# Anonymous reexam after an IPR decision now needs a statement.

Since March 2026, an anonymous ex parte reexamination request against a patent that went through an IPR or PGR 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.

Sources checked October 16, 2026

**2 steps** an anonymous request now needs after an IPR or PGR final decision: a statement and an identification of the earlier proceedings.

## Before you read

Is the rule requiring every reexamination requester to name its real parties in interest in force?

- Yes, since March 2026
- No: it was proposed in July 2026 and not yet final
- It was withdrawn

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.

## Why anonymity mattered

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. 35 U.S.C. §§ 315(e)(1), 325(e)(1)

The problem: with an anonymous requester, the Office can’t tell whether that certification is right.

## What the notice requires

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. USPTO notice, 1544 O.G. 128

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.

## What may come next

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. Proposed rule, 91 Fed. Reg. 46038

Whether and when a final rule issues has not been announced.

## What to do

## The takeaway

Anonymity has a cost now. Make the statement, or expect to lose the filing date.

## Related stories

- [Since April 2026, owners get a say before the reexam order.](https://postgrantproceeding.com/insights/t03-since-april-2026-owners-get-a-say-before-the-reexam-order)
- [The same statute opened one door and closed eighteen.](https://postgrantproceeding.com/insights/d19-the-same-statute-opened-one-door-and-closed-eighteen)
- [A foreign government can’t petition. Prove you aren’t one.](https://postgrantproceeding.com/insights/d08-a-foreign-government-cant-petition-prove-you-arent-one)

## Sources

- S51. USPTO, Filing Anonymous Requests for Ex Parte Reexamination Directed to Previously-Challenged Patents, 1544 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 128 (Mar. 3, 2026), announced in USPTO, Update regarding the filing of anonymous requests for ex parte reexamination (Feb. 6, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/subscription-center/2026/update-regarding-filing-anonymous-requests-ex-parte-reexamination
- S52. USPTO, Requirement to Identify All Real Parties in Interest to a Third Party Request for an Ex Parte Reexamination, proposed rule, 91 Fed. Reg. 46038 (July 22, 2026) (comments closed Aug. 21, 2026; listed as a proposed rule on the USPTO’s 2026 Federal Register page as of Oct. 16, 2026). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/07/22/2026-14793/requirement-to-identify-all-real-parties-in-interest-to-a-third-party-request-for-an-ex-parte
- S13. Federal patent statutes, 35 U.S.C. §§ 253(a), 303(a), 311–315, 317 and 321–325. Reproduced in MPEP Appendix L (currency date stated by the appendix: Jan. 31, 2024). https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html

## Not yet confirmed

- Whether and when a final rule issues has not been announced.

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.

General information about published decisions, not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.