USPTO Introduces New Pre-Order Procedure to Address Patent Reexamination Gaming Tactics

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has introduced new guidance establishing a "Pre-Order Procedure Regarding Substantial New Question Determination in Ex Parte Reexamination Proceedings," marking the agency's latest effort to address growing concerns about strategic gaming in patent challenge proceedings.

New Briefing Framework for Patent Owners

The April 1, 2026 guidance creates a new briefing option that allows patent owners to address third-party reexamination requests before the USPTO (search)Search term decides whether to grant or deny them. Under this pre-order procedure, patent owners can submit responses within 30 days of service, with submissions limited to 30 pages. The USPTO states this will enable the agency to make Substantial New Question (SNQ) determinations with direct input from patent owners.

Notably, the guidance restricts patent owners from including arguments about overlap with previous agency analyses under 325(d) during the pre-order phase, reserving such considerations for later in the process. Third-party requestors have no automatic right to respond to patent owner pre-order filings, though they may petition based on exceptional circumstances, such as addressing alleged misrepresentations that would materially impede the SNQ determination.

Strategic Gaming Concerns Persist

The new procedure emerges amid growing criticism of tactical maneuvering in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (search)Search term practice. A recent case study involving Western Digital (search)Search company and Godo Kaisha IP Bridge (search)Search term over U.S. Patent No. 11,968,909 illustrates the strategic challenges the USPTO (search)Search term faces. Western Digital filed an ex parte reexamination request just 48 hours after receiving an unfavorable final written decision in a related IPR proceeding, targeting the same claims with prior art references that were already known during the original IPR process.

This timing strategy exploits a potential gap in the estoppel framework under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e), which bars petitioners from raising grounds they "raised or reasonably could have raised" only after a final written decision issues. By filing reexamination requests before the IPR concludes, petitioners attempt to avoid estoppel provisions entirely.

Implementation Challenges and Strategic Implications

The guidance carries significant practical implications for both patent owners and challengers. For patent owners, the 30-day response window creates pressure to quickly develop comprehensive arguments addressing all substantial new questions. Patent owners engaged in parallel litigation face particular challenges, as creating substantial prosecution history through PTO engagement could influence stay motions and require premature disclosure of claim construction theories.

Historical data suggests limited effectiveness for patent owners, with third-party challengers succeeding in presenting SNQs more than 92% of the time over four decades. The guidance cannot alter the statutory SNQ standard, which sets a lower bar than the prima facie framework applied later in reexamination proceedings.

For third parties, the procedure introduces new strategic considerations. If pre-order briefing becomes common, reexamination costs will increase for all parties. Requestors may respond by including more SNQs in their initial requests to complicate patent owner responses, further escalating expenses.

Limitations of Current Reform

Industry observers note that while the pre-order procedure represents an important first step, it fails to address the most problematic gaming tactics. The real concern involves repackaging failed IPRs as reexaminations using non-SNQ related strategies, which fall outside the scope of this guidance.

The USPTO (search)Search term retains authority under 35 U.S.C. § 315(d) to manage overlapping proceedings by staying, consolidating, or terminating them during IPR pendency. However, the effectiveness of this authority depends on timing and the Director's willingness to intervene in cases where reexamination appears to function as a fallback mechanism rather than a legitimate new challenge.

Industry Impact and Future Considerations

The guidance represents the USPTO (search)Search term's ongoing effort to balance efficient patent challenge procedures with preventing abuse of the system. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (search)Search term was designed to provide finality in patent validity determinations, but strategic use of parallel proceedings threatens this objective.

As the patent community adapts to these new procedures, the effectiveness of the pre-order briefing system will depend largely on how consistently the USPTO (search)Search term applies the guidance and whether additional reforms address the broader structural vulnerabilities in the current framework. The agency's response to ongoing cases involving strategic reexamination timing will signal whether this represents meaningful reform or merely incremental adjustment to existing practices.