![[IPWatchdog Logo]](https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/themes/IPWatchdog%20-%202023/assets/images/temp/logo-small@2x.png){kind=logo}
30 “At IPWatchdog’s 2025 Women’s IP Forum, Stewart told IPWatchdog President, Renee Quinn, that her familiarity with the agency enabled her to hit the ground running. ‘We reached terminal velocity early,’ Stewart said.”
Acting USPTO Director Coke Stewart speaking at IPWatchdog LIVE. March 4, 2025.
IPWatchdog has learned that U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Deputy Director Coke Morgan Stewart sent an email to USPTO executive staff today informing them that she will be leaving the Office to return to the private sector.
Stewart reportedly told Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick and USPTO Director John Squires earlier today that she will be leaving by the end of this week.
Prior to her role as Deputy Director, Stewart was named Acting USPTO Director by President Donald Trump and sworn in on January 20, 2025. She has been credited with taking quick action as Acting Director to attack the significant backlog she inherited and to enact patent-friendly policies at the USPTO.
Stewart served in various senior management roles with the USPTO over more than a decade, ranging from Senior Advisor to Acting Deputy Solicitor to Acting Chief of Staff and ultimately, after the conclusion of the first Trump term, functionally serving as Deputy Director, with her title then officially having been “Performing the Functions and Duties of Deputy Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the USPTO.”
In 2021, Stewart left the USPTO to become Deputy Attorney General for Virginia, responsible for the areas of healthcare, education, and social services, a role she held for nearly two years. After stepping down as Deputy Attorney General she joined O’Melveny & Myers LLP, a global law firm with 18 offices and more than 800 lawyers. While at O’Melveny, Stewart, who is a seasoned intellectual property and appellate litigator, primarily practiced representing both patent holders and accused infringers in complex patent matters, including through jury trials in the Eastern District of Texas and the Eastern District of Virginia. She has also handled more than 60 Federal Circuit appeals.
Soon after taking on her role as Acting Director, Stewart implemented an aggressive agenda of change. At IPWatchdog’s 2025 Women’s IP Forum, she told IPWatchdog President, Renee Quinn, that her familiarity with the agency enabled her to hit the ground running. “We reached terminal velocity early,” Stewart said. Facing an unprecedented backlog and operational challenges heightened by the aftermath of the pandemic, she explained that her mandate was to take proactive steps to align with the expectations of the Trump administration.
“We came into a crisis situation,” Stewart explained to the Women’s IP Forum, referring to the largest backlog on record, which she inherited from former USPTO Director Kathi Vidal. And, despite challenges imposed by a hiring freeze, return to work orders, and high attrition rates, the Office “has completely turned the tide on the backlog,” Stewart commented at the time.
Stewart also introduced the interim process for Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Workload Management, and specifically, the “settled expectations” doctrine, which she said was an effort to rebalance. “The pendulum needs to be brought back to the middle,” Stewart told IPWatchdog, when it comes to America Invents Act (AIA) cases. “The AIA is still new,” Stewart said. “Settled expectations is just a level-setting.”
It is not yet known who will take Stewart’s place as Deputy Director.
![[Advertisement]](https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Junior-Aug-20-2026-sidebar-700x500-1.jpg)
![[Advertisement]](https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Anaqua-Aug-25-2026-sidebar-700x500-1.jpg)
![[Advertisement]](https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Womens-IP-Forum-2026-sidebar-register-early-bird-now-700x500-1.jpg)
![[Advertisement]](https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/ClearstoneIP-Varsity-Ad-2026-Ad-3.jpg)
![[Advertisement]](https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Juristat-Varsity-Ad-2026-IPW-ad-Solo_2.png)
![[Advertisement]](https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Patent-Prosecution-Training-sidebar-700x500-2025-03-27.jpg)
![[Advertisement]](https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/WEBINAR-336-x-280-px.png)
![[Advertisement]](https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Ad-4-The-Invent-Patent-System™.png)
Join the Discussion
30 comments so far. Add my comment.
Best 2b Anonymous
August 16, 2026 08:15 amPractitioner Anon,
Having a calculated allotted time to complete each application and making decisions to balance great examination with time constraints is not self centered. Managing a docket of many just like you are. Its different on your side, you can charge a client as long as it reasonably allowable to achieve the task. Here we are expected to take care of you and 4+ cases just like you sometimes in one week. All expecting us to spend infinite time, be through, make no mistakes. We do not make the protocol, the forever increasing backlog is. The topic of this article made things worse on both sides and morale has never been lower in my over a decade on this side. You can speak to your experience but on this side she made our lives hell and then told everyone she was saving the day. A monster.
Examiner
August 15, 2026 08:18 amInternal metrics (increased production, reduced training time, time allotted per application, and others ) are related to and directly affect examination quality. The relationship between increased production and quality is inversely proportional, to quote an earlier comment.
Whether you accept these facts is really irrelevant. But I guess you like repeating yourself. Repeating yourself and not accepting these facts is not only illogical, but will not change the fact that the relationship exists.
Anon
August 14, 2026 08:33 amBest 2B Anonymous,
that ” keeping in mind the time allotted per application.” is precisely the self-centered part.
That’s the part where your interests and my (the Royal you and me) diverge, as the deal struck between my client and your ‘boss’ has nothing to do with examination per time. That is entirely an internal metric.
As I have shown, the authority TO examine also has no such time allotted basis.
You repeat this in your next sentence of, “in the time allotted.”
This myopia with YOUR internal measurement IS part and parcel of the problem. The system is not meant to serve the bureaucrats of the system.
“You are self centered one.”
Absolutely not. I am the one that understands the larger system. I am the one making sure my client does not suffer for those seeking only their own bureaucratic and internal satisfaction.
It is not within my zone of responsibility to care about your internal metrics. As I have noted several times now – the authority to examine just does not countenance that.
“I dont know any that would say they don’t care about you guys. We do. I know I do. Dont make me you…”
lol – this is utter nonsense and I see no basis whatsoever for this assertion. All that you have shown is the concern for ‘time allotted.’
Best 2b Anonymous
August 10, 2026 10:00 amPractitioner Anon,
My colleagues and I do care about out putting high quality patents within the time allotted (giving practitioners clear and compact prosecution). I dont cotton to anyone not following protocol. You trying to say both sides dont care about the other. Not true. I care. If you don’t care about examiner condition it’s not a surprise to me. I see you also have a friend on this website blocking post that only contain the truth. No calling you names just being honest. you and I are not the same.
IamI
August 9, 2026 05:57 pmThere are direct impacts on the examination your clients pay for of the policy changes as a result of the internal metrics.
Best 2b Anonymous
August 8, 2026 04:34 pmPractitioner Anon,
I would not call anyone working here self centered. My colleagues and I care deeply that patents are issued of the highest quality keeping in mind the time allotted per application. Being neutral and following the laws for what is allowable or should be rejected in the time allotted. Also being held very accountable here via firings and errors. many people suffering stress related issues. I know some practitioners that see the work we do and see a happy core moving things more efficiently. Good luck to all practitioners and inventors out there. You may get a patent you may not but we are here to determine that. You are self centered one. Our condition of what has happened which is really borderline evil you couldnt care less about. Talk to an examiner. I dont know any that would say they don’t care about you guys. We do. I know I do. Dont make me you…
Anon
August 8, 2026 10:05 amBest 2b Anonymous,
…and how much care do you have for the working conditions of practitioners?
Has that ever crossed your mind – or are you simply stuck in a bureaucratic, self-centered, what’s-in-it-for-me mode?
Best 2b Anonymous
August 7, 2026 11:38 amPractitioner Anon,
You could care less about us. I understand you pay and you want results. Our condition or treatment is not a concern of yours. Understood.
Anon
August 6, 2026 07:56 amBest 2b Anonymous and Kuttre,
Please read my position again.
It is not that I (the Royal I) care or not – it is that I care for my clients and what they pay for.
They simply do not pay for your internal metrics.
Whether that Royal I care or not is simply not pertinent to the professional expectation of receiving what was paid for.
Do not attempt to make your problem into my client’s problem with anything less than the level of what my client’s pay for (and the provision of authority for your existence in the first place): an examination under the law.
Kuttre
August 4, 2026 05:02 amAnon,
You(the royal you) do not have to care about internal metrics but it is logically incoherent to not accept that the relationship between quality and production is inversely proportional. It’s really irrelevant if you(the royal you) do not accept this natural consequence.
Best 2b Anonymous
August 3, 2026 09:47 amPractitioner Anon,
changes were for benefit of applicant and practitioners only so I’m sure you guys are happy. On the examiner side for those who care, examiners have been given tighter timelines for overall dockets and morale maintaining elements stripped. So yes (they who will remain nameless) was a champion for you and there was no balance in the negative changes. If you look at the totality of everything that was done it was not good for examiners managing dockets and any crumb of morale. Is a examining force with descending morale good for patent quality in the long term?
Anon
August 3, 2026 07:20 amIamI,
I think that both of us have been around long enough to recognize the futility of what amounts to nothing more than moving deck chairs on the Titanic.
The ‘attack’ on first action pendency is purely virtue signaling.
Nothing more, nothing less.
As you no doubt recognize as well, it has little to nothing to do with 35 U.S.C. § 131.
Anon
August 3, 2026 07:16 amKuttre,
As a professional, I do not accept any ‘fact’ of eventuality or necessity of “quality going down.”
As a professional, neither should you.
This is the core of my beef: internal metrics are being made an external issue – Your choices (the royal You) are affecting what my clients have paid for: my clients do not pay for a set time of examination, they pay for a set quality of examination – the authority by Congress to examine includes (my emphasis added):
35 U.S.C. 131 Examination of application.
The Director shall cause an examination to be made of the application and the alleged new invention; and if on such examination it appears that the applicant is entitled to a patent under the law, the Director shall issue a patent therefor.
The law requires more than the positions of examiners and their gripes on internal metrics.
IamI
August 2, 2026 02:55 pm@Stephen Schreiner, how do you feel about total pendency, both in terms of total pending applications and pendency time, going up while the backlog of unexamined applications goes down? Sure, the unexamined backlog is going down, but at what cost?
Kuttre
August 1, 2026 02:54 am@Anon- Stewart made short sighted changes to address the backlog by raising production requirements, gutting training time, quality enhancement time, etc. As a result, in the short term, backlog goes down, but as a consequence in the long term, lower quality Patents will be issues. Unless your clients don’t care about getting lower quality patents, I’d say it will inevitably impact them too.
Anon
July 31, 2026 08:30 amMy biggest issue with Examiner griping is that NONE of the changes impact what merits examination under the law – and that is what my clients pay for.
Is it tougher?
Sure – but that is not the applicant’s problem, nor should it be.
Also_Anonymous
July 29, 2026 09:32 am@Anon: It’s completely expected every negative comment is from a current/former PTO employee. She had a very real and immediate impact on their lives. Whatever “good” she may have done either was at the expense of PTO employees or does not change the negative management impacts of her policies on employees.
While a lot of people view what she has done as good for patents and patent owners, I wouldn’t be so sure. Perhaps the PTAB changes helped limit abusive practices, but the PTAB is a small part of the Office and she made serious changes in all business units. The impacts of her larger policy changes have yet to trickle through the system. Frankly, I predict in years to come a lot of patents issued under her time will have serious quality problems because of her rushed changes to examination, IT, and support services. This is to say nothing of whether what she has done at the PTAB or otherwise was lawful or within regulations. Her approach was to ram changes through regardless if they were backed by data, thought out, or even within current regulations.
I guess only time will tell.
Examiner Peter
July 28, 2026 09:29 pmThe examiners here are wrong to blame Stewart for all the bad things that occurred during her watch. But she didn’t stop them either. Here are a few changes on the PTO’s examination side that you practitioners will eventually feel.
Due to changes in the telework policy the PTO is only able to hire individuals willing to permanently move to the high cost of living area of the PTO’s headquarters. That means a much smaller examiner applicant pool which means an examination corps consisting of even less qualified individuals.
The PTO has reduced the length of time that these new hire examiners are trained for. It’s also severely curtailed the amount of time allocated for senior examiners to train new examiners after the initial training program. Supervising examiners are already overloaded due to other changes and don’t have the time to train and review new examiners. In sum, the recent hires are a mess. They’re under trained and under performing. As their production ramps up with time, practitioners will be working with some wildly undertrained examiners.
As part of the Pendency Balance Award, the PTO is undermining quality standards by handing out bonuses in exchange for examiners working on material outside their expertise. In order to coax examiners into working on subject matter outside their expertise, the PTO promised not to hold errors against these examiners. This grotesque program gives examiners cash and boosts the metrics of management, but is terrible for practitioners, the public, and examiner standards for quality, such that the previously were.
To conform with executive orders and reduce the number of highly rated individuals, the examiner performance appraisal plan effectively tells examiners to not bother trying to receive a good rating. Superficially this seems like an easy thing to change. But once you introduce high performing examiners to the ease of middling performance, it will be difficult and expensive to induce them into high performance again.
I would guess that most practitioners have a pretty dim view of many examiners. I share that view and I think it’s going to get much, much worse in the near future. Stewart was part of that.
Anon
July 28, 2026 06:37 pmHarkening to my first comment below, what are the odds that EVERY negative comment is from an examiner or a prior examiner?
Hasan
July 28, 2026 12:58 pmInside the Office, she was a very poor leader. Her response to the backlog among many policies was a complete elimination of training time, quality enhancement time, and increased production requirements with no additional or meaningful tools given to Examiners to do the job more effectively. On her watch morale tanked with many people with years of experience leaving the Office. She simply parroted any executive order by Trump for example changes to telework, etc without any consideration to negative impacts to Examiners or any meaningful policies to mitigate the adverse impacts.
There is a reason why she is leaving in the middle of her tenure. Most if not all Examiners would consider her to be a toothless leader who was out of touch with the realities of the core function of the Office i.e. Examination of patent applications.
Stephen Schreiner
July 28, 2026 12:07 pmCoke Morgan Stewart ushered in some important reforms in PTAB proceedings. She also addressed the large backlog of over 800,000 unexamined applications. She deserves congratulations for her dedicated service.
Eileen McDermott
July 28, 2026 10:35 am@GSInExile – No one deleted your comment, it was just pending – I did delete your comment containing a slur, along with several others. Criticism is fine but this isn’t Facebook.
Model 101
July 28, 2026 09:58 amAn American treasure.
Good luck and good fortune.
GS in Exile
July 28, 2026 08:21 amStewart and Squires will not be missed. She made our jobs vastly more difficult and now celebrates non-existent successes based on stolen labor. (Show me an examiner that hasn’t given “voluntary overtime” to keep up with unachievable goals, and I’ll show you a liar). Stewart’s victory lap feels like Pol Pot celebrating an excess of 1.5- 3 million affordable homes.
There’s a reason why no one in the USPTO has seen an email for this…
Pro Say
July 27, 2026 09:08 pmEspecially for the 1,000’s of Independent and SMB American inventors (and therefore American innovation), things went better with a Coke.
Robert P. Taylor
July 27, 2026 06:55 pmCoke has been highly effective in taking actions and implementing policies designed to encourage innovation and inventors. Our nation is greatly in her debt, and we can only hope she is followed by someone equally dedicated to the same objectives and equally able to stand up to withering attack from those who do not understand or do not want innovation.
Anonymous
July 27, 2026 06:00 pmHer policies were cruel and made peoples lives harder in an already hard job yet she truly believed that she had boasted morale to its highest levels. The quicker we forget her the better.
James Edwards
July 27, 2026 04:40 pmCoke Stewart has done tremendous good for America’s patent system in less than a year and a half. She deserves great credit for her excellent service. Her departure will leave a gaping hole at USPTO. She will be missed terribly, both professionally and as a wonderful human being. I wish her all the best in her next chapter.
A primary
July 27, 2026 02:45 pmIt takes 30 seconds to check the patents dashboard and see that pendency is up significantly in 2026. Halfway through the year.
What a legacy.
Anon
July 27, 2026 01:55 pmI can only imagine some very mixed emotions at this news.
Add Comment