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

At the PTAB Blog

Goodbye ARC and Hello CJP: USPTO Creates Interim Process for PTAB Decision Circulation and Review

June 27, 2022

Authored and Edited by Trenton A. Ward; Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.; David Lebby†

On May 26, 2022, the USPTO issued guidance on an interim process for PTAB decision circulation and internal PTAB review. The guidance replaces the PTAB’s previous internal decision review committee, referred to as the AIA Review Committee (ARC), with a Circulation Judge Pool (CJP).  The CJP is charged with reviewing AIA institution decisions, AIA final written decisions, and some categories of ex parte appeal decisions.  Highlights of the CJP review process include:

  • Each decision reviewed by at least 2 CJP Judges
  • CJP open to any non-management PTAB Judge
  • Eight PTAB Judges on CJP, each serving for one-year terms
  • CJP comments are suggestions and not binding on the panel

The CJP is chosen to represent the entire pool of judges, including those with diverse technical backgrounds and professional experiences. The PTAB Executive Management consults with the Lead Judges in selecting Judges to serve on the CJP.

The CJP has regular meetings with PTAB Executive Management to discuss potentially conflicting panel decisions and general areas for potential policy clarification. For policy clarification and consideration purposes, the PTAB Executive Management may discuss certain issues with the Director.

Modeled after the Federal Circuit’s ten-day circulation process, CJP review is intended to provide feedback on decisions prior to issuance, such as potential conflicts and inconsistencies with relevant authority. However, unlike the Federal Circuit’s process, which allows reviewers to hold a decision from issuance, the panel retains authority to issue a decision regardless of CJP feedback. Thus, the panel has final authority for their decision and determines whether to incorporate suggestions from the CJP.  The CJP may only identify notable decisions to PTAB Executive Management for consideration of post-issuance review. “[T]he interim process makes clear that the Director is not involved, pre-issuance, in directing or otherwise influencing panel decisions.”

This is an interim process, in use “until the USPTO receives stakeholder feedback and operationally formalizes the process.” Questions can be submitted by email to Trials@uspto.gov.  

Tags

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

Related Practices

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Prosecution and Portfolio Management

Appeals to the PTAB

Related Offices

Atlanta, GA

London

Contacts

Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.
Partner
London
+44 (0)20 7864 2814
Email

†David Lebby is a Summer Associate at Finnegan.

Copyright © 2022 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Lecture

Munich Licensing Summer Course 2026

June 18-19, 2026

Munich

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

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Before the Holding, the Message: Director Squires Uses Magnolia Medical to Outline PTAB Discretionary Denial Policy Changes

May 20, 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