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

USPTO Linking Post Grant Proceedings to Related, Pending Applications

April 29, 2016

Authored and Edited by Adriana L. Burgy; Stephanie M. Sanders

As part of its Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative (EPQI), the USPTO is implementing a new program that will identify pending applications that are related to a patent at issue in a post grant proceeding and provide any prior art raised in that proceeding to the examiner handling the pending, related case.

The Office discussed the Post Grant Outcomes Pilot Program a number of times this year, including during an Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative Update at the February 2016 Public Patent Advisory Committee Quarterly Meeting and the January 12, 2016 Patent Quality Chat. At the April 27, 2016 Patent Quality Community Symposium, the USPTO provided additional details about the pilot and announced that the program will kick off within a few days of the Symposium.

The Office’s stated goal of the Post Grant Outcomes Pilot Program is to learn from all post grant proceedings and inform examiners of their outcomes. The program includes three objectives:

  1. Enhanced Patentability Determinations in Related Child Cases
  2. Targeted Examiner Training
  3. Examining Corps Education

Enhanced Patentability Determinations in Related Child Cases

As noted above, the USPTO will identify pending, continuing applications that are related to patents that are the subject of one or more PTAB post grant proceedings and provide examiners with the petition, including prior art and expert witness information, submitted during that proceeding. As of the date of the Symposium, the USPTO already identified 300-400 pending applications that meet the pilot program criteria. Examiners can expect to start receiving access to the relevant petitions in those cases shortly. The USPTO plans for examiners to eventually have seamless access to the petition information in these cases through their desktop systems.

It is notable that examiners will only receive access to the filed petition, not any later-filed papers, such as a patent owner response, or the board’s final decision. For the initial iteration of the pilot program, the applicant of the related, pending case will not receive any notice from the examiner that he or she has received post grant outcome information to consider during examination of the application; rather, the Office believes that the existence of the pilot program is sufficient notice that this type of information will be available for the examiner’s use as he or she sees fit.

Targeted Examiner Training

The USPTO plans to collect data on whether, and how, examiners use post grant proceeding petition information in examining related, continuing applications. The data will be used to identify best practices for using post grant petitions during examination and create targeted examiner training on prior art searching techniques, additional sources of prior art, and claim interpretation.

Examining Corps Education

Currently, the USPTO provides a year-end review of patent case law. To supplement this program, information from the post grant outcomes pilot program, as well as trends and information related to outcomes of reissue and reexamination proceedings and litigation, will be used to create training for the entire examining corps, including periodic reviews of post grant outcomes focusing on technology sectors. The Office hopes that these programs will provide examiners with a fuller understanding of post-grant proceedings.

Tags

patent quality, pilot program

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

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Webinar

Successful Strategies to Win Alice Motions and Fee Awards in Patent Cases Against Non-Practicing Entities

July 22, 2026

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands Infringement and Damages Judgment After Erroneous Verdict Form and Eligibility Analysis

July 8, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

“2” Does Not Provide Written Description Support for “1”: Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patent

July 8, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for March–May 2026

July 2, 2026

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue

July 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Deadline Evolution: Director Extends Deadline for Requesting Director Review of Institution Grants to 30 Days

June 30, 2026

Articles

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

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: May 2026

June 30, 2026

Articles

How Low Can You Go? Courts Lower Marking Defense Burden, Raising Patent Damages Risks

June 29, 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