In re Velcro IP Holdings v. USPTO Director: Federal Circuit Remands Touch Fastener Patent
Velcro IP Holdings appealed a USPTO patentability determination over male touch fastener elements covered by application US17/567188. The Federal Circuit granted the USPTO’s motion and remanded the case back to the agency for further consideration — a procedural reset that leaves the patent’s fate unresolved after 183 days of appellate proceedings.
Federal Circuit Sends Velcro Fastener Patent Back to USPTO
Velcro IP Holdings LLC filed this appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 31 March 2025, challenging a USPTO determination on the patentability of male touch fastener elements claimed under application US20220117363A1 (application number US17/567188). The proceeding is styled as an ‘In re’ matter, indicating it arises from an ex parte prosecution or post-grant review context before the USPTO rather than inter partes litigation between two commercial competitors.
The Federal Circuit closed the case on 30 September 2025 by granting an unspecified motion — consistent with a USPTO motion to remand — and returning the matter to the agency for further consideration. A remand of this kind typically signals that the USPTO itself identified a procedural deficiency, a changed legal standard, or new evidence warranting re-examination, rather than a merits defeat for either side at the appellate level.
At 183 days, the appellate docket resolved relatively quickly for a Federal Circuit patent matter, suggesting the remand motion was likely unopposed or agreed. The public record does not disclose the specific grounds for remand — whether linked to a post-Vidal Director Review, a change in examination guidelines, or a reconsideration request — leaving the ultimate patentability question open pending USPTO action.
Filing to Case Remanded in 183 days
183-day Federal Circuit appeal — resolved without merits ruling on patentability
Federal Circuit remands: what the order means for Velcro’s patent application
Remand nullifies the prior USPTO ruling for reconsideration
A Federal Circuit remand to the USPTO vacates the agency determination under appeal and directs the USPTO to reconsider the matter afresh — or on specified grounds — consistent with the court’s order. No merits ruling on patentability was issued. The prior adverse determination loses its binding effect, but the applicant does not automatically receive a patent; the outcome depends entirely on how the USPTO proceeds on remand.
Prior ruling vacatedVelcro avoids a final adverse ruling — but uncertainty continues
For Velcro IP Holdings, the remand represents a procedural reprieve rather than a win on the merits. The prior USPTO rejection or cancellation determination is set aside, and the agency must reconsider. If the remand was granted on grounds Velcro identified — such as an examiner legal error or a new Director Review — the applicant may be better positioned on reconsideration. The touch fastener claims remain pending and unenforced until USPTO issues a new determination.
Claims still pendingUSPTO retains jurisdiction to re-examine the touch fastener claims
The USPTO Director, as respondent, appears to have moved for or agreed to the remand — consistent with agency practice when prior examination is found to require correction. The agency is not bound to grant the patent on remand; it must consider the matter anew consistent with the Federal Circuit’s order. The USPTO retains full authority to maintain, modify, or reverse its prior patentability determination.
Agency re-examination requiredTouch fastener competitors face continued IP uncertainty from Velcro
Until the USPTO issues a new determination and any further appeals conclude, third parties in the hook-and-loop and touch fastener sector cannot treat the application US17/567188 as finally resolved. Companies designing or manufacturing male touch fastener elements should monitor USPTO prosecution closely. A grant on remand would restore Velcro’s ability to enforce claims in this space; a second rejection would likely trigger a further appeal cycle.
Watch USPTO remand outcomeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | In re: VELCRO IP HOLDINGS LLC | Company | Velcro IP Holdings LLC — holder of touch fastener patent application US17/567188Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | JOHN A. SQUIRES, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office | Individual | USPTO Director — federal agency respondent in ex parte patent patentability appealSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph Richard Dorris | Attorney | Counsel for In re: VELCRO IP HOLDINGS LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kenneth Wayne Darby | Attorney | Counsel for In re: VELCRO IP HOLDINGS LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lauren Ann Degnan | Attorney | Counsel for In re: VELCRO IP HOLDINGS LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing In re: VELCRO IP HOLDINGS LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Amy J. Nelson | Attorney | Counsel for JOHN A. SQUIRES, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark OfficeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael S. Forman | Attorney | Counsel for JOHN A. SQUIRES, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark OfficeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Monica Barnes Lateef | Attorney | Counsel for JOHN A. SQUIRES, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark OfficeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | United States Patent & Trademark Office | Law Firm | Representing JOHN A. SQUIRES, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark OfficeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s order — granting the motion and remanding to the USPTO ‘for further consideration consistent with the motion and this order’ — is a procedural disposition that carries no merits ruling on patentability. The phrasing ‘consistent with the motion’ suggests the remand scope is defined by whatever the moving party (likely the USPTO) represented in its motion papers, which are not publicly detailed in the docket summary. This leaves the substantive patentability question — and the eventual claim scope of US17/567188 — entirely within USPTO discretion on remand.
US20220117363A1 — Male Touch Fastener Elements (App. US17/567188)
Application US20220117363A1 (application number US17/567188) covers male touch fastener elements — the structured hook or engagement side of hook-and-loop fastening systems commonly associated with the Velcro brand. The application was filed under the US17 series, suggesting a relatively recent priority date. Touch fastener technology, while mature in its basic form, continues to generate patentable innovations in areas such as element geometry, attachment substrate, moulding processes, and performance in extreme environments.
Velcro IP Holdings is among the most recognisable brand owners in the fastener sector, and continued prosecution of new applications signals the company’s strategy to maintain IP coverage as legacy patents expire. For competitors manufacturing male touch fastener components — including suppliers to apparel, medical, defence, and industrial markets — the grant or denial of US17/567188 on remand will determine whether a new enforcement vector opens in this space. The application’s pending status makes it a live monitoring priority.
Should you run an FTO against US20220117363A1 (US17/567188)?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or sourcing male touch fastener elements — including hook-type fasteners for apparel, footwear, medical devices, or industrial applications — should treat this pending application as a live FTO risk. The Federal Circuit remand means the application has survived an initial challenge and is returning to active USPTO prosecution. Claim scope is not yet final, and products currently deemed non-infringing may face risk if claims are broadened or restructured on remand.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the pending claims of US20220117363A1 against your product specifications, flag prosecution history estoppel risks, and monitor the USPTO docket for new office actions or allowances in real time. Given that the claims are still in flux, setting an automated alert for this application number is the minimum prudent step for any product team in the hook-and-loop fastener supply chain.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US20220117363A1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit Patent Remand Cases in Fastener & Mechanical IP
Explore analogous Federal Circuit appeals involving USPTO patentability remands in mechanical and fastener technology, prosecuted in the DC appellate circuit.
What this remand signals for the touch fastener IP landscape
A Federal Circuit remand without merits ruling keeps Velcro’s fastener patent in play and raises monitoring obligations for competitors in the sector.
Remands are not victories — monitor the USPTO docket closely
A Federal Circuit remand sets aside a prior USPTO ruling but does not guarantee a patent grant. Competitors in the touch fastener and hook-and-loop sector should track the US17/567188 prosecution docket for the USPTO’s next office action or allowance. The window between remand and final agency action is often when claim scope shifts materially.
Ex parte Federal Circuit appeals signal high-value prosecution stakes
Velcro’s decision to pursue a Federal Circuit appeal — rather than accept a USPTO rejection — signals the company views these touch fastener claims as commercially significant enough to absorb substantial appellate cost. That calculus is worth noting for any company whose products overlap with male touch fastener element geometries covered by the pending application.
In v JOHN — key questions answered
The remand sets aside the prior USPTO determination and requires the agency to reconsider the patentability of male touch fastener claims in application US17/567188. Velcro does not automatically receive a patent; the outcome depends on how the USPTO proceeds. The Federal Circuit issued no merits ruling on patentability.
Yes. The application US20220117363A1 (US17/567188) remains pending following the remand. The Federal Circuit’s order returned the matter to the USPTO for further consideration, meaning no final grant or abandonment has been recorded based on the appellate outcome alone. Applicants and competitors should monitor the USPTO prosecution docket directly.
An ‘In re’ Federal Circuit appeal arises from USPTO ex parte proceedings — such as a rejected patent application or a Board of Patent Appeals decision — rather than from district court infringement litigation. Only the applicant and the USPTO Director are parties. There is no accused infringer. The appeal tests patentability, not infringement.
The respondent is John A. Squires, in his capacity as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO. This is standard naming convention for USPTO-respondent Federal Circuit appeals and does not imply personal liability or wrongdoing by the named official.
Based on the published application number US20220117363A1, the application covers male touch fastener elements — the structured engagement side (hook side) of hook-and-loop fastening systems. The specific claim scope on remand remains to be determined by the USPTO and may differ from the originally examined claims.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.