USPTO Precedential Decision Expands Double Patenting Rejections for Texas Patent Applicants

A precedential decision issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in August 2026 is changing how applicants with related patent applications should plan their filings, with significant implications for Texas inventors and businesses that build patent families through continuation filings. On August 6, 2026, the USPTO Appeals Review Panel decided Ex parte Baurin, which the USPTO designated as precedential the same day. The panel reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision and reinstated an examiner's obviousness-type double patenting rejection, ruling that the "anti-harassment" rationale can support such a rejection on its own.

The anti-harassment rationale is aimed at preventing multiple infringement suits by different owners over essentially the same invention if related patents later separate in ownership. The decision matters most to applicants who hold several applications in the same family, because related claims are the usual target of double patenting rejections. Continuation and divisional applications, which share a specification with an earlier filing, commonly raise the issue.

According to The Patent Baron, PLLC, an intellectual property firm led by a patent lawyer serving Chicago, IL, the ruling means applicants can no longer rely solely on the argument that their patent would expire before the reference patent. The Appeals Review Panel held that the anti-harassment rationale remains applicable under binding precedent and can support a double patenting rejection even where no patent term extension concern exists. The panel also questioned how much weight the rationale should carry and invited the Federal Circuit to clarify it. Because the decision is precedential, it guides how the Board handles similar appeals.

For Texas businesses, particularly those in technology, manufacturing, and energy sectors that frequently file continuation applications to protect innovations, this decision underscores the need for strategic patent portfolio management. Applicants who grow a patent family through continuations should expect double patenting rejections and plan for them early. "Reviewing how related applications overlap before the first filing gives applicants more options than responding after a rejection arrives, so that planning is worth doing now," said J. Baron Lesperance, founder of The Patent Baron, PLLC.

The implications extend beyond individual applicants. Companies that rely on patent families to attract investment or secure market exclusivity may face additional hurdles in obtaining multiple patents covering similar inventions. This could affect licensing strategies and litigation planning, as the anti-harassment rationale aims to prevent multiple infringement suits by different owners over essentially the same invention. Texas innovators should review their patent portfolios and consider whether related applications might be vulnerable to double patenting rejections, taking proactive steps to differentiate claims or consolidate filings where appropriate.