Federal hiring freeze, return-to-office mandate, and layoffs

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has had a turbulent start to 2025. The U.S. administration issued an executive order implementing a federal hiring freeze on January 20, 2025. This action halted the USPTO’s plans to recruit approximately 800 new employees, primarily patent examiners.

Also, the same executive order mandated a return to in-person work, requiring more than 90% of the USPTO employees – including patent examiners, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) judges and supervisory patent examiners (SPEs) – to return to physical offices. Ironically, many of these employees may not have physical offices to return to. The USPTO has operated under a remote work model for over two decades (having launched its telework program in 1997), and some patent examiners were even hired directly into remote positions. Additionally, as part of an initiative by the General Services Administration (GSA) to reduce federal office space nationwide, the USPTO reduced its office lease in Alexandria, VA, effective August 2024, saving the cost of leasing over 760,000 square feet. Because telework may have been regarded as a significant benefit, it is reasonable to expect that some USPTO employees may now consider alternative employment, such as nearby positions or roles that offer work-from-home flexibility. While collective bargaining agreements between the USPTO and its union currently allow the majority of examiners to continue remote work through 2029, SPEs and PTAB judges are not covered by these agreements and are more likely to face immediate return-to-office requirements.

Also, federal workforce reductions by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), including termination of probationary federal employees (e.g., newly promoted individuals such as SPEs, those in new locations, or new hires), are ongoing.

Delayed patent prosecution expected, Accelerated Examination suspended

The USPTO’s workforce constraints, combined with rising application volumes, are contributing to increased patent pendency. According to the patent pendency data provided by the USPTO (April 2025; Patents Dashboard | USPTO), patent pendency has increased across all technology centers (TCs), with longer delays observed in TC 1600 (Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry) and TC 1700 (Chemical and Materials Engineering). For example, in TC 1600, the average first office action pendency has increased from 24.5 months a year ago to 28.9 months, and pendency to disposition (allowance or abandonment) has increased from 28.2 a year ago to 31.6 months.

Given the hiring freeze, anticipated layoffs, and uncertainty in the workforce stability due to policies affecting a great majority of the patent examiners, further increased patent pendency should be expected, although the USPTO has announced initiatives to address pendency. For example, in April the Office instituted the Pendency Balance Award pilot program to incentivize SPEs and management quality assurance specialists (MQASs) to examine applications.

For applicants needing more timely examination, the USPTO’s announcement that the Accelerated Examination program will be discontinued as of July 10 leaves us with fewer options in the U.S.

Filing strategies based on Applicant needs: Where to file

In light of the current and anticipated delays in U.S. patent prosecution, different strategies may benefit Applicants depending on their particular objectives and timelines.

For some Applicants the delayed costs of examination resulting from the increased pendency will be appreciated.

On the other hand, Applicants seeking prompt prosecution may benefit from alternative strategies. For instance, start-ups needing to demonstrate exclusivity to investors, or companies in competitive sectors, may desire more timely patent examination and grants than is available in the U.S. In this case, an effective strategy may be to leverage foreign patent offices with reduced pendency and proven search and examination quality, such as Korea and Japan.

Historically, U.S. Applicants have often filed a U.S. Non-Provisional Patent Application alongside a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) request, followed by national phase entry in selected countries, typically after 30 or 31 months from the earliest priority date. Under this model, U.S. prosecution is further advanced than foreign counterparts, allowing claims in other jurisdictions to be amended to align them with any allowed U.S. claims – subject to local patent law.

An alternative strategy to obtain more timely examination and U.S. allowance is to file an application directly in Korea or Japan, together with a PCT application, and then utilize the patent prosecution highway (PPH) to accelerate patent examination in the U.S. Under the PPH program, if a participating patent office finds at least one claim in an application allowable, the applicants may request expedited examination of corresponding claims in a corresponding patent application pending before another participating office. The PPH is thus a low-cost way to leverage fast-track procedures among participating offices, enabling applicants to obtain allowance more quickly and efficiently.

The average time from filing to first office action for utility patent is about 10 months in Japan and about 14 months in Korea. Also, expedited options are available, resulting a first office action in about 2 months in Korea or Japan. As U.S. patent pendency increases, the benefits of expedited foreign filings, and then leveraging the PPH, are increased.

In addition to more timely examination, some jurisdictions have examination fees that are competitive relative to the U.S., while providing respected search quality. For example, when the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) acts as the international searching authority (ISA) under the PCT, the search fee is approximately $860 (as of May 2025 for an application in English), which is about one-third of the standard search fee of $2,400 when the USPTO acts as the ISA. Therefore, filing in a patent office that is cost-effective and is known for quality examination can provide additional cost benefits to budget-conscious Applicants.

Conclusion

U.S. patent pendency has increased. Considering alternatives to conventional U.S.-centric filing strategies can provide time and cost benefits. Tailored strategies that best align with each Applicant’s business goals, technical context, and budget can be increasingly advantageous.
Reviewing options with IP professionals with deep technical knowledge and extensive international filing experience will be increasingly valuable to navigating this evolving landscape and identifying IP protection strategies that best meet the specific needs of each unique situation.