On 6 August 2026, the USPTO Appeals Review Panel (ARP) issued its rehearing decision in Ex parte Baurin, reinstating an obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP) rejection. The panel treated the anti-harassment rationale as independently relevant: even where there is no apparent unjustified extension of patent term, OTDP may still address the risk that commonly owned patent rights later become divided and asserted separately.
Continue reading with a member account
Register free to unlock full analysis and practical recommendations.
Anti-harassment remains a distinct OTDP concern
The ARP rejected a narrow view that anti-harassment matters only when patent term is being extended. Its reasoning supports continued OTDP scrutiny where related claims are obvious variants and future divided ownership could expose licensees or accused infringers to multiple enforcement demands.
Continuation strategy still needs ownership planning
For continuation families, an earlier expiration date does not by itself eliminate OTDP risk. Where a terminal disclaimer is used to overcome the rejection, common ownership with the reference application or patent remains part of the practical equation. Applicants should therefore review claim overlap, term, assignment plans and licensing structure together rather than treating expiration date as the only variable.
Precedential status should be described carefully
The USPTO has posted the 6 August decision on the ARP status page, but the agency’s ARP procedures state that ARP decisions are routine unless separately designated as precedential or informative. The safer description for now is an important ARP decision with significant examination implications, pending any later formal designation.
