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

Patent Litigation Europe 2027

January 18-20, 2027

Amsterdam

Conference

IP Life Sciences Forum 2026

December 13-15, 2026

Coral Gables

Webinar

Data and Market Exclusivity: An Update on China’s New Law and Comparisons to the US and Europe

November 19, 2026

Webinar

Conference

NAPABA Convention 2026

November 12-14, 2026

Los Angeles

Seminar

The Augmented Practice 2026: Balancing AI Opportunity, Governance, and Risk

November 5, 2026

San Francisco

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Hybrid Seminar

Annual Intellectual Property Law Section Fall Seminar

October 16, 2026

Alexandria

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 5 of 6: Special Considerations for Third-Party Requesters

October 14, 2026

Webinar

2026 Inventive Step in Europe and the US: Comparing the UPC, EPO and National Approaches

October 14, 2026

Webinar

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