Press Room — USPTO.news

The Story

A pro se patent applicant filed a micro entity certification in December 2024 based on the USPTO's own published guidance. The enforcement framework used to penalize that filing did not yet exist. It was announced seven months later, implemented ten months later, and then applied retroactively — demanding documentation from fourteen months prior that had been automatically deleted long before any duty to preserve arose.

When the applicant called the USPTO seeking procedural guidance, employees acknowledged they had been given "direction of the office" not to discuss the proceedings. A second employee, upon reviewing the show cause order itself, admitted it "doesn't look like they provide any items you specifically must provide to meet that." Both calls were recorded. Both recordings are published here.

On February 24, 2026, a federal mandamus action is scheduled to be filed in the District of New Jersey. The February 26 publication deadline for the application creates a two-day window for judicial intervention. If this program is operating beyond statutory authority, every active suspension it has imposed may be unlawful.

Why This Story Matters Beyond One Applicant

USPTO's show cause program is new. Its legal basis has never been tested in federal court. This case may be the first.
Two independent employees on two separate recorded calls confirmed the same institutional directive to withhold information from applicants.
If the ultra vires suspension argument succeeds, every prosecution suspended under this program is potentially invalid — affecting an unknown number of applicants.
The December 1 confirmation that the response was "correct," reversed 59 days later without explanation, raises questions about fair notice that apply to every applicant who received a show cause order.
All primary source documents and unedited audio are publicly available and downloadable at uspto.news.

Central Question

Does the USPTO Have the Legal Authority
to Hold a Patent Hostage?

The fee Torres owed was paid in full on November 19, 2025 — overpaid, in fact, by $38. What remains is a disputed penalty: a punitive fine the agency assessed after the fact. The USPTO is now threatening to permanently abandon his patent application unless he pays that fine by April 2, 2026.

That threat is the central legal question in this case: Can a federal agency hold a patent application hostage to collect a contested debt?

Torres argues the answer is no — and that the USPTO's own Final Determination proves it. On page 4 of that document, the agency explicitly invokes federal debt collection law as the proper mechanism for collecting the penalty: referral to the Bureau of Fiscal Services, potential Department of Justice referral, and tax refund offsets under 31 U.S.C. § 3717. In the same document, it also threatens to abandon the application if the penalty goes unpaid.

Two collection mechanisms. One debt. The agency cited the legal one and used the illegal one. Torres's complaint argues you cannot do both — and that using prosecution suspension as a debt collection tool, when Congress established a separate mechanism for exactly that purpose, is an action the agency simply does not have the authority to take.

The Legal Framework

35 U.S.C. § 122(b)(1)(A) commands that patent applications "shall be published" promptly after 18 months. The word "shall" is mandatory. Congress wrote no exception for disputed penalties, show cause proceedings, or administrative sanctions.

The USPTO's suspension authority extends to unpaid fees required by Title 35 — filing fees, examination fees, maintenance fees. A punitive sanction assessed under 35 U.S.C. §§ 41(j) and 123(f) is not a required fee. It is a debt, collectible through federal debt procedures. Conflating the two to justify suspension of a mandatory publication command is, the complaint argues, beyond what the statute authorizes.

Under Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), federal courts no longer defer to an agency's interpretation of its own authority. The judge deciding this case reads the statute independently. The statute says "shall be published." No exceptions are listed. The question answers itself.

The Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine

The Supreme Court established in Frost v. Railroad Commission (1926) that the government cannot condition the exercise of a statutory right on waiver of a legal challenge. The USPTO is threatening permanent abandonment — loss of the statutory property right embodied in a granted patent application — unless Torres pays a penalty whose legality is now before a federal judge.

That is precisely the condition Frost prohibits. Pay first, challenge later — after the application is gone — is not a meaningful legal remedy. It is a demand that Torres surrender his right to contest the penalty in exchange for keeping the very property the penalty threatens to destroy.

Key Evidence

Direct Evidence — November 10, 2025 · Government-Initiated Call

Federal Employee Calls Applicant Back On Government Line: "I Have Been Instructed Not to Help You"

This is not an adoptive admission. It is not an employee describing policy in general terms. On the morning of November 10, 2025, USPTO Agent E., Office of Petitions, initiated an outbound callback to Torres from an official USPTO telephone line. On that call — made on government telecommunications infrastructure, which the agency's own automated system announces is recorded — Agent E. stated explicitly: "I have been instructed not to help you." Nine words. No inference required. A federal employee, on a call she initiated, on government equipment, reporting a specific instruction she received from a superior. The recording of that call is on USPTO's own systems. A federal expedited discovery motion now seeks its production.

"I have been instructed not to help you." — Agent E., Office of Petitions · November 10, 2025 · Government-initiated callback · Recorded on USPTO infrastructure

"To ensure quality services, your call may be monitored or recorded." — USPTO Automated System · November 7, 2025 · Agency's own announcement that calls are recorded

The Architecture — November 2025 through February 2026

Five Contacts. Three Months. Zero Guidance. One Directed System.

The institutional blackout operated through two independent categories of evidence across five employees over three months. Employees who spoke the policy: Agent G. (January 9) named it — "direction of the office," "authorized to provide," "don't want us to meddle." Agent I. (February 2) confirmed it — "Right." Employees who enacted it without naming it: Agent E. (November 7) — "I cannot answer those questions and I have no one to transfer you to." The anonymous December 1 agent confirmed everything was correct while withholding the one assessment that would have enabled supplementation. The USPTO Ombudsman confirmed she had no authority to help. Five employees. Five contacts. Identical outcomes. No contact produced the one piece of information Torres needed. One employee offered a partial transfer — to the pro se inventors line. That single deviation, from the first contact, across three months of uniform compliance with the directive, confirms the policy was institutional rather than individual.

Named — January 9, 2026

Second Employee Names the Directive: "Direction of the Office"

Agent G., Office of Petitions, described the operative policy in detail: employees were operating under "the direction of the office" to not "entertain too many conversations" about show cause matters, could not "meddle," and could only provide information they had been "authorized to provide." Under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D), this is a party admission attributable to the agency — not hearsay, not speculation. Agent G. was not confused. He was describing a directive he had received.

"Actually the direction of the office is that we are trying to not... entertain too many conversations on this topic... I really wish that I could give you more information than what we have been authorized to provide." — Agent G., Office of Petitions · January 9, 2026 · Recorded

Corroborated — February 2, 2026

Third Employee Confirms Pattern: "Right"

Agent I., also of the Office of Petitions, validated the entire blackout in a single word. Torres enumerated every manifestation of the institutional withholding directly to Agent I. — and Agent I. confirmed it without qualification, without hesitation, without denial. She had a full opportunity to push back. Any employee would naturally deny allegations of institutional misconduct if untrue. She did not.

Torres: "Throughout this entire process I have had nothing but frustration with the patent office. Nobody can say anything about these proceedings. These procedures are being held hush hush. Nobody could talk about them. No one can describe them. No one can tell you what your remedies are. No one can tell you what the next step is. Nobody could tell you anything apparently regarding the show cause order proceedings. It's not permissible. And after a while that wears on a person's patience. I'm sending you thousands of dollars, right? And I'm not allowed to know what's happening."

Agent I.: "Right." — Agent I., Office of Petitions · February 2, 2026 · Recorded · Exhibit M

Same call: Agent I. reviewed the show cause order in real time and stated three times she was "really not sure" what evidence would satisfy the standard she had just enforced, and confirmed the order "doesn't look like they provide any items you specifically must provide."

Undisclosed Standard — The Test Was Never Announced

Torres Was Penalized for Failing to Meet a Standard That Appeared Nowhere in the Show Cause Order.

The Show Cause Order (November 4, 2025) did not cite 37 CFR 11.18(b). It did not mention the phrase "reasonable inquiry." It did not reference the July 8, 2025 OG Notice. It did not specify what "sufficient evidence" meant or what documentation would satisfy it. These requirements — the actual basis for the $4,122 penalty — appeared for the first time in the Final Determination (January 30, 2026): the same document that penalized Torres for not meeting them. The agency held a test, told no one what was on it, and then failed the applicant for not knowing the answers. Three days after the penalty issued, the enforcing employee confirmed on a recorded call that she was "really not sure" what evidence would have satisfied the standard — and that the order itself "doesn't look like they provide any items you specifically must provide."

Agency's Own Admission — Signed by the Assistant Commissioner

The Penalty Determination Itself Acknowledges the Framework Was Not Yet in Effect When Torres Certified.

The Final Determination — signed by the Assistant Commissioner for Patents — contains this phrase: the OG Notice was issued "prior to implementation of the penalty provisions." That is not Torres's characterization. That is the agency's own language, in its own signed document, acknowledging that the penalty framework was not operative at the relevant time. The admission is on the face of the document imposing the penalty. No inference is required. No interpretation is disputed. The agency signed a document that contains its own retroactivity problem — and that document is now Exhibit C in federal litigation.

Reversal Without Explanation

"Correct" Became $4,122 Penalty in 59 Days

On December 1, 2025, a USPTO agent reviewed the complete filed response and stated: "Everything is, it appears to be correct." Fifty-nine days of silence followed. On January 30, 2026, the same submission was deemed insufficient and a $4,122 penalty was imposed. No explanation for the reversal was provided. No identification of specific deficiencies. The December 1 confirmation foreclosed any supplementation — having been told everything was correct, Torres had no reason to add anything further. The 59-day silence maintained that reliance until the window was permanently closed.

Temporal Impossibility

Framework Post-Dates the Certification by Ten Months

The enforcement framework was announced July 8, 2025 — seven months after the December 2024 certification. The MPEP was updated October 24, 2025 — ten months after. The penalty demands documentary evidence of a certification inquiry made before the framework existed, preserved before any duty to preserve arose, destroyed by standard consumer technology through normal automated deletion cycles months before the framework was even announced. USPTO's own penalty determination acknowledges this — describing the OG Notice as issued "prior to implementation of the penalty provisions."

Timeline

December 8, 2024

Application filed with micro entity certification

Certification made in good faith using USPTO Form PTO/SB/15A, published FAQ, MPEP § 509.04, and Patent Center filing history — all resources available at the time. The enforcement framework that would later penalize this certification did not yet exist.

July 8, 2025

Enforcement framework announced — 7 months later

Official Gazette Notice 1536 OG 204 announces USPTO "will begin issuing" show cause orders. Future tense. The framework is being created now — after the certification it will eventually target.

October 24, 2025

MPEP updated — 10 months after certification

USPTO memo explicitly states changes "supersede" the November 2024 MPEP — the version in effect when Applicant certified. The applicable standard is updated retroactively.

November 4, 2025

Show cause order issued — order does not cite 37 CFR 11.18(b)

Order identifies micro entity certification as false but fails to cite the "reasonable inquiry" requirement, fails to specify what "sufficient evidence" means, and fails to reference the July 2025 OG Notice. Critically, the order states: "Extensions of time are available under 37 CFR 1.136(a)" — a procedural right the Final Determination would later silently revoke. Applicant responds within 14 days with full payment and detailed explanation.

November 7, 2025

First contact: Agent E. enacts the blackout — "I cannot answer those questions"

Torres calls OPET seeking guidance three days after the show cause order. Agent E., Office of Petitions, states: "I cannot answer those questions, and I have no one to transfer you to at this time." She takes Torres's number and promises a Monday callback. The automated system at the start of the call announces: "your call may be monitored or recorded."

November 10, 2025

Agent E. calls Torres back on government line: "I have been instructed not to help you"

In a government-initiated outbound callback on official USPTO telecommunications infrastructure, Agent E. states explicitly that she has been instructed not to help Torres. This is not a characterization or an inference. It is a federal employee, on a call she initiated, on government-recorded infrastructure, reporting a specific management instruction. The recording exists on USPTO's systems. A federal expedited discovery motion now seeks its production.

December 1, 2025

USPTO confirms response "appears to be correct"

Agent reviews the submission and states: "Everything is, it appears to be correct." Applicant reasonably relies on this confirmation. No additional information is requested.

January 9, 2026

Agent names institutional blackout policy on recorded call

"Direction of the office" to avoid discussing show cause proceedings. Agent also confirms she has not been told whether the application will be published. Ombudsman contacted same day — confirms no internal remedies available.

January 30, 2026

$4,122 penalty imposed — 59 days after "correct" confirmation

Final determination cites 37 CFR 11.18(b)(2) and "reasonable inquiry" standard — neither of which appeared in the show cause order. First time Applicant learns these were required — 14 months after the inquiry was conducted.

February 2, 2026

Second employee confirms: order "doesn't provide any items you must provide"

Agent I. reviews the actual show cause order on a recorded call. Confirms its inadequacy. Agrees "more clarity could be helpful." Three days after the penalty was imposed.

February 10 & 17, 2026

Petition and supplemental filed

Petition for Reconsideration filed under 37 CFR 1.181/1.182. Supplemental adds Plain English Doctrine, ultra vires suspension argument, and dual corroboration of institutional blackout.

February 24, 2026

Federal complaint filed — Torres v. Squires, No. 3:26-cv-01795-RK-RLS

Thirteen-count verified complaint filed via ADS, United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Trenton vicinage. Emergency TRO motion and expedited discovery motion — including a preservation order targeting evidence on government retention schedules — filed simultaneously. Seven NEF confirmation emails received. Case docketed same day. Read Complaint →

Federal Proceedings

Case No. 3:26-cv-01795-RK-RLS  ·  D.N.J. Trenton  ·  Filed February 24, 2026

What follows is the complete record of the federal proceeding. Read it in sequence. The conclusion is documented in the court's own electronic filing system.

Every fact stated below is sourced to a court docket entry, a filed document, a published court policy, or a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. No characterization has been added. The reader is invited to draw their own conclusions.

February 25, 2026 — Day 1

Court notifies government — before any ruling, before any service, before defendant has appeared

Judge Kirsch conditionally granted IFP subject to § 1915 screening and directed the clerk to withhold summons and formal service pending review. On the same day — without request from any party, before any defendant had appeared, and before formal service had been authorized — the Court forwarded the complaint and TRO motion directly to John Basiak, Chief of Civil Division, U.S. Attorney's Office. No Federal Rule requires or authorizes this notification at this stage. Service is the plaintiff's obligation under FRCP 4. The Court acted sua sponte, on day one, in favor of the party that had not yet appeared.

February 26, 2026 — Day 2

Application publishes — the April 2 abandonment deadline now controls

Patent Application No. 18/973,067 published on its mandatory statutory date. The publication deadline argument within the TRO was mooted. A second, distinct, irreversible deadline now governed: April 2, 2026 — the date on which the application would be permanently abandoned if the $4,122 penalty remained unpaid. Unlike publication, no extensions were available under any circumstances — confirmed in writing by the USPTO.

March 9, 2026 — Day 13

Government voluntarily appears — without having been formally served

AUSA Junis L. Baldon filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of Defendant John Squires. The Court's February 25 order had placed formal service on hold. No summons had been issued. No formal service had occurred. The government entered the case through the Court's sua sponte day-one notification — not through required legal process. The two emergency motions filed February 24 remained pending. Thirteen days had elapsed without ruling.

March 14, 2026 — Day 18

Plaintiff writes Court: April 2 is 19 days away — investor arrangement underway — equity damages documented

Plaintiff filed a letter notifying the Court that: (1) the application had published, but the conduct producing the uncertainty and the penalty threatening permanent abandonment remained unresolved; (2) April 2 was 19 days away with no extensions available; (3) to prevent permanent abandonment while the emergency motion sat unresolved, Plaintiff had entered discussions with a private investor who would cover the penalty in exchange for a significant equity interest in the patent — an interest worth orders of magnitude more than the penalty itself. Plaintiff explicitly placed the Court on notice that his damages claim was not limited to $4,122 and that the compelled equity transfer constituted a direct and foreseeable consequential loss caused by the agency's conduct. Plaintiff asked the Court to act before April 2 or to say it could not. The letter was served on Baldon. Read Letter →

March 17, 2026 — Day 21

Plaintiff rejects Baldon's settlement proposal — exhaustion rebutted on five grounds

Baldon had proposed voluntary dismissal and directed Plaintiff to the USPTO's petition process. Plaintiff filed a formal rejection letter rebutting the exhaustion argument on five independent grounds — each established by the USPTO's own employees on the USPTO's own recorded lines: futility under Withrow v. Larkin; timeline impracticability; agency-created impossibility; partial exhaustion already completed; and constitutional violations not remediable through administrative process. Filed with the Court and served on Baldon simultaneously. Read Rejection →

March 18, 2026 — Day 22 · ECF No. 10

U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche enters case — requests seven days

ECF No. 10 filed under the authority of Todd Blanche, U.S. Deputy Attorney General, and Jordan Fox, Chief of Staff and Associate Deputy Attorney General. The filing requested seven days — until March 25 — to file a letter brief on jurisdiction and threshold issues before the Court took further action on the merits. The Deputy Attorney General of the United States does not appear in pro se patent penalty cases in district courts. Two emergency motions had been pending for 22 days. April 2 was 15 days away. Read ECF No. 10 →

March 19, 2026 · 2:00 AM — Day 23

Plaintiff files response to ECF No. 10 — requests April 1 hard ruling deadline simultaneously

At 2:00 AM, Plaintiff filed his response to ECF No. 10 through ADS. Plaintiff did not oppose the letter brief. Plaintiff opposed any briefing schedule that would functionally eliminate the Court's ability to rule before April 2. The mathematics were stated plainly: if the government filed on March 25, seven days remained before the irreversible deadline — insufficient time to brief, consider, and rule on threshold arguments of the proposed complexity. Plaintiff requested specifically that the Court, in granting the extension, simultaneously direct that the pending TRO motion be ruled upon no later than April 1, 2026 — one day before the irreversible deadline — regardless of the briefing schedule. The response also disclosed for the first time that the evidentiary record on the institutional blackout extended beyond what had been filed — additional recordings across multiple USPTO offices on multiple dates — and identified Michele Eason as Lead Paralegal Specialist, a senior institutional actor whose statement on a government-initiated call carried the full evidentiary weight of her seniority. Read Response →

March 19, 2026 · 9:23 AM

Plaintiff's response enters the Court's electronic system — FileNumber 20508320-0

The Court's ADS system processed Plaintiff's response and assigned it FileNumber 20508320-0, docketed at 9:23 AM. This Court's own published filing policy states: "The date the Clerk's Office receives a document submitted through ADS will be considered the date of filing." File numbers in this Court's electronic system are assigned automatically and sequentially at the moment of electronic receipt. No paper documents are involved. The filing entered the system. It was assigned the next available sequential number.

March 19, 2026 · 9:34 AM — Eleven minutes later

Court's Letter Order enters the system — FileNumber 20508409-0 — bearing a signature date of March 18

Eleven minutes after Plaintiff's response entered the electronic filing system, the Court's Letter Order was docketed bearing FileNumber 20508409-0. The order bears a signature date of March 18, 2026 — the previous day. In a fully electronic filing system where file numbers are assigned automatically upon electronic submission, a signature date and a submission date are two distinct events. The order was signed on March 18. It did not enter the electronic filing system until March 19 — eleven minutes after Plaintiff's letter, which carries the lower sequential number, had already done so. Under this Court's own published policy, the filing date is the date of electronic receipt. The filing date of the Court's order is March 19, 2026. Plaintiff's letter entered first. The Court's order entered second. Both facts are documented in the Court's own automated sequential numbering system.

March 19, 2026 · The Order's Contents

Extension granted — April 1 ruling deadline not addressed — silence on the only question that mattered

The Court's Letter Order granted Defendant's request for a seven-day extension. Defendant would file its letter brief by March 25, 2026. The order said nothing else. It did not address Plaintiff's request — filed that same morning, already in the electronic system — that the Court simultaneously direct a ruling on the TRO no later than April 1. It did not acknowledge the April 2 abandonment deadline. It set no ruling schedule. It addressed the government's request. It was silent on Plaintiff's. The two emergency motions had now been pending for 23 days. April 2 was 14 days away. The briefing schedule as granted left seven days between the government's filing and the irreversible deadline.

March 19, 2026 · The Docket Record — Stated Without Characterization

What the docket showed at the moment Plaintiff read the order

Each entry below is independently verifiable on PACER. On February 25 — the day this action was filed — the Court took it upon itself to notify Defendant without request, before any defendant had appeared, before formal service had been authorized. No rule required this. On March 18, Defendant's request for a seven-day extension was granted the same day it was filed. Plaintiff's TRO motion had been pending 23 days without ruling. Plaintiff's expedited discovery and preservation order motion had been pending 23 days without ruling. Plaintiff's request for an April 1 ruling deadline was not addressed in an order entered the same morning that request was filed. A Temporary Restraining Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) may issue without notice to the adverse party upon a showing of immediate irreversible harm. The irreversible deadline was documented on the face of Plaintiff's original filing. No defendant engagement is required — or contemplated by the rule — before a court acts on a TRO motion. Plaintiff states these facts for the record without characterization.

March 20–21, 2026

Voluntary dismissal without prejudice — payment under protest — all claims preserved

Having observed the sequential file numbers from the Court's own electronic system, having awaited judicial intervention on two emergency motions for 24 days without ruling, and having concluded that he could not rely on this forum to protect his property right in the time that remained, Plaintiff secured that right by making direct payment to the USPTO and filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Payment was made simultaneously under protest and under economic duress, solely to prevent permanent abandonment on April 2, 2026, with full reservation of all claims under Frost v. Railroad Commission, 271 U.S. 583 (1926). The equity interest surrendered to fund the payment — compelled by the agency's conduct — is documented and preserved as part of the damages claim. All recordings, all claims, and all undisclosed evidence are preserved. Read Dismissal →

Current Status

"The government's liability for the conduct documented in this proceeding does not diminish because this action is dismissed. It waits."

The case is dismissed without prejudice. The claims are not. Every recording, every admission, every docket entry, and every piece of undisclosed evidence — including recordings documenting the institutional blackout operating across multiple USPTO offices on multiple dates, never produced in this proceeding — is preserved in full. The refiled complaint will be filed in a forum Plaintiff selects, at a time of Plaintiff's choosing, when the evidentiary record is most complete and the damages most fully documented. This repository will be updated when that occurs.

Audio Evidence

Exhibit G / N · January 9, 2026 · Recorded

Agent G. — "Direction of the Office"

"Actually the direction of the office is that we are trying to not... entertain too many conversations on this topic."

Under FRE 801(d)(2)(D), this is a party admission — not hearsay. Agent G. is an Office of Petitions employee. Show cause proceedings fall within the scope of his employment. This statement is attributable to the agency. It establishes that the information blackout is institutional policy, not individual confusion. Full unedited audio is available for broadcast use.

⬇ Download Unedited Audio

Exhibit I / P · February 2, 2026 · Recorded

Agent I. — "Right" and "I'm Really Not Sure"

Applicant: "Nobody can say anything about these proceedings... no one can tell you what your remedies are... I'm sending thousands of dollars and I'm not allowed to know what's happening."

Agent I.: "Right."

Agent I. did not respond to a yes/no question. She affirmed a comprehensive enumeration of every manifestation of the institutional blackout. The same call: she reviewed the show cause order and confirmed it fails to specify what evidence is required. Also available for independent verification and broadcast use.

⬇ Download Unedited Audio

Legal Claims

Claim	Legal Basis	Core Argument	Significance
Ultra Vires Suspension Systemic	35 U.S.C. § 111, § 122(b)(1)(A) Louisiana PSC v. FCC (1986)	The fee deficiency has been paid. Only a disputed penalty remains. A penalty is not a "required fee" under Title 35. USPTO has no statutory authority to suspend prosecution to compel penalty payment.	If successful, potentially invalidates every active prosecution suspension in the show cause program.
Due Process — Fair Notice Strong	Fifth Amendment; Mullane v. Central Hanover	Show cause order failed to cite the "reasonable inquiry" standard, 37 CFR 11.18(b), or the OG Notice. Applicant could not have known what was required. Standards appeared for the first time in the penalty determination.	Structural defect in every show cause order issued under this program.
Plain English Doctrine Medium	FCC v. Fox; Grayned v. City of Rockford	Agency used ordinary language — "explanation supported by sufficient evidence" — while applying an undisclosed technical standard. An agency cannot use plain English in notices and penalize applicants for failing to divine unstated regulatory requirements.	Directly supported by Agent I.'s admission that the order fails to specify what is required.
Reasonable Reliance Strong	Vestal v. United States; Accardi doctrine	On December 1, USPTO told Applicant the response "appears to be correct." Applicant relied on this. 59 days later, the same submission was penalized without any explanation of the reversal.	Binding on the government regardless of internal agency reconsideration.
Retroactive Application Strong	Landgraf v. USI Film Products; Bowen v. Georgetown	Enforcement framework announced July 2025 and implemented October 2025 was applied to a December 2024 certification. Demands evidence from before the framework existed, preserved before any duty to preserve arose.	All three temporal impossibilities independently support this claim.
Pattern & Practice — Due Process Systemic	Fifth Amendment; Withrow v. Larkin	Five employees across three months — confirmed by two on recorded calls — enacted a coordinated institutional directive to withhold procedural information from applicants with pending penalties. This is not confusion; it is documented coordination.	Discovery of internal communications would expose who issued the directive, when, and how many applicants were affected.
Void for Vagueness Strong	Fifth Amendment; United States v. Williams (2008); FCC v. Fox (2012)	Three sequential agency documents treated the evidentiary requirement differently — illustrative in the Gazette, undefined in the show cause order, mandatory in the penalty determination. The enforcing employee stated three times she was "really not sure" what would satisfy the standard, three days after enforcement. A standard that confuses its own enforcers is unconstitutionally vague as a matter of law.	Directly supported by Agent I.'s own recorded admissions reviewing the agency's document in real time.
Structural Bias — Same-Team Review Strong	Fifth Amendment; Withrow v. Larkin (1975)	Agent I. confirmed on a recorded call that the petition challenging the penalty is reviewed by "the same team" that imposed it — the fraud mitigation unit. An adjudicative body that reviews its own decisions is not a neutral tribunal. The structural bias infects every administrative remedy available, making meaningful agency review impossible.	Recorded admission from an Office of Petitions employee describing the review structure three days after the penalty issued.
Equal Protection — Pro Se Disparate Impact Systemic	Fifth Amendment Equal Protection; Arlington Heights (1977); Haines v. Kerner (1972)	Congress created micro entity status specifically to reduce barriers for financially constrained inventors. The show cause program as administered — vague standards, mandatory information blackout, retroactive application, impossible evidence demands, same-team review — eliminates that benefit by imposing compliance burdens that require precisely the legal resources Congress sought to compensate for. The program inverts the statute it administers.	Agent I.'s admission — "if I'm not familiar and I work here, then I can understand how someone approaching the applicant would be confused" — documents the knowledge differential that falls entirely on pro se applicants.
28 U.S.C. § 1361; 35 U.S.C. § 122(b)(1)(A)	Publication is a statutory command ("shall be published"). A policy statement in the Official Gazette cannot override a mandatory statute. Suspension pending a disputed penalty payment has no basis in Title 35.	Two-day window: federal filing February 24, publication deadline February 26.

For Credentialed Press

Everything You Need
Is Already Published

All primary source documents — petitions, exhibits, unedited audio recordings, and federal court filings as filed — are available at uspto.news without registration. Audio is cleared for broadcast use under New Jersey's one-party consent law (N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4). No materials have been altered. For interview requests, unpublished archive access, or verification of any claim on this page, contact press@uspto.news with subject line "PRESS."

📧 Contact for Press ⬇ Download All Audio 📄 Read Petition ← Full Record

Does the USPTO Have the Legal Authority to Hold a Patent Hostage?

Does the USPTO Have the Legal Authority
to Hold a Patent Hostage?