USPTO Proposed Rule Change -Identity of Real Party in Interest in Ex Parte Reexaminations (EPRs)
Who stands behind a patent challenge at the USPTO? The USPTO has proposed a rule change that could reshape one of the few remaining avenues for anonymously challenging the validity of a U.S. patent.
A proposed rule change by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) was published on July 22, 2026, in which the USPTO proposed to amend the Rules of Practice to require a third party request for Ex Parte Reexamination (EPR) to include a statement by the third party requester identifying all real parties in interest to the EPR request. The proposal is open to public comments until August 21, 2026.
According to the proposed rules, that statement would be kept confidential upon request. This proposed requirement would provide the USPTO with a mechanism to evaluate statutory estoppel provisions. It would also enhance the USPTO’s ability to respond to false certifications, misrepresentations, and fraud.
This proposed rule comes at a time when USPTO denials for Inter Parties Reviews (IPRs) are sharply increasing, causing patent challengers to turn to patent validity challenges using EPRs instead. An EPR allows the patent challenger only a very limited participation in the reexamination.
This limited participation includes initiating the reexamination by submitting a request for the reexamination, which is a statement why the claims of the challenged patent should be reexamined, the statement accompanied by references supporting claim invalidity.
The challenger’s request is typically also accompanied by declarations, for example, to establish the level of ordinary skill in the art, or to establish other facts. Should the patentee request denial of the EPR or make other statements, the challenger may submit responses thereto.
The present rule allows the EPR requester to remain anonymous, by filing the reexamination request through counsel, a Registered US Patent Attorney or Agent. Under the changed rule, this would no longer be the case.
Rather, by knowing the real party in interest in an EPR, the USPTO can limit a challenger to a patent to one invalidity challenge, in either a US Federal Court or the USPTO. Accordingly, the proposed rule change eliminates a challenger from multiple invalidity challenges, increasing efficiency of the Federal Courts and the USPTO in handling such challenges and overall reducing a patentee’s impediments in enforcing its patents.
