直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Article

Critical Things to Know About Director Review Practice at the USPTO

October 22, 2024

Intellectual Asset Management (IAM)

By Cory C. Bell; Kassandra M. Officer; William C. Neer

The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a final rule formalizing the Director Review process for Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions, which had been operating on an interim basis following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in United States v. Arthrex Inc. This new rule ensures that practitioners can rely on the Director Review process moving forward. The final rule, titled "Rules Governing Director Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions," aligns closely with the interim procedures used over the past three years. No major changes are expected soon, but data from prior Director Review decisions can guide future legal strategies. In this article, Cory Bell, Kassandra Officer and William Neer discuss the final rule and provide key takeaways. Click here to read. 

Tags

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)

Related Practices

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Related Offices

Boston, MA

Washington, DC

Related Professionals

Cory C. Bell
Partner
Boston, MA
+1 617 646 1641
Email
Kassandra M. Officer
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4270
Email
William C. Neer
Associate
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4054
Email

Originally printed in IAM on October 22, 2024. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm’s clients.

Related Insights

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Lecture

Munich Licensing Summer Course 2026

June 18-19, 2026

Munich

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

IPBC Global 2026

June 15-17, 2026

San Diego

Conference

2026 Copyright Society Annual Meeting

June 14-16, 2026

Louisville

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP