PDF download link-- Identifying RPIs

b.     IPR as an Alternative to Litigation (Consistency)

                                                              i.      The USPTO also issued four relevant decisions denying IPR for two different reasons. The first case outlines the director's opinions on several related issues with IPR that have created additional challenges for smaller entities to maintain their patents. To combat this, the director issued a decision maintaining that IPRs are not intended to give large companies a “second bite at the apple” after they had lost in litigation. USPTO Decision. The other three decisions were PTAB decisions where the director mandated that a while a challenger is allowed to bring action in district court concurrently with an IPR, it needs to ensure that the arguments that it makes in both forums are non-contradictory and that its positions on different issues are either the same or at the very least consistent. USPTO Decision.

6.      Director Review Process

a.      The USPTO has changed their policy on director review from requiring the request for review to be filed within 14 days of an entry of final decision or decision not to institute trial to allowing the request for review within 30 days of the same. Director Review only applies to inter-party reviews, post-grant reviews, and derivation proceedings and only applies to decisions with “(a) an abuse of discretion, (b) important issues of law or policy, (c) erroneous findings of material fact, or (d) erroneous conclusions of law.” Director Review Process (See Requesting Director Review --> Timing).

7.      Foreign Applications

a.      Similarly to other countries, the USPTO is now requiring foreign applicants and owners to be represented by a patent practitioner. The aim of this policy is to reduce the quantity of resources that is expended by the USPTO in assisting pro se applicants and increase overall efficiency. Federal Register and eCFR (See 1.32(a)(1)).

8.      Unintentionally Abandoned Applications

a.      The USPTO has always required additional information when reviving unintentionally abandoned applications, delayed maintenance fee payments, or delayed priority and benefit claims that were delayed by more than 2 years. The USPTO is changing that practice to now require additional information stipulating the unintentionality of the abandonment for revivals within 1 year of abandonment. This change is aimed at increasing the efficiency of the USPTO by ensuring that abandoned applications are not being unnecessarily revived. Federal Register.