USPTO Aims to Ignite Participation in Standards with New SPARK Pilot Program
In conjunction with the new SEP Working Group
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced the design of a new initiative aimed at increasing the presence of U.S. small businesses and research institutions in global standard-setting venues. Dubbed the Standards Participation and Representation Kudos (SPARK) Pilot Program, the effort seeks to lower the barriers that often keep smaller entities from influencing critical technical standards.
This announcement follows closely on the heels of the agency’s December 29, 2025, launch of the Standard-Essential Patent (SEP) Working Group. That group, formed under the direction of Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and USPTO Director John A. Squires, appears to be moving quickly to operationalize its mandate to strengthen the U.S. patent system.
The SPARK Pilot specifically targets small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), universities, and non-profits—entities that frequently generate foundational technologies but lack the budget to attend prolonged standards meetings.
By offering “acceleration certificates” in exchange for meaningful participation in Standards Development Organizations (SDOs), the USPTO is attempting to align the incentives of patent prosecution with the strategic necessity of standards leadership.
Incentivizing the “Innovation Ecosystem”
Technical standards form the bedrock of modern connectivity, governing everything from 5G telecommunications to the emerging protocols for artificial intelligence and cybersecurity. However, the cost of participating in SDOs—measured in membership fees, travel expenses, and engineering hours—can be prohibitive for smaller players.
Director Squires emphasized the stakes involved in this disparity. “American leadership in standards development is essential to innovation, competitiveness, and national security,” Squires stated. “The SPARK program recognizes that small and medium-sized businesses, universities, and non-profits bring critical expertise and innovative thinking to standards development, but often lack the resources of larger enterprises to sustain participation.”
The mechanism proposed by SPARK is direct: eligible U.S. entities that make technical contributions to SDOs will receive a certificate. These certificates can then be redeemed to expedite the examination of a patent application or an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
The forthcoming Standards Participation and Representation Kudos (SPARK) Pilot Program will address this challenge by offering a limited number of acceleration certificates to eligible U.S. entities that make technical contributions to or otherwise meaningfully participate in SDO activities.
These certificates will be redeemable at the USPTO to expedite examination of patent applications or appeals to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), providing tangible value that helps offset the time and resources invested in standards development.
For a small entity, the ability to bypass the standard examination queue—a process that can otherwise take years—offers immediate commercial value. Expedited allowance can be crucial for securing funding or licensing deals early in a technology’s lifecycle.
Squires noted that the program is designed to provide “tangible value that helps offset the time and resources invested in standards development.” By doing so, the agency is “continuing to invest in broader and more robust U.S. representation in the very forums where tomorrow’s technologies are taking shape today.”
A Component of a Broader Policy Shift
The SPARK Pilot is not an isolated administrative adjustment. It is the first substantive output of the recently formed SEP Working Group, co-chaired by Deputy General Counsel Nicholas Matich and Senior Legal Advisor Austin Mayron. The group was established to address what the USPTO has identified as an ecosystem that had become “increasingly hostile to innovators,” particularly regarding the valuation and enforcement of standard-essential patents.
The creation of SPARK aligns with one of the Working Group’s three core objectives: “Facilitating Meaningful Participation in Standards Development.” However, to fully appreciate the strategic intent behind SPARK, one must look at the Working Group’s other objectives, which include “Restoring Robust Remedies for Patent Holders.”
The USPTO’s recent legal filings suggest that the agency views the protection of SME innovation as inextricably linked to the availability of injunctive relief. In the Radian Memory Systems LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Statement of Interest filed in June 2025, the USPTO and DOJ argued that “irreparable harm is common in patent infringement cases because patents are hard to value and damages are difficult to calculate” (Radian, p. 7).
This legal philosophy supports the logic of SPARK. If the USPTO accelerates a patent for a small university through SPARK, but that patent cannot be effectively enforced due to weak remedies, the certificate’s value is diminished.
The agency’s broader strategy appears to be a two-front effort: help SMEs obtain patents faster through SPARK, and ensure those patents have teeth via the policy positions advocated in Radian and the DRAM ITC Joint Comment.
In the DRAM filing, the agencies characterized the ITC as the “indispensable border guardian of American ingenuity,” arguing that “the public interest overwhelmingly favors the enforcement of valid patent rights through exclusion orders” (DRAM, pp. 3, 5).
By strengthening the enforcement environment while simultaneously lowering the barrier to entry for standards participation, the USPTO seems intent on fortifying the position of U.S. inventors in the global marketplace.
Targeting Artificial Intelligence and Critical Tech
The SPARK press release explicitly highlights “artificial intelligence” alongside telecommunications as a key area for standards development. This inclusion is significant. Unlike mature telecommunications standards, AI standards are currently in a formative stage.
The participation of diverse U.S. entities in setting AI standards is critical to establishing protocols that prioritize safety, privacy, and interoperability. Smaller AI startups and research universities often drive the breakthroughs in this sector, yet they risk being overshadowed by massive technology incumbents at SDOs.
If SPARK can successfully encourage these smaller players to engage in the tedious work of standardization, it may prevent a scenario where AI protocols are dictated solely by a handful of large corporations. However, the specific eligibility requirements—which the USPTO notes will be announced when the pilot launches—will be the determining factor.
The agency likely should better define what constitutes a “technical contribution” in a way that prevents the system from being gamed by entities seeking expedited examination without offering substantive value to the standard.
Thoughts & Analysis
The introduction of the SPARK Pilot represents a pragmatic use of the USPTO’s administrative levers to influence external market behavior. By trading prosecution speed for SDO participation, the agency is creating a currency that costs taxpayers relatively little but holds significant value for startups.
For patent practitioners representing SMEs, SPARK provides a new strategic option. The path to secure a patent quickly is often a critical milestone for startups seeking venture capital. If a client is already contributing to a standard, or on the fence about doing so, this program tips the scales in favor of participation.
Furthermore, increasing the diversity of voices in SDOs may lead to more robust and innovative standards. Universities, in particular, often focus on long-term technical merit rather than immediate commercial advantage, potentially raising the quality of the resulting technical specifications.
The primary challenge lies in the economics of SDO participation. An acceleration certificate, while valuable, does not pay for international flights, hotel stays, or annual membership dues, which can run into the tens of thousands of dollars. For a cash-strapped startup, expedited examination may not be enough to justify the hard costs of sending an engineer to meetings in Europe or Asia.
Additionally, “meaningful participation” is a subjective metric. The USPTO will need to establish rigorous criteria to ensure that certificates are awarded for genuine technical work, rather than mere attendance or nominal submissions. If the bar is set too low, the program could clutter the expedited examination queue; if set too high, it may remain inaccessible to the very entities it aims to help.
The broader policy context regarding SEPs remains volatile. While the current administration pushes for strong property rights and injunctive relief (as seen in Radian), large implementers continue to lobby against what they view as “hold-up” tactics. If the pendulum of antitrust policy swings back, the value of these accelerated SEPs could be curtailed by judicial or legislative limitations on their enforcement.
Finally, if the goal is raising funds, securing a loan, or monetizing IP, designating a patent as “standard essential” will likely carry FRAND obligations and could affect several financial aspects of a SME.
Conclusion
The SPARK Pilot signals that the USPTO is willing to experiment with new incentives to secure U.S. influence in global technology standards. By directly linking the patent prosecution process with standards development, the agency is attempting to bridge the gap between innovation and implementation for smaller entities.
For the IP community, this program—combined with the aggressive legal stances of the SEP Working Group—indicates a coordinated effort to re-empower the patent owner.
Practitioners should prepare to advise clients not only on the mechanics of this new pilot but also on how it fits into a shifting enforcement environment that increasingly favors the “property-centric” view of intellectual property.
Disclaimer: This is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or financial advice. To the extent there are any opinions in this article, they are the author’s alone and do not represent the beliefs of his firm or clients. The strategies expressed are purely speculation based on publicly available information. The information expressed is subject to change at any time and should be checked for completeness, accuracy and current applicability. For advice, consult a suitably licensed attorney and/or patent professional.