SOP 1 (rev. 17): Assignment of judges to panels

SOP 1 (Revision 17) sets out how the Chief Judge's designee(s) assign three-judge panels (APJ1, APJ2, APJ3) in all PTAB jurisdictions, including appeals and AIA proceedings. It prescribes paneling by conflicts, jurisdiction, technology, experience, related cases, hearings and workload, and sets the rules and reasons for later panel changes. It also covers paneling for Director Review delegated panels and the Appeals Review Panel. The SOP is an internal norm and expressly creates no legally enforceable rights, so neither petitioners nor patent owners, appellants or applicants can rely on it to challenge a panel. Practically, parties can expect related AIA petitions on the same patent, and joinder requests, to go to the same or overlapping panels. They can expect panel changes after a panel has appeared to be disfavored and to be announced by a public Panel Change Order stating recusal, case management or unavailability. The SOP rests on 35 U.S.C. § 6(c), the Director's delegation to the Chief Judge, 37 C.F.R. § 43.3(d) on the Director's non-involvement in paneling, and the Ethics Rules at 5 C.F.R. part 2635. Real parties in interest matter because the designee must not panel a judge whose "do not panel" list includes a disclosed party or real party in interest. WHAT IT DOES: Delegates panel designation under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c) from the Director to the Chief Judge and then to one or more designees. Panels are three judges and may not be expanded. Assignments must be impartial and not meant to influence an outcome. Judges are matched to cases by conflicts, jurisdiction designation, technology discipline (at least two matching judges where possible) and experience (new judges are not paneled with other new judges absent leadership approval). Related appeals, reexamination appeals and AIA families go to the same or overlapping judges where feasible. Cases with hearings need at least one judge, and normally two, with a USPTO office duty location. Workloads are balanced, with a set number of APJ2/APJ3 assignments per APJ1 assignment. Panel changes after a panel has appeared are disfavored and limited to recusal, case management or unavailability, with a public Panel Change Order. The SOP also covers Delegated Rehearing Panels for Director Review and the Appeals Review Panel. WHO AND WHEN: Applies to all PTAB jurisdictions: ex parte appeals (including reexamination and reissue) and AIA proceedings (IPR, PGR, derivation). It governs the designee(s), the judges and PTAB leadership. Revision 17 is listed by the USPTO as current and dated 2026-07-20. The document gives no separate effective date. KEY QUOTE: "All actions taken to designate panels under this SOP shall be impartial, and no panel members shall be selected to influence an outcome." (p. 2) EARLIER GUIDANCE AFFECTED: None identified in the document. It refers to the "Guidance on Paneling of Cases" memorandum (the Paneling Memorandum), Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1002.02(f), 37 C.F.R. § 43.3(d), and the Ethics Rules at 5 C.F.R. part 2635 as sources it follows. It does not say what earlier revisions it supersedes. PRACTICE TIP: Make complete and accurate real-party-in-interest disclosures at filing, because the designee screens judges against disclosed parties and real parties in interest. Do not expect to influence paneling or to seek a particular panel. When a panel change occurs after a panel has appeared, read the Panel Change Order for its stated reason. Raise any conflict concern through the Board's ordinary procedures, since the SOP creates no enforceable rights.