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 Tightens “Unintentional Delay” Petitions — 1-Year Time Period Now Triggers Heightened Scrutiny

June 23, 2026

Authored and Edited by Mary C. Till; Aaron J. Capron

For publication in the Federal Register of June 24, 2026, having an effective of August 13, 2026, the USPTO is issuing a final rule to significantly tighten its review of petitions based on “unintentional delay.” For petitions filed on or after August 13, 2026, the USPTO will require additional evidentiary support—and impose higher fees—for petitions filed more than one year after a missed deadline, replacing the prior two-year threshold.

The USPTO explains the policy rationale behind the rule change. The Final Rule is intended to:

  • Increase certainty and predictability of patent rights
  • Reduce disruption to third parties who may rely on:
    • Abandoned applications
    • Expired patents
    • Missing priority claims
  • Ensure that only delays that are genuinely “unintentional” result in revival or reinstatement

Key Changes

1. Reduced Time Period for Heightened Scrutiny

The USPTO has shortened the period after which it will question whether a delay was truly “unintentional”:

  • Old rule: Additional information required if delay > 2 years
  • New rule: Additional information required if delay > 1 year

This applies to petitions involving:

  • Revival of abandoned applications and reexamination proceedings under 37 C.F.R. § 1.137
  • Acceptance of delayed maintenance fee payments under 37 C.F.R. § 1.378
  • Delayed priority or benefit claims under 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.55(e) and 1.78(c) or (e)
  • Missed deadlines in international design applications under 37 C.F.R. § 1.1051

2. Expanded Evidentiary Requirements

For petitions filed more than one year after the relevant deadline, applicants must now:

  • Provide a detailed explanation of the entire period of delay
  • Demonstrate that the delay was unintentional in fact, not merely assert it

The USPTO continues to accept applicant certifications in routine cases, but views longer delays as inherently raising doubt about intent.

3. Earlier Trigger for Higher Petition Fees

The rule also revises the fee structure:

  • The higher petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) now applies when a petition is filed more than one year after the missed action
  • Previously, this fee applied only after two years

This change reinforces the USPTO’s objective of encouraging prompt corrective filings.

4. No Safe Harbor Below One Year

Importantly, the one-year threshold is not a safe harbor:

  • The USPTO retains discretion to require additional information at any time where it questions whether a delay was unintentional

Tags

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Related Practices

Prosecution and Portfolio Management

Related Offices

Palo Alto, CA

Washington, DC

Contacts

Mary C. Till
Of Counsel
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4125
Email
Aaron J. Capron
Partner
Palo Alto, CA
+1 650 849 6680
Email

Copyright © 2026 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

Webinar

PTAB Developments and Their Impact on Parallel Litigation: Strategic Considerations

August 26, 2026

Webinar

Webinar

A Year of Change for Post-Grant Patent Challenges: Key PTAB and CRU Developments, and Strategic Implications

August 19, 2026

Webinar

Articles

Blaker v. NetScout Systems: A Narrow Reading of the Pen Register and Trap and Trace Provisions of the California Invasion of Privacy Act in California State Court

July 29, 2026

Conference

13th Annual Summit for Women Leaders in Life Sciences Law

July 29-30, 2026

Boston

IP Updates

Too Concrete to Fail: Ceiva’s Guidance on the Use of Sufficiently Concrete Structures to Overcome Section 101 Rejections

July 28, 2026

Articles

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

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: June 2026

July 28, 2026

Articles

Highlights and Implications of the UK Corporate Plan for the UKIPO

July 17, 2026

Articles

This Article Was Written Entirely by AI — Welcome to Synthetic Patent Litigation

July/August 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

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