Most people assume patent examiners reviewing applications at the USPTO are completely neutral.
They are—but the details of how conflicts of interest are handled are more nuanced than many practitioners probably realize.
Recently, the USPTO issued new guidance from Director John Squires addressing patent examiner stock ownership and conflicts of interest. The takeaway is straightforward: if an examiner (or their spouse or minor child) owns stock in a company whose patent application they are examining, the case should be reassigned.
In practice, that effectively sets the threshold at zero.
The Background
Federal ethics rules already prevent government employees from participating in matters affecting their financial interests. But those rules also allow “de minimis” exceptions—small financial interests considered too minor to affect impartial decision making.
Historically, that meant an examiner could theoretically hold a small amount of stock in a company whose patent they were examining and still handle the application.
The new guidance tightens that standard for patent examination work.
According to the USPTO memorandum issued March 2, 2026, examiners who discover that they—or their spouse or minor child—own any stock or bonds in the applicant must notify their supervisor and request reassignment of the application.
Why This Matters
Patent examiners sit at a critical point in the innovation system. They decide whether inventions qualify for exclusive rights granted by the government.
That role naturally raises conflict-of-interest concerns.
As the memorandum explains, public confidence depends on ensuring that patent examinations are conducted without real or apparent conflicts of interest.
Even if a small investment would never actually influence a decision, the appearance of bias can still undermine trust in the system.
The USPTO’s solution is simple: eliminate the issue entirely.
Practical Takeaway
For patent applicants and practitioners, this change probably won’t affect day-to-day prosecution, but it’s still a meaningful policy signal. The USPTO is emphasizing that examiners must avoid not only actual conflicts, but even the appearance of impropriety in patent examination. And setting the practical threshold at zero is the clearest way to do that.
It’s one of those rules you might assume already existed and now it does.
Is the Copyright Office Really Not Executive? A Head-Scratcher Before the Supreme Court