Executive Summary: Paying small-entity fees when undiscounted fees were required does not automatically invalidate a U.S. patent, but the error can create correction obligations, financial exposure, and enforceability risks. The analysis begins with eligibility when the relevant fees were paid, particularly the issue fee and maintenance fees; an applicant’s status on the patent’s grant date alone does not establish that an earlier payment was improper. Good-faith errors may b

Executive Summary: PCT unity of invention and ordinary U.S. restriction practice apply different tests for determining which inventions may be examined together. PCT unity turns on a shared inventive technical relationship, while ordinary U.S. restriction requires independent or distinct inventions and a serious search or examination burden. Neither standard is uniformly more favorable. A U.S. national-stage application under 35 U.S.C. § 371 receives unity analysis, whereas a

Executive Summary: The USPTO’s PCT Informed Examination Request (PIER) pilot requires selected U.S. national-stage applicants to choose whether to proceed with examination, defer examination for twelve months, or expressly abandon the application after considering the international work products. Selection considers application age and pendency in the relevant technology area, with a preference for applications containing X- or Y-category references; favorable international f

Executive Summary: A missing confirmation number can complicate the transfer of an unpublished patent application even when the client has provided a properly executed power of attorney. For ordinary confidential U.S. national applications, the missing number does not itself invalidate the appointment, but it can obstruct electronic filing and access to the prosecution record. This article explains how incoming counsel can recover the number from existing documents, submit an

Executive Summary: The USPTO should amend its reexamination rules to expressly permit electronic service by agreement, following the model already established for inter partes review. Although reexamination papers may be filed electronically, 37 C.F.R. § 1.248 provides no express electronic-service option, and the Central Reexamination Unit has publicly explained that its transmission provision permits first-class mail but excludes email and facsimile. This framework creates