Since March 2026, an anonymous ex parte reexamination request against a patent that went through an inter partes review or post-grant review final decision should say the requester isn’t the earlier petitioner or tied to it. Without that statement, the filing date may be vacated. A rule proposed in July would go further and require naming every real party in interest.
Before you read
Is the rule requiring every reexamination requester to name its real parties in interest in force?
No. It was proposed on July 22, 2026, and comments closed August 21. The March 2026 notice is narrower: it covers anonymous requests against patents with an IPR or PGR final decision.
Part 1 of 4
A third party can ask for ex parte reexamination without revealing who it is, by filing through a registered practitioner. The practitioner certifies that IPR or PGR estoppel doesn’t bar the request. Estoppel is the rule that, after a final written decision in an IPR or PGR, the petitioner and those tied to it can’t raise grounds they raised or reasonably could have raised.
That IPR or PGR estoppel doesn’t bar the request, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(6).
With the requester unnamed, the Office can’t check whether it was the earlier petitioner or tied to it.
The problem: with an anonymous requester, the Office can’t tell whether that certification is right.
Part 2 of 4
A notice announced February 6, 2026 and published in the Official Gazette on March 3, 2026 says that if any claim has had an IPR or PGR final written decision, an anonymous request should include two things.
A real party in interest is the party actually directing or funding the request; a privy is a party legally tied to the earlier petitioner.
Part 3 of 4
On July 22, 2026, the Office proposed a broader rule: every third-party reexamination request would have to identify the requester and all other real parties in interest, with the statement kept confidential on request. Comments closed on August 21, 2026.
| March 2026 notice | July 2026 proposed rule | |
|---|---|---|
| Status | In effect | Proposed; not final as of Oct 16, 2026 |
| Covers | Anonymous requests against patents with an IPR or PGR final decision | Every third-party request |
| Requires | A statement that the requester isn’t the earlier petitioner, its RPI or privy, and the earlier proceedings identified | Identification of all real parties in interest, confidential on request |
Whether and when a final rule issues has not been announced.
Part 4 of 4
The takeaway
Anonymity has a cost now. Make the statement, or expect to lose the filing date.
Each item is marked in the story with a dashed outline. We update the story when the official record confirms or corrects it.
Precedential decisions bind the Board within their designated scope. Informative decisions show the Office’s reasoning but do not bind the Board. Court opinions are cited for what they decided; later history was checked on the date shown above.