The institution rate for post-grant petitions in FY 2026 through the end of November (the period from Oct. 1, 2025 through November 30, 2025) stands at 37% (118 instituted, 197 denied). As expected, this rate is...more
1/16/2026
/ America Invents Act ,
Denial of Institution ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Technology Sector ,
USPTO
The USPTO’s Acting Deputy Director, Coke Morgan Stewart, issued a decision on October 3, 2025, declining to exercise discretion to deny institution in Carbyne, Inc. v. Tritech Software Systems, IPR2025-00959, Paper 11 (Oct. 3...more
12/19/2025
/ Denial of Institution ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Prosecution History ,
Patent Reissue Applications ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Prior Art ,
Reissue Patents ,
Stays ,
USPTO
On October 17, 2025, the USPTO issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (“Notice”) regarding the rules of practice for inter partes review before the PTAB. The proposed rules do not apply to post grant review petitions,...more
11/18/2025
/ Comment Period ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) ,
Parallel Proceedings ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Prior Art ,
Proposed Rules ,
Rulemaking Process ,
USPTO
In a recent decision, Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial in Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Inc. v. Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., IPR2025-00893. While some factors...more
10/30/2025
/ Claim Construction ,
Denial of Institution ,
Healthcare ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Life Sciences ,
Parallel Proceedings ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
USPTO
On October 17th, the PTAB issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding criteria for the Office to apply when making discretionary denial determinations....more
10/17/2025
/ Denial of Institution ,
Discretionary Functions ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
NPRM ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Proposed Rules ,
Rulemaking Process ,
USPTO
In a Director Review, the Acting Director reversed a panel decision to discretionarily deny an IPR under § 325(d). The Acting Director held that the PTAB’s own findings in two previous IPRs sufficiently proved Examiner error...more
9/12/2025
/ Abuse of Discretion ,
Appeals ,
Fashion Industry ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Nike ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Prosecution History ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Remand ,
Sketchers ,
Statutory Interpretation ,
USPTO
On July 29, 2025, Chief Administrative Patent Judge Scott R. Boalick circulated a memorandum to Members of the PTAB entitled “Final Written Decision Procedures for AIA Trial Proceedings.” ...more
9/8/2025
/ Appeals ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
New Guidance ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
USPTO
In a recent decision, Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart denied a Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial in LifeVac, LLC v. DCSTAR, Inc., IPR2025-00454. Even though Petitioner had previously challenged the same...more
8/11/2025
/ Denial of Institution ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Discretion ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Prior Art ,
USPTO
On June 25, 2025, Acting Director Coke Stewart released an informative decision vacating institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) based on two petitions that were primarily filed to present two different constructions....more
8/6/2025
/ Claim Construction ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Trial Practice Guidance ,
USPTO ,
Vacated
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) brought by Par-Kan Company, LLC against Unverferth Manufacturing Company regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,967,940 (“the ‘940 patent”). ...more
7/28/2025
/ Evidence ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Inventions ,
Inventors ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Testimony ,
USPTO
As discretionary denials are on the rise and institution rates are declining at the PTAB (link), recent decisions from the PTAB have introduced the notion of a patent owner’s “settled expectations” as another reason for the...more
A Delegated Rehearing Panel (“DRP”) recently modified the PTAB’s construction of the claim term “workload” and remanded, giving Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Petitioner”) another opportunity to challenge a processor patent....more
6/27/2025
/ Appeals ,
Claim Construction ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Authority ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
USPTO
Recently, an ITC Administrative Law Judge applied IPR statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) in denying a Respondent’s motion for summary determination of invalidity in Certain Audio Players and Components Thereof,...more
5/22/2025
/ Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ,
Estoppel ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Statutory Interpretation
In IOENGINE, LLC v. Ingenico Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2025), the Federal Circuit narrowed the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which precludes an IPR petitioner from asserting in court that a patent claim “is invalid...more
5/16/2025
/ CAFC ,
Estoppel ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Printed Publications ,
Prior Art
In Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al v. Chien-Hao Chen et al, IPR2024-01230, Paper 12 (PTAB Feb. 19, 2025), the PTAB granted the institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) while an ex parte reexamination (“EPR”) on the...more
5/2/2025
/ Claim Construction ,
Ex Partes Reexamination ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
USPTO
Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) was persuaded to consider the merits of three out of seven concurrent petitions for an inter partes review of a single patent due to the patent’s complicated claiming...more
4/28/2025
/ Apple ,
Claim Construction ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art
Kroy IP Holdings, LLC sued Groupon, Inc., alleging infringement of 13 claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,061,660 (“’660 patent’), which relates to incentive programs over computer networks. Those claims were invalidated via...more
4/11/2025
/ Appeals ,
Appellate Courts ,
Collateral Estoppel ,
Computer-Related Inventions ,
Evidence ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Reversal
Honeywell filed a petition for inter partes review of 3G Licensing’s U.S. Patent No. 7,319,718, which claims a coding scheme for transmitting information in 3G mobile communication systems. The PTAB found none of the...more
The Federal Circuit rejected a recent argument that the PTAB does not have inter partes review (IPR) jurisdiction over expired patents. Because even expired patents involve the grant of public rights, the court explained that...more
3/10/2025
/ Appeals ,
Article III ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Jurisdiction ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents
On appeal from an inter partes review (“IPR”), the Federal Circuit held that, under pre-America Invents Act (“pre-AIA”) law, a published patent application is prior art as of its filing date as opposed to its later date of...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently denied institution in an inter partes review (“IPR”) where Petitioner later filed a parallel petition against the same claims of the same patent. Shenzhen Root Tech. Co.,...more
1/23/2025
/ Appeals ,
Denial of Institution ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Trial Practice Guidance ,
USPTO
On September 24, 2024, the PTAB denied institution of a post-grant review proceeding initiated by Inari Agriculture, Inc. (Petitioner) against Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (Patent Owner). The patent at issue was U.S....more
Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) released a final written decision finding no challenged claims were unpatentable in Duration Media LLC v. Rich Media Club LLC, IPR2023-00953, Paper 74 (August 19, 2024). ...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board held all challenged claims of IGT’s patent unpatentable as obvious over two prior art patents. Zynga Inc. v. IGT, IPR2022-00199-32. In doing so, the PTAB further held that, contrary to...more
10/27/2023
/ Estoppel ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Gaming ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Interference Claims ,
Inventors ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
POSITA ,
Prior Art ,
Software ,
USPTO ,
Zynga
On May 12, 2023, the Intel v. VLSI chronicle continued as the PTAB issued a final written decision holding that all of the challenged claims of VLSI’s U.S. Patent No. 7,725,759 (“the ’759 patent”) were unpatentable as...more