The rules are out: key provisions of new USPTO procedures

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

The rules are out: key provisions of new USPTO procedures

The USPTO’s proposed rules for post grant review, inter partes review, transitional covered business methods programme and derivation proceedings have been posted on the Office’s website

The Office must implement the rules by September this year and March next year.

Managing IP picks out the most important aspects for patent applicants and practitioners.

Fees

Petition for inter partes review

estimated cost to prepare petition: $46,000;

filing fee for 20 or fewer claims: $27,200;

21 to 30 claims: $34,000;

31 to 40 claims: $40,800;

41 to 50 claims: $54,400;

51 to 60 claims: $68,000;

additional groups of 10 claims: $27,200 per group;

cost of a motion, opposition, or reply: $47,600.

Total = at least $73,200



Petition for post-grant review or transitional review of a covered business method

estimated cost of preparing the petition: $61,333;

filing fee for 20 or fewer claims: $35,800;

21 to 30 claims: $44,750;

31 to 40 claims: $53,700;

41 to 50 claims: $71,600;

51 to 60 claims: $89,500;

additional groups of 10 claims: $35,800 per group;

filing a patent owner preliminary response to a petition for review: $34,000;

request for reconsideration of refusal to institute review: $27,200;

cost of a motion, opposition, or reply: $44,200.

Total = at least $97,133

Derivation proceedings

estimated cost to prepare a petition: $61,333;

cost of motion, opposition, or reply: $34,000.

General

cost per party for oral hearings: $6,800;

requests to treat a settlement as business confidential: $680;

requests for adverse judgment: $340;

arbitration agreements and awards: $1,360;

requests to make a settlement agreement available: $740;

submission of a copy of a notice of appeal or a notice of election: $34.


Estimated aggregate burden on the public of implementing proposed rules in FY 2013

Inter partes review: $54.1 million

Derivation proceedings: $11,865,210

Post grant review: $22,761,410

Timing

Inter partes review

Petition must be filed after the later of:

(1) the date that is nine months after the date of the grant of the patent or of the issuance of the reissue patent; or

(2) if a post-grant review is instituted, the date of the termination of such post-grant review.

Post-grant review

Petition must be filed no later than the date that is nine months after the date of the grant of a patent or of the issuance of a reissue patent. A petition, however, may not request a post-grant review for a claim in a reissue patent that is identical to or narrower than a claim in the original patent from which the reissue patent was issued unless the petition is filed not later than the date that is nine months after the date of the grant of the original patent.

Derivation

Petition must be filed within one year after the first publication of a claim to an invention that is the same or substantially the same as the earlier application’s claim to the allegedly derived invention.

Transitional covered business method programme

Petition may be filed any time except during the period in which a petition for a post-grant review of the patent has been filed in accordance with the statute.

Discovery

Default scheduling orders will provide for limited discovery including depositions of witnesses submitting affidavits and declarations. Additional discovery will be granted rarely, on a case by case basis, upon a showing that it is in “the interests of justice” and would not be an economic burden on the opposing party.

Pro hac vice admission

Non-registered practitioners may be admitted pro hac vice, on a case-by-case basis based on the facts and circumstances of the trial and party, as well as the skill of the practitioner.


Likeliest users

Based on the filing trends of inter partes reexamination requests, it is anticipated that petitions for inter partes review and post grant review will be filed across all technologies with approximately 50% being filed in electrical technologies, approximately 30% in mechanical technologies, and the remaining 20% in chemical technologies and design.”


more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

In an exclusive interview, Rouse CEO Luke Minford, Arnold & Siedsma managing partner Steve Duxbury, and Wrays executive chairman Gary Cox discuss plans to build the world’s first ‘truly integrated’ global IP services business
Benjamin Grzimek, partner at Casalonga’s new Düsseldorf office, believes the firm is well-placed to challenge German UPC dominance
A lot of the reporting around the Anthropic settlement misses something critical: it isn’t that relevant to AI training, argues Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard
Justin Hill and Marie Jansson Heeks, part of an 18-strong team to have joined Crowell & Moring, explain why IP client advice must go beyond only being called upon for patent disclosure
To mark the EUIPO having processed five million EUTM and REUD applications, Managing IP speaks to the most prolific representatives to uncover how they stay at the top of their game
The merger marks Rouse’s second M&A deal within a month, and will provide access to Arnold & Siedsma’s UPC offering
Simon Tønners explains why IP provides the chance to work with some of the most passionate, risk-taking, and emotionally invested clients
The co-leaders of the firm’s new SEP practice group say the team will combine litigation and prosecution expertise to guide clients through cross-border challenges
Boasting four former Spruson & Ferguson leaders and with offices in Hong Kong and Singapore, the IP firm aims to provide fast, practical advice to clients
Partners at three law firms explain why trade secrets cases are rising, and how litigation is giving clients a market advantage
Gift this article