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

Prosecution First Blog

Update: Central Reexamination Unit

July 05, 2016

Authored and Edited by Adriana L. Burgy; Hongbiao Yu, Ph.D.

In a recent Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) Quarterly Meeting held on May 5, 2016, the USPTO provided an update on the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU). This update included the current composition of the CRU, the history of the CRU, the impact of America Invents Act (AIA) on the CRU, statistics on supplemental examination, ex parte reexamination and reissue applications, CRU operations, and the future of the CRU. Summarized below are some of the highlights of the CRU update.

The CRU currently has 10 Supervisory Patent Examiners, and 84 Primary Patent Examiners with an average of 15-20 years of examining experience. With the implementation of AIA, the CRU handles supplemental examination. As of May 5, 2016, the CRU received 111 compliant supplemental examination requests. The average time from the date of filing to conclusion of the supplemental examination proceeding is about 1 month.

The CRU also handles ex parte reexamination proceedings. It currently has about 435 pending ex parte reexaminations. The average time from filing to issuance of an order granting or denying ex parte reexamination is about 1.3 months. The average time from ex parte reexamination request filing to issuance of a Notice of Intent to Issue ex parte Reexamination Certificate (NIRC) with no prior patent owner appeal to the PTAB is about 11.4 months. The average time from ex parte reexamination request filing to issuance of an NIRC with appeal to the PTAB is about 21 months.

The CRU also handles reissue applications. In 2014, the CRU took over responsibility for examination of all newly filed reissue applications. In 2015, the majority of pending reissue applications were transferred from the technology centers to the CRU. Currently, the CRU handles about 2000 reissued applications, among which about 300 were filed this fiscal year. The oldest reissue applications are examined first.

The CRU closely monitors all pending and concluded PTAB post grant proceedings and reviews all PTAB determinations before taking any action in an ex parte reexamination or reissue application involving the same patent.

Currently, the CRU technical support staff (paralegals and legal instrument examiners) process all deposited ex parte Reexamination and Supplemental Examination Requests and determines compliance with filing date requirements. The Office Patent Application Processing (OPAP) and technology center legal instrument examiners process reissue applications and determine filing date requirements.

Each ex parte reexamination request, supplemental examination request, or reissue application is assigned to a single CRU examiner based on the technology. Before mailed, all substantive Office Actions are reviewed, conferenced and signed by a three person panel consisting of (1) the assigned examiner, (2) a conferee examiner working in the same technology, and (3) a CRU supervisor.

To view the USPTO’s information on the May 5, 2016, PPAC meeting, please click here.

Tags

ex parte reexamination, supplemental examination

Related Practices

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

Ex Parte Reexamination (EPR)

Prosecution and Portfolio Management

Contacts

Adriana L. Burgy
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4345
Email

Copyright © 2016 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

Articles

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

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 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

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

May 20, 2026

Articles

COPPA’s Amended Rule Is Now in Full Effect: What Operators Need to Know

May 15, 2026

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Netflix Prevails in Copyright Infringement Suit Regarding Tiger King

May 14, 2026

Workshop

Protecting Innovation in the Life Sciences: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law

May 7, 2026

Cambridge

Articles

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update, March 2026

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: March 2026

May 4, 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