Commenters Split on USPTO Proposal to Require RPI Disclosure for Reexams

Following the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO's) July 2026 proposal to require third-party requesters for ex parte reexamination (EPR) to identify all real parties in interest (RPIs), the 26 comments submitted to the Office reveal a sharp divide among the patent owners, tech companies, industry associations and individuals who weighed in, IPWatchdog reported on August 25, 2026. The comment period closed August 21, and the commenters included 17 organizations, associations or companies and 8 individuals (a duplicate comment was submitted by the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO)).

The Federal Register Notice published in July (91 Fed. Reg. 46,038, July 22, 2026; Docket No. PTO-P-2025-0545) proposed to amend the rules of practice — adding 37 C.F.R. Section 1.510(b)(7) — to require that third-party requests for EPR include a statement identifying all real parties in interest to the proceeding. According to the proposed rule, such statements would be kept confidential upon request and 'would provide the Office with a mechanism to evaluate statutory estoppel provisions' under 35 U.S.C. Sections 315(e)(1) and 325(e)(1), as well as 'enhance the Office's ability to respond to false certifications, misrepresentations, and fraud.' The Office also said it would 'take reasonable steps to ensure that any decision will not disclose the confidential information.'

Across the 17 comments submitted by IP groups, eight outright oppose the NPRM. The remaining comments either support, support with a request for more information, take no position, or urge caution in making changes. Many of the opponents contend that the Office has offered little evidence that estopped parties are actually exploiting anonymous reexamination, and that Congress deliberately created ex parte reexamination as an inexpensive proceeding available to 'any person,' coupled with protections for anonymity. BSA | The Software Alliance, for example, argued the proposal exceeds the Office's rulemaking authority — noting Congress imposed an RPI requirement on IPR petitioners but not on EPR requesters — and that the Office itself proposed and then declined to adopt a similar requirement in 2012. Supporters, by contrast, say the USPTO cannot police estoppel while remaining blind to RPI identity.

Nokia supported the proposed rule as advancing transparency, procedural integrity and faithful implementation of statutory estoppel, while suggesting additional guidance on who qualifies as an RPI. Adeia Inc. reported receiving 10 EPR requests against its patents in six months — all filed anonymously — and said it was forced to defend duly issued patents without knowing whether requesters were licensees, competitors, affiliates of estopped parties, or foreign-backed entities. The proposal fits a broader USPTO policy shift: in October 2025, Director John Squires designated Corning Optical as precedential, restoring the practice of requiring PTAB petitioners to identify all RPIs prior to institution, and in February 2026 the Office de-designated two conflicting PTAB decisions.

Original Link: https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/08/25/commenters-split-uspto-proposal-require-rpi-disclosure-reexams/