USPTO lays ground for review of Fintiv rules

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

USPTO lays ground for review of Fintiv rules

Kathi Vidal
Kathi Vidal

The USPTO's plans to file an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking related to Fintiv are pending regulatory review

The USPTO has indicated that it plans to initiate regulatory action related to Fintiv, it has emerged.

In a filing with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) on Thursday, March 9, the USPTO said it would publish an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM).

An ANPRM is a preliminary notice that an agency is considering regulatory action. The exact nature of the planned rule changes are unclear but could include draft language of what potential rulemaking will look like and can ask the public what issues it should address.

The OIRA, which reviews draft rules submitted by federal agencies, has 90 days from the date of filing to review requests, although this period can be extended.

The USPTO said its ANPRM would not be economically significant. The OIRA will have to determine whether that’s the case, which is important because agencies must provide more detail if changes are deemed to be economically significant.

Actions are economically significant if they’re likely to have a yearly effect of at least $100 million on the economy, or if the OIRA believes they will materially adversely affect the economy.

If the OIRA doesn’t spot any issues, the USPTO will likely initiate its ANPRM related to Fintiv – the rule introduced in 2020 that compels Patent Trial and Appeal Board judges to discretionarily deny inter partes reviews on the basis that parallel district court cases will finish first.

The office implemented interim guidance in July 2022 addressing Fintiv.

That guidance severely limited when the board could use Fintiv to deny petitions. But the USPTO stated at the time that it would soon explore potential rulemaking on proposed approaches through an ANPRM – which it’s now doing.

News of the ANPRM comes amid a busy time for Fintiv-related matters.

In a judgment yesterday, March 13, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that tech companies could challenge instructions related to Fintiv because they were issued without notice-and-comment rulemaking.

Notice-and-comment rulemaking requires agencies to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, but they can issue ANPRMs first to get more information.

If businesses were to prevail on these challenges, the notice-and-comment rulemaking process would be crucial for Fintiv’s survival.

Managing IP will provide further analysis on the Federal Circuit’s ruling in the coming days.


more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

IP STARS, Managing IP’s accreditation title, reveals its latest rankings for patent work, including which firms are moving up
Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Gift this article