PTAB Update | March 2026

Why It Matters

The rulings reshape litigation strategy by adding manufacturing location and size criteria to petition denials, and they could influence how courts assess double‑patenting rejections, affecting portfolio value and domestic innovation incentives.

Key Takeaways

• PTAB rehears Baurin to clarify double‑patenting standards
• USPTO now weighs U.S. manufacturing in IPR/PGR decisions
• Small challengers (<500 employees) must self‑identify for denial
• Policy links patent enforcement to domestic production incentives

Pulse Analysis

The PTAB’s decision to rehear Ex parte Baurin reflects growing judicial scrutiny of obviousness‑type double‑patenting, a doctrine sharpened by the Cellect and Allergan cases. By revisiting how patent term adjustments intersect with double‑patent rejections, the Board signals that examiners must balance statutory limits with policy goals, potentially tightening standards for overlapping claims. This development urges practitioners to reassess claim drafting and prosecution strategies to avoid costly post‑grant challenges.

Concurrently, the USPTO’s new discretionary‑denial criteria embed domestic manufacturing considerations into IPR and PGR petitions. Parties must now disclose whether the accused or patented products are made in the United States, and challengers with fewer than 500 employees must self‑identify as small businesses. This shift aligns patent enforcement with broader economic objectives, encouraging domestic production and providing a modest shield for smaller innovators against aggressive litigation.

Together, these policy moves reshape the U.S. patent landscape. The PTAB’s focus on double‑patenting precision may increase the frequency of pre‑grant rejections, prompting firms to invest earlier in freedom‑to‑operate analyses. Meanwhile, the manufacturing and size filters could alter the calculus of filing IPR or PGR actions, especially for foreign‑origin patents targeting U.S. markets. Companies that can demonstrate U.S. manufacturing or qualify as small businesses may gain strategic leverage, while others may need to adjust enforcement tactics to mitigate discretionary denial risks. The combined effect is a more nuanced, policy‑driven approach to patent quality and economic impact.