In Brief: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) stands accused of maintaining a “shadow register” for years. This is a secret review system that causes certain patents to either stall indefinitely or face rejection without explanation—a practice expressly prohibited by law.

How It All Began: The SAWS System

The most notorious such program was SAWS (Sensitive Application Warning System), which operated from 1994 to 2015. It functioned as follows: if an invention appeared “too significant,” “controversial,” or “influential” to officials, it was flagged as “sensitive.”

What was the problem?

• Lack of Notice: Inventors were never informed that their application had been placed on this list.

• The “Pit of Despair”: Instead of a standard examination, the patent entered a black hole of endless additional review cycles.

• Legal Violations: This violated U.S. law, which mandates that the Office provide written notification for every reason for rejection.

In 2015, the USPTO admitted to the existence of SAWS and claimed to have terminated it. However, as it turns out, the story did not end there.

The Return of “Shadow Lists” Masked as Quality Control

In recent years, a controversy has emerged regarding so-called “large patent families” (where a company registers many similar inventions simultaneously). To address these, the Office created the Large Patent Family Review Program.

On paper, this appeared to be routine staff training, but in reality, it transformed into a form of hidden censorship:

1. Under-the-Table Operations: If secret controllers decided a patent should not be issued, they did not issue an official rejection. Instead, they quietly returned the documents to the examiner, instructing them to find a pretext to “tank” the application.

2. Fear of Management: Rank-and-file examiners, who are legally empowered to make independent decisions, fear clashing with the Quality Assurance department. If there is a “hint from above” to reject—they comply to avoid damaging their careers.

3. Playing in the Dark: The inventor is unaware that their case is being scrutinized by anyone else. They believe they are communicating with a single examiner, while in reality, their fate has already been decided by a secret department that is impossible to contact.

Suspicious Testimony

Recently, a court deposition of Dr. Kathleen Bragdon, one of the heads of patent quality, took place. Her testimony was a bombshell:

• She admitted to having no personal knowledge of many key aspects of the program she defends.

• She could not explain a 2025 letter from the U.S. Department of Justice that explicitly mentioned the “weaponization of agency rules” against American inventors.

• She conceded that it is entirely possible other secret review groups exist within the Office that even she is unaware of.

Why Does This Affect Everyone?

The patent system is the foundation of the economy. If an inventor—be it a massive corporation or a lone genius in a garage—cannot secure protection for their invention because it fell onto some “secret list,” progress grinds to a halt.

Main Grievances Against the Patent Office:

• Legality: All decisions must be written and public. Secret directives are a violation of federal law.

• Transparency: An inventor has the right to know who is evaluating their invention and by what criteria.

• Accountability: The Office cannot justify clandestine reviews simply as “quality control.”

What’s Next?

A court in Washington D.C. must now decide whether to allow inventors’ attorneys to proceed with further discovery—deposing additional employees and examining internal Office documents.

If permitted, we may finally learn the truth about how the U.S. patent machine actually functions. If not, the system will remain a “black box” where decisions are made behind closed doors with no right to appeal.

Conclusion: This dispute has moved beyond the boundaries of a standard courtroom. It is now a question of whether a government agency has the right to keep secrets that determine the fate of thousands of innovations.

Founder of Research & Patent group Intectica, author of patent algorithms for solving problems in the pharmaceutical industry, patent attorney certified in all intellectual property objects (Patents, Design, TM), with education in chemistry and law, chief expert of the patent institution of Ukraine UKRPATENT (1997-2004). Member of international organizations, including ECTA, PTMG, UAM, lecturer and blogger.