On August 6, 2026, an Appeals Review Panel reversed an earlier Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision and reinstated obviousness-type double-patenting rejections involving claims 1 through 18 of Sanofi’s application No. 17/135,529. The ruling, Ex parte Baurin, Appeal 2024-002920, is now precedential within the USPTO.

The decision did not create a new statute or final statutory rule. Instead, it applied the judge-made, nonstatutory doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting, or OTDP, under Federal Circuit precedent the panel said remains binding.

What the panel decided

The earlier PTAB decision had reversed the examiner’s OTDP rejections. The Appeals Review Panel, convened by USPTO Director John A. Squires, reversed that outcome and affirmed the examiner’s rejections.

The central question was whether the possibility of separate ownership and multiple enforcement actions can independently support an OTDP rejection when issuing the later patent would not obviously extend the term of an earlier patent.

The panel said it can under current Federal Circuit law. It concluded that the Federal Circuit has recognized an “anti-harassment” rationale as a policy foundation of OTDP. In practical terms, the concern is that related claims could be held by different owners, forcing a licensee or accused infringer to negotiate with, or defend against, more than one rights holder over patentably indistinct subject matter.

The panel described a hypothetical licensee that believes it has broad rights under one patent but later faces a separate negotiation or infringement suit from the owner of a related patent. It said preventing that possibility remains a legitimate basis for the rejection in the circumstances before it.

Why the Allergan exception did not control

The panel also addressed the Federal Circuit’s 2024 decision in Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. That decision limited an OTDP challenge involving a first-filed, first-issued patent that expired later than a later-filed, earlier-expiring reference patent with a common priority date.

The Appeals Review Panel said that exception did not apply to Sanofi’s application. The application was not the first actual filing in the relevant family, and the application and reference patent had different patent-term filing dates.

Those concepts are related but not identical. An actual filing date records when a particular application was submitted. A patent-term filing date is the effective filing date used to calculate the standard patent term, generally tied to the earliest qualifying U.S. application in the chain. The panel said the distinction mattered to its treatment of Allergan.

What it means for patent applicants

For now, applicants should expect USPTO personnel to continue applying pre-Allergan OTDP practice unless the Federal Circuit provides further guidance or the law changes. The agency’s instruction does not mean every continuation or related application will be rejected. It describes how the Office will approach OTDP under the legal principles and facts relevant to the case.

A terminal disclaimer may overcome some OTDP rejections by preventing a later patent from extending beyond the related patent’s term. But a terminal disclaimer generally includes common-ownership requirements and can limit enforceability if the patents are no longer commonly owned.

That can create complications when related rights are divided among companies, transferred in separate transactions or licensed under arrangements that do not preserve common ownership. A terminal disclaimer is therefore one possible response to an OTDP rejection, not an automatic solution for every applicant.

The practical effect is to make continuation planning, family filing dates, ownership structure and licensing arrangements more important for companies with related patent portfolios. The ruling is not legal advice and does not establish that a particular application will receive an OTDP rejection.

What remains unsettled

The panel upheld the rejection but questioned whether a freestanding anti-harassment rationale could harm innovation by allowing a later-filed, later-expiring patent to be rejected even when there is no clear term-extension concern.

It proposed a possible future framework aimed at making examination more predictable if the Federal Circuit later rules that anti-harassment alone cannot support an OTDP rejection. The proposal is not a final USPTO rule, and the panel did not present it as a current replacement for existing practice.

The next major development to watch is whether the Federal Circuit defines the limits of the anti-harassment rationale and clarifies when the Allergan exception applies. Until then, the USPTO’s current position is that personnel should continue applying pre-Allergan practice.

Sources

• USPTO Appeals Review Panel decision in Ex parte Baurin
• IPWatchdog analysis of the Baurin ruling

The proposal, published July 22, 2026, in the Federal Register as document 2026-14793, would give the USPTO that information while allowing the disclosure statement to be excluded from the public patent and reexamination files upon written request. The agency says the change would help it evaluate whether statutory estoppel rules block repeat challenges and respond more efficiently to false certifications, misrepresentations and fraud.

Public comments are due August 21, 2026, through Regulations.gov under docket PTO-P-2025-0545. The proposal is not final and is not yet a new filing requirement.

What the proposal would change

The USPTO would add proposed 37 CFR 1.510(b)(7). A third-party request for ex parte reexamination would have to include a separate statement identifying the requester and all other real parties in interest to the request.

The statement would be submitted electronically under procedures set by the USPTO. If the requester asks in writing for confidentiality, the agency says it would exclude the statement from the patent and reexamination files and take steps to keep the information from public disclosure. The USPTO could still use the information when evaluating the request or making decisions in the proceeding.

The requirement would apply only to third-party requests. It would not apply to a reexamination request filed by a party that identifies itself as the patent owner.

Why the agency says it needs the information

Current USPTO rules allow a third party to seek ex parte reexamination anonymously through a registered patent practitioner. The practitioner must certify under 37 CFR 1.510(b)(6) that the requester is not barred by the applicable estoppel rules, but the agency may not know who actually stands behind the request.

That creates a problem when the patent was previously challenged in an inter partes review or post-grant review. Under 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(1) and 325(e)(1), a prior petitioner, its real party in interest or a privy may be barred from pursuing certain later challenges involving claims and grounds raised or reasonably available in the earlier proceeding.

The USPTO says it cannot independently evaluate those restrictions without knowing the identities of the requester and other real parties in interest. The agency also says the information could help it address show-cause issues and investigate apparent misrepresentations more efficiently.

The proposal follows the agency’s February 2026 update on anonymous reexamination requests. That guidance said an anonymous requester involving a patent previously challenged in inter partes or post-grant review should affirm that it is not the earlier petitioner, the petitioner’s real party in interest or a privy.

Anonymous filings would not disappear entirely

If finalized, the proposal would not eliminate every form of anonymous patent-related submission. Citations of prior art and written statements submitted under 37 CFR 1.501 could continue to be filed anonymously.

For ex parte reexamination requests, however, the USPTO would generally receive the identities of the requester and all other real parties in interest, even if those identities were kept from the public. Whether a person or entity qualifies as a real party in interest would remain a fact-dependent, case-by-case question. The proposal does not say that every client, affiliate, funder or related company automatically qualifies.

Who could be affected

Companies considering an anonymous patent challenge would need to work with counsel to identify the relevant parties for the USPTO if the rule is adopted. That could make corporate relationships, outside-counsel arrangements and some litigation-finance structures more consequential during filing preparation, although the proposal does not categorically regulate litigation finance.

Patent owners could gain a stronger basis to ask the agency to examine whether a reexamination request is barred by an earlier inter partes or post-grant review. Attorneys would need a reliable process for identifying real parties in interest while protecting information that the requester asks the agency to keep confidential.

The proposal would not change the substantive standards for deciding whether a patent claim is patentable. It also would not prevent every repeat challenge or instance of fraud; the agency says the change would improve its ability to evaluate estoppel and respond to misrepresentations.

What happens next

The public-comment period ends August 21, 2026. After that, the USPTO could issue a final rule, modify the proposal or take no further action. Until a final rule is issued and becomes effective, third-party requesters are not subject to the proposed identification requirement.

Sources

• Federal Register proposed rule on real-party-in-interest disclosure
• USPTO Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2212
• Bloomberg Law coverage of the USPTO proposal

The complaint was filed July 20, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The public docket lists the case as University of Tennessee Research Foundation v. Anthropic PBC, case No. 1:2026cv00887, with a patent cause of action under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

Anthropic, the company behind the Claude artificial-intelligence platform, is the defendant. The foundation’s allegations have not been tested in court, and the filing is not a ruling that Anthropic infringed either patent.

What the complaint alleges

The foundation identifies U.S. Patent Nos. 10,019,470 and 10,095,718. It alleges that Anthropic’s AI systems use technology covered by those patents, which the foundation describes as involving neuroscience-inspired machine learning, neural networks, neuromorphic computing and related methods.

The University of Tennessee Research Foundation is a nonprofit organization connected to the University of Tennessee System that manages and commercializes intellectual property associated with university research. Its role illustrates how university technology-transfer organizations may seek licensing revenue or enforce patents tied to academic inventions.

The docket confirms the case’s filing details and the patents listed in the action. It does not establish whether the patents are valid, whether Anthropic’s systems infringe them or whether the foundation is entitled to damages.

What the foundation wants

The complaint seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount and an order blocking further infringement. Any such order would require additional court action; the filing itself does not impose an injunction or change how Claude operates.

Anthropic’s public response was not available in the reporting used for this article. The case remains at an early stage, before the court has ruled on the allegations or the merits of the patents.

Why the case matters

Reuters reported that the lawsuit is believed to be the first patent-infringement case against Anthropic. That characterization is attributed to Reuters and is not a finding by the court.

The dispute adds a patent claim to the broader intellectual-property pressure facing generative-AI companies. Patent cases generally focus on whether a defendant’s technology uses protected inventions. Copyright disputes involving AI more often concern the copying or use of books, images, software and other expressive works. Those issues can arise around the same products, but they involve different legal rights and tests.

For AI companies, a patent case can create licensing costs, litigation risk and questions about whether a product’s underlying methods must be redesigned or licensed. For university technology-transfer organizations, litigation can be one route for protecting inventions and seeking compensation when negotiations do not resolve an alleged dispute.

What happens next

The next significant steps are likely to include Anthropic’s initial response, possible challenges to the patents and arguments over whether the accused systems practice the claimed inventions. The foundation could also seek preliminary or permanent injunctive relief, but no such relief is documented from the filing alone.

There is no documented immediate change for Claude users as a result of the complaint. The practical importance of the case will depend on the pleadings, the court’s rulings and whether the parties reach a licensing agreement or other settlement before trial.

Sources

• Federal case docket
• Reuters report
• Bloomberg Law report
• University of Tennessee Research Foundation