August 4, 2023
Authored and Edited by Adriana L. Burgy; Stacy Lewis†
In March 2022, the USPTO issued a statement terminating relations with the Federal Service for Intellectual Property (“Rospatent”) and with the Eurasian Patent Organization.[1] The USPTO also terminated relations with the National Intellectual Property Office of Belarus.
As a result, the USPTO will no longer grant requests to participate in the Global Patent Prosecution Highway (GPPH) when such requests are based on earlier examination work performed by Rospatent. In addition, pending cases in which, prior to March 11, 2022, the USPTO granted special status under the GPPH to applications based on work performed by Rospatent, will be removed from special status and returned to regular processing and examination; they will no longer be treated as GPPH applications at the USPTO.
Additionally, applicants filing PCT applications may want to reconsider plans to select Rospatent as an International Searching Authority (ISA) or International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA). The USPTO statement warns that “[d]oing so may prevent successful processing of international applications under the PCT, including the transmittal of required fees through financial institutions.” A notice by the USPTO Office of Policy and International Affairs also warns of US prohibitions on transactions with Russian financial institutions, although the US Treasury Department has authorized certain IP-related transactions in Russia, including the fling and prosecution of any application to obtain a patent, trademark, or copyright, as well as the payment of renewal and maintenance fees.[2]
Those seeking patent protection in Russia should consider whether such effort is justified when enforcement is highly uncertain. As outlined in an earlier post, “Taking a Long-Term View on Russia’s Patent Landscape,” Russia’s Decree 299 allows the government to grant compulsory licensing without any compensation to the patent holder from an “unfriendly” country to Russia, including the United States, Great Britain, European Union members, and Australia. Decree 299 also allows non-authorized distributors to import original goods into Russia without the consent of the right holder.
[1] See, https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-statement-engagement-russia-and-eurasian-patent-organization
[2] https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/OPIA-Bulletin-Russia.pdf
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Patent Prosecution Highway, Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)
†Stacy Lewis is a Law Clerk at Finnegan.
Copyright © 2023 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.
Articles
California Reaches Record $12.75 Million CCPA Settlement with General Motors Over Driver Data
June 4, 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
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.