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Executive Summary: A missing confirmation number can complicate the transfer of an unpublished patent application even when the client has provided a properly executed power of attorney.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

Executive Summary: The USPTO’s transition to official electronic patent grants has eliminated physical delivery of the legal grant, although optional ceremonial paper copies remain available. A practitioner-reported USPTO estimate of approximately four months between issue-fee payment and grant raises questions about the remaining administrative process, without establishing a national average or the cause of the reported delays. Introduction A practitioner report that the

Executive Summary: The USPTO’s September 29, 2026 guidance on Subject Matter Eligibility Declarations (SMEDs) provides an opportunity to distinguish legally required corroboration from the factual support that makes inventor testimony persuasive. Drawing on Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions and USPTO examination guidance, this article develops a framework that evaluates each assertion according to its purpose, procedural setting, factual foundation, and connection t