USPTO’s Internal Large Patent Family Review Program Faces Judicial Scrutiny Over Governance and Transparency

The transparency of internal USPTO patent examination programs is once again facing judicial scrutiny. As reported by IPWatchdog on April 30, 2026, a discovery dispute in Morinville v. USPTO centered on an April 13, 2026, deposition of Dr. Kathleen Bragdon, Deputy Director of the Office of Patent Quality Assurance (OPQA). Her testimony about the Large Patent Family Review Program (LPFRP) has reignited questions about the relationship between the LPFRP and the formerly-terminated Sensitive Application Warning System (SAWS).

Background: What Was SAWS?

SAWS operated as an internal USPTO program from 1994 to 2015, flagging certain patent applications for elevated management oversight before allowance. The program operated entirely without notice to applicants — those flagged had no way of knowing and no opportunity to respond. USPTO announced SAWS’s termination in 2015, but critics argued similar internal mechanisms may have continued under different names.

The LPFRP and Weaponization Allegations

The dispute is complicated by a June 2025 DOJ investigation letter alleging USPTO was still operating a SAWS-like program in 2025, using it to “secretly flag allowable patent applications to prevent them from issuing.” Dr. Bragdon’s deposition addresses whether the LPFRP — which applies additional review layers to large patent families — acts as a structural successor to SAWS, imposing undisclosed examination burdens without procedural safeguards.

The Core Governance Question

Legal observers frame the dispute as a governance question: who within the agency knows what, how that knowledge is documented, and whether internal quality initiatives operate with sufficient transparency to withstand judicial scrutiny. If the LPFRP imposes undisclosed requirements, it raises serious questions under the Administrative Procedure Act about due process for patent applicants.

Implications for Patent Practitioners

Practitioners managing large patent families should document any patterns of unusual prosecution delay or atypical rejections. Should the litigation confirm systematic internal flagging, documented anomalies could become relevant to claims of improper examination.

What Comes Next

Discovery proceedings in Morinville v. USPTO are ongoing. A court order requiring full disclosure of LPFRP criteria, flagging scope, and documentation could have implications well beyond this single case. USPTO has not publicly confirmed or denied the LPFRP/SAWS connection alleged in the DOJ letter or the Morinville litigation.