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 agency also said a related classification system, known as the Classification Agentic Codification Tool, or Class ACT, had analyzed 250,000 trademark applications by July 13. The developments mark a broader deployment of AI in the federal process that determines how brands, products and services are classified and examined in the United States.

How the tools are being used

Scout LLM was made available to all trademark work units, including examining attorneys, according to the USPTO. The agency describes the tool as capable of summarizing information, analyzing data, researching topics and drafting selectable content for general audiences.

Class ACT is focused on trademark classification. Classification is a central part of an application because it identifies the goods or services associated with a mark. The USPTO’s reported total means the tool had been used to analyze 250,000 applications by July 13, although the agency did not characterize that figure as a measure of approvals, registrations or completed examinations.

Both tools are built on the USPTO’s Unified Generative AI Platform. The agency said the systems support trademark professionals rather than replace them.

Examiners remain responsible for decisions

The USPTO said examining attorneys continue to lead the work and remain responsible for decisions. That means the AI tools are being presented as assistance within the examination process, not as independent systems that approve or reject trademarks.

For applicants, trademark examination can affect when a business, creator or organization learns whether its application can proceed toward registration, or whether additional action is needed. The federal trademark register is used by startups, established companies and creators seeking protection for names, logos and other identifiers.

AI-assisted examination could influence examiner workflows and processing speed. It also raises questions about consistency and the reliability of information used in decisions. The USPTO announcement did not provide measured changes in examination speed, error rates or appeal outcomes, so the reported adoption and application-analysis totals do not by themselves establish that the process has become faster or more accurate.

Part of a wider USPTO AI effort

The trademark deployment follows earlier USPTO initiatives involving artificial intelligence in patent work. A separate agency program extended an Artificial Intelligence Search Automated Pilot Program for patent applications. That pilot involved at least 3,200 applications and was intended to gather evidence about AI-assisted prior-art searching.

The patent and trademark efforts involve different examination tasks. Prior-art searching addresses whether earlier disclosures may be relevant to a patent claim, while trademark examination includes issues such as classification and the examination of marks in relation to goods or services. The initiatives nevertheless reflect the agency’s broader effort to place AI tools inside its examination operations.

The next practical question is how the USPTO evaluates the tools after wider adoption. The agency has announced the July 1 milestone and the Class ACT usage total, while the public announcement did not disclose the model’s vendor or a detailed evaluation methodology. Continued agency reporting on processing times, accuracy, examiner oversight and outcomes would help show how the deployment affects applicants and the federal trademark register.

The USPTO lists the action as a July 20, 2026 notice titled “Requirement to Identify All Real Parties in Interest to a Third Party Request for an Ex Parte Reexamination.” The notice appeared in the Federal Register on July 22, 2026, under citation 91 FR 46038.

What the notice changes

The requirement concerns third-party requests in the USPTO’s ex parte patent-reexamination process. Its practical effect, according to the agency’s notice listing, is greater disclosure of parties with an interest in a reexamination request, subject to the terms of the notice.

That disclosure could matter when the named requester is not the only party involved in the dispute. Identifying the real parties in interest may help reveal which companies, investors or other organizations have a stake in a patent challenge. The approved materials do not provide the complete notice text, however, so they do not establish the precise information that must be submitted or how the agency will evaluate disclosures.

The change also should not be described as a ban on anonymous patent challenges. The available materials do not confirm that effect. They likewise do not indicate that the USPTO has changed the underlying standard for deciding patentability.

Why patent participants are watching

Patent disputes can involve more than the parties formally named in a filing. Greater visibility into those relationships may affect litigation strategy, financing, licensing negotiations and competitive intelligence in U.S. patent disputes.

For patent owners, knowing who may benefit from a reexamination request could provide additional context when assessing the challenge. For businesses and other entities considering a request, the new disclosure obligation may require closer attention to ownership, funding or other interests connected to the proceeding.

The change is nationwide because USPTO patent-reexamination procedures apply to U.S. patent proceedings. That gives the notice relevance beyond a single company, industry or jurisdiction, even though the available source packet does not identify particular patent owners, requesters or disputes affected by it.

What is known about implementation

The USPTO’s 2026 patent-related-notices catalog identifies the notice and its Federal Register citation. The agency also maintains a separate 2026 procedural calendar and proceeding-record system for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but the real-parties-in-interest notice is distinct from the PTAB hearing schedule.

The available materials do not establish whether the requirement applies immediately to pending requests or only to new filings. They also do not provide an effective date, filing instructions, exceptions or enforcement details beyond the notice’s stated disclosure requirement.

Those implementation questions are the next practical issue for patent owners, challengers, counsel and businesses involved in reexamination proceedings. Until the complete notice and its operative details are reviewed, the confirmed development is narrower: the USPTO has announced and published a requirement aimed at identifying all real parties in interest behind a third-party ex parte reexamination request.

The action is an agency notice, not a congressional law or a final court ruling. Its immediate significance is the potential for greater transparency in a part of the U.S. patent system where the identity of interested parties can affect how disputes are understood and managed.