IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
Inter Partes Review (IPR)
Subscribe to Inter Partes Review (IPR)'s Posts

AIA reviews: An alternative to litigation, not a second chance

by | May 28, 2026 | ,

Addressing the scope of discretionary institution under the America Invents Act (AIA), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR), concluding that the petitioner was attempting to use the Patent Trial & Appeal Board as a “second bite at the apple” after unsuccessfully litigating substantially similar invalidity issues in district court, contrary to the AIA’s purpose of providing a streamlined alternative to litigation. Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Kurin, Inc., IPR2026-00097, Paper 17 (Director May 14, 2026).

Magnolia challenged the validity of Kurin’s patent directed to a blood-testing device in district court. After the district court excluded Magnolia’s invalidity expert based on disclosure deficiencies related to claim construction and a jury subsequently found the patent not invalid, Magnolia filed an IPR petition asserting substantially similar anticipation and obviousness grounds. The Director denied institution, concluding that Magnolia had already had a full and fair opportunity to litigate those issues in district court and was improperly attempting to relitigate them before the Board.

The Director explained that Congress created IPRs and post-grant reviews (PGRs) under the AIA to provide streamlined and cost-effective alternatives to district court litigation, not to facilitate repetitive validity challenges or expand parallel litigation. The decision noted that, in practice, many petitioners pursue AIA review alongside district court litigation, sometimes asserting overlapping invalidity theories or taking inconsistent positions across forums, thereby increasing costs and burdening both patent owners and the USPTO.

The Director further emphasized that AIA proceedings serve broader public-interest objectives beyond resolving private disputes, including promoting efficiency, fairness, predictability, and the integrity of the patent system. In exercising discretionary institution authority, the USPTO considers factors such as examiner error, inconsistent positions across forums, settled expectations, and whether institution would represent an appropriate use of USPTO resources.

Applying those principles, the Director concluded that Magnolia’s petition fell outside the intended purpose of AIA review because Magnolia was not using the Board as an alternative forum for resolving validity disputes, but instead to relitigate substantially similar invalidity theories after an unfavorable outcome in district court. The Director emphasized that Magnolia had already contested validity in district court using anticipation and obviousness grounds similar to those asserted in the petition and that the parties had expended substantial resources litigating those issues.

The Director rejected Magnolia’s argument that institution was warranted because no tribunal had adjudicated the merits of its anticipation and obviousness theories after the district court excluded its expert testimony. According to the Director, Magnolia had a full and fair opportunity to litigate those issues, and the exclusion of its expert resulted from deficiencies within Magnolia’s control. Permitting institution under those circumstances, the Director explained, would improperly allow Magnolia to obtain a “second bite at the apple” before the USPTO.

In discussing the public-interest considerations that inform discretionary institution decisions, the Director highlighted several precedential and informative decisions addressing issues such as substantial examiner error, inconsistent positions across forums, foreign sovereign petitioners, and settled expectations. The Director explained that these decisions reflect [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Missed delivery: Institution decision statutorily unreviewable

by | May 7, 2026 | ,

Addressing the scope of appellate review under the America Invents Act, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that challenges grounded in 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2)’s real-party-in-interest requirement are unreviewable where they are closely tied to the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s institution decision. Fed. Express Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., Case No. 24-1236 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 29, 2026) (Hughes, Cunningham, Stark, JJ.)

FedEx owns a patent related to sensor-based logistics systems that provide shipment information and allow customized access controls. After FedEx sued Roambee for infringement in district court, Qualcomm (although not a party to that litigation) filed inter partes review (IPR) petitions challenging the FedEx patent. Qualcomm identified the Roambee litigation as a related matter but did not list Roambee as a real party in interest.

FedEx opposed institution, arguing that Qualcomm’s failure to identify all real parties in interest violated § 312(a)(2), which requires that a petition identify all such parties before it may be considered. The Board instituted review and later denied FedEx’s motion to terminate, explaining that it would not decide the real-party-in-interest issue because doing so was unnecessary to resolve the proceeding absent a time-bar or estoppel concern. In its final written decision, the Board declined to revisit the issue and held the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious. FedEx appealed.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit declined to review FedEx’s real-party-in-interest challenges. Relying on Supreme Court precedent and its own case law, the Federal Circuit explained that § 312(a)(2) is a statutory prerequisite “closely tied” to institution because a petition may be considered only if it identifies all real parties in interest. Thus, challenges asserting that the Board failed to properly apply § 312(a)(2) necessarily attack the institution decision itself and fall within § 314(d)’s bar on appellate review.

The Federal Circuit rejected FedEx’s attempt to reframe its arguments as a challenge to the Board’s post-institution conduct, including the denial of FedEx’s motion to terminate. The Court explained that even when raised later in the proceeding, such arguments “boil down” to whether the Board should have instituted IPR in the first place. Because § 312(a)(2) operates as a prerequisite to institution, those challenges remain unreviewable.

Turning to the merits, the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s obviousness determination as to several claims. The Board had found those claims obvious based on a combination of prior art because it believed FedEx had not contested that ground. Both parties agreed on appeal that this premise was incorrect: FedEx had in fact disputed the combination. Because the Board’s analysis rested on a mistaken understanding of the record and failed to address FedEx’s arguments or fully evaluate the prior art, the Court concluded that meaningful appellate review was not possible and vacated the Board’s obviousness determination.

The Federal Circuit declined FedEx’s request for outright reversal of the Board. The Court explained that reversal is appropriate only where the record supports a single outcome, but here unresolved factual issues remained, including whether the prior art satisfied the relevant claim [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Corresponding disclosed structure? Only what’s necessary to perform a recited function

by | Mar 26, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the disclosure of an added function in the specification of a patent should not affect the structure necessary to meet the recited function in a Section 112(f) claim element. Gramm v. Deere & Co., Case No. 24-1598 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 11, 2026) (Lourie, Reyna, Cunningham, JJ.)

Richard Gramm exclusively licensed Reaper Solutions rights to a patent directed to an apparatus for keeping the header of a crop harvester at a certain height above the ground as the harvester moves across a field. Gramm and Reaper sued Deere & Co., alleging that specific Deere header sensor kits infringed the patent. Deere challenged the validity of the patent in a partially successful inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, leaving one independent claim and some of the dependent claims asserted.

In connection with claim construction during the IPR proceeding, Reaper and Deere disputed the meaning of “control means” in the independent claim. At issue was whether the specification’s discussion of the “head controller 20” was sufficiently definite corresponding disclosed structure for the (§112(f)) means-plus-function claim element to satisfy the definiteness requirement of §112 (b). The function of the claimed “head controller” was to provide electrical control signals to another feature in the claimed apparatus to control the lateral position of the corn header and its height above the ground or soil. Deere argued that “head controller 20” was not sufficiently definite since it amounted to a general-purpose computer or processor, thus requiring disclosure of code or an algorithm to avoid being indefinite.

In 1997, the patent’s priority date, there were only three commercially available head controllers used in Deere combines: Dial-A-Matic Versions #1, #2, and #3. Deere argued that only Versions #2 and #3 could constitute corresponding structure for the “head controller 20,” as only those versions could control both header height and lateral position. Because Versions #2 and #3 used microprocessors to control header height, Deere argued that the patent specification was required to disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. In the alternative, Deere argued that the district court should hold Reaper to its argument in the IPR proceeding that the corresponding disclosed structure was the specific controller incorporated into Deere’s Dial-A-Matic Version #1, which “controlled header height through a series of diodes, switches and integrated circuits rather than a microprocessor.”

The district court found the independent claim indefinite and reasoned that the specification’s reference to Dial-A-Matic Versions #2 and #3 triggered the need for a disclosure of a general-purpose computer or microprocessor that the patent failed to satisfy. The district court accepted Deere’s argument that the specification did not disclose Dial-A-Matic Version #1 as a corresponding structure because it could not perform the function of controlling the lateral position of the corn header. Reaper appealed.

The Federal Circuit agreed with Reaper that the district court erred by identifying a corresponding structure for “control means” beyond what was necessary to perform the claimed function, leading the district court to incorrectly [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Too late to help: Inventorship fix fails to revive forfeited argument

by | Mar 19, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, concluding that the retroactive effect of a correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256 does not bar the application of forfeiture principles in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, and that a patent owner that fails to timely raise an antedating theory during an IPR may forfeit reliance on a later corrected inventorship to resurrect that theory. Implicit, LLC v. Sonos, Inc., Case Nos. 20-1173; -1174 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2026) (Taranto, Stoll, Cunningham, JJ.)

Implicit owns patents directed to content rendering that originally named Edward Balassanian and Scott Bradley as co-inventors. Sonos filed IPR petitions against both patents, asserting unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, primarily based on Janevski, which had an effective prior art date of December 11, 2001.

To avoid Janevski as prior art, Implicit argued that the inventions were conceived and reduced to practice before December 11, 2001. It contended that Balassanian and Bradley conceived of the inventions and collaborated with another engineer, Guy Carpenter, to implement the invention prior to December 2001. Implicit argued that Carpenter’s work inured to the benefit of the named inventors, thereby antedating Janevski. The Board rejected Implicit’s argument and found the challenged claims unpatentable as anticipated or obvious over Janevski. The Board found Implicit’s evidence insufficient to establish conception and communication of the invention by Carpenter in a manner that would support an earlier reduction to practice.

Following the Federal Circuit’s and Supreme Court’s decisions in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew addressing the Appointments Clause as applied to IPR proceedings, the case was remanded to permit Director review. While proceedings were ongoing, Implicit sought correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256 to add Carpenter as a co-inventor. The United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) granted the request and issued certificates of correction in August 2022. The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the Board to determine what impact, if any, the corrections had on the prior final written decisions. The Board concluded that equitable doctrines, including forfeiture, precluded Implicit from relying on the corrected inventorship to advance a new antedating theory. Implicit appealed.

The appeal presented two principal questions:

  • Whether the retroactive effect of a correction of inventorship under § 256 forecloses application of forfeiture principles in an IPR proceeding.
  • Whether the Board abused its discretion in finding that Implicit forfeited its right to assert a new antedating theory based on corrected inventorship.

Implicit argued that § 256 contains no temporal limitation and that corrections operate retroactively, requiring the Board to revisit its unpatentability determinations once Carpenter was added as an inventor. Sonos and the USPTO countered that Implicit had litigated the IPRs on a single inventorship theory and waited until after adverse final written decisions to change course.

The Federal Circuit affirmed on both grounds.

First, the Federal Circuit found that forfeiture principles may apply notwithstanding the retroactive effect of § 256. Although [...]

Continue Reading



read more

USPTO signals new emphasis on US manufacturing in IPR and PGR institution decisions

by | Mar 19, 2026 |

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a Memorandum on March 11, 2026, signaling that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board may place increased weight on domestic manufacturing activity and the interests of small businesses when deciding whether to institute inter partes review (IPR) or post grant review (PGR).

The America Invents Act (AIA) established IPR and PGR proceedings as mechanisms for challenging the validity of issued patents before the Board. In establishing the framework for institution decisions, the statute directs the USPTO Director to consider broader policy concerns, including the impact on the US economy, the integrity of the patent system, and the efficient administration of the USPTO.

The Memorandum highlights concerns regarding the decline of US manufacturing, particularly in the electronics and computer sectors. Citing government studies, the USPTO notes that the offshoring of key industries has contributed to economic and national security vulnerabilities. According to the USPTO, these developments bear directly on the Director’s statutory obligation to consider the economic effects of Board institution decisions.

While some stakeholders contend that IPR and PGR proceedings protect US manufacturers and small businesses from weak patents, the USPTO observed that many of the most frequent petitioners are large companies that report little domestic manufacturing activity and have not made meaningful investments in US production. According to the Memorandum, this data prompted the USPTO to question whether the current discretionary institution framework adequately accounts for the interests of companies that do invest in domestic manufacturing.

As a result, the USPTO announced that certain factors related to US manufacturing and small businesses may now inform discretionary institution determinations. The USPTO encourages parties to address these considerations explicitly in their discretionary briefing.

When evaluating whether to institute an IPR or PGR, the Director may consider:

  • Whether the products accused of infringement in parallel litigation are manufactured in the United States or tied to domestic manufacturing investments.
  • Whether the patent owner produces competing products in the US.
  • Whether the petitioner qualifies as a small business that has been sued for patent infringement.

The Memorandum clarifies that manufacturing considerations are not limited to final assembly but may also encompass the production of components and situations in which products manufactured domestically are later processed abroad. For method claims, the relevant product for this analysis will be the device used to perform the claimed method.

These considerations apply to all to all IPRs and PGRs in which the due date for a patent owner discretionary brief has not yet elapsed.



read more

USPTO Director IPR institution discretion survives APA challenge

by | Feb 26, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) framework for discretionary denials of inter partes review (IPR) is a general statement of policy, not a substantive rule, and therefore is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice‑and‑comment requirements.

The USPTO Director issued a trio of related instructions to the Patent Trial & Appeal Board for its exercise of delegated non-institution authority, addressing the common situation where the IPR petitioner and the patent owner are already involved in a district court litigation over the patent at issue. Two of the instructions were in the form of precedential Board decisions, which set forth six exclusive factors, weighing in favor or against institution, that the Board must assess. These instructions are generally referred to as the NHK-Fintiv instructions that, as Board precedent, bind only the Board and not the USPTO Director.

Several IPR petitioners argued that the Director’s instructions to the Board effectively bind the USPTO as an agency and thus should have been promulgated through formal rulemaking.

The Federal Circuit disagreed, emphasizing that institution decisions rest ultimately with the USPTO Director. The Court explained that while the NHK-Fintiv framework provides guidance on how that discretionary authority may be exercised, the Director retains the ability to depart from the framework in any given case. To that end, the guidance does not carry the force and effect of law and does not impose legally binding obligations on the agency or the public.

Practice note: The decision reinforces the Federal Circuit’s post‑Arthrex theme that the Director enjoys broad and largely unreviewable discretion at the IPR institution stage.



read more

USPTO elevates precedential and informative decisions on discretionary institution in IPR/PGR

by | Jan 22, 2026 |

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) designated four decisions as precedential and nine decisions as informative, all highlighting the factors the USPTO will consider in determining whether to deny a petition for inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) based on discretionary considerations.

Although the individual outcomes differ among the four precedential decisions (two granting institution and two denying), the decisions provide insight on how the USPTO will exercise its discretion to institute and deny America Invents Act (AIA) trials based on timing, copycat petitions and joinder, sequential petitions, and policy preference for PGR availability. The USPTO designated the following decisions precedential:

The USPTO designated the following decisions as informative, illustrating the types of factual scenarios that may support either discretionary denial of a petition or, conversely, a decision to consider the petition on the merits.

Together, these informative decisions provide concrete, real‑world examples of how the Director is likely to applies discretion under 35 USC §§ 314(a) and 324(a), ranging from circumstances where institution is disfavored (e.g., parallel litigation dynamics, petition quality, procedural posture) to situations where the USPTO [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Direct injection fuel dispute fizzles

by | Jan 8, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed three Patent Trial & Appeal Board final written decisions finding claims of three related patents unpatentable as obvious and reiterated that challenges to the Board’s authority to institute inter partes review (IPR) proceedings are largely insulated from appellate review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d). Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., Case Nos. 2024-1381; -1382; -1383 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 23, 2025) (Chen, Clevenger, Hughes, JJ.)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) owns three related patents directed to fuel management systems for spark-ignition engines, which it exclusively licensed to Ethanol Boosting Systems (EBS). The patents disclose systems using both port fuel injection and direct injection to suppress engine knock by injecting an anti-knock agent, with increasing use of direct injection at higher torque levels.

EBS sued Ford for patent infringement. During claim construction, EBS and Ford disputed the meaning of claim terms related to “direct injection” fuel. EBS proposed the plain and ordinary meaning and no constraints on the term. Ford proposed terms requiring a fuel that is different from fuel used in port injunction systems and contains an anti-knock agent other than gasoline. While claim construction was pending, Ford filed IPR petitions using EBS’s proposed claim construction.

While Ford’s IPR petitions were pending, the district court adopted Ford’s construction and entered summary judgment of noninfringement. EBS appealed, and the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s decision. Before the Federal Circuit had decided the appeal, the Board denied institution on all three IPR petitions primarily because it, like the district court, construed the direct injection fuel terms to require fuel different from the fuel used in the port injector. After the Federal Circuit decision, the Board granted rehearing, instituted IPRs, and ultimately found the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious. EBS appealed the Board’s final written decisions.

Institution challenge barred under § 314(d)

EBS argued that the Board acted unlawfully by effectively “staying” its decision on Ford’s rehearing request for more than a year while awaiting the Federal Circuit’s ruling on the district court appeal, and that the resulting institution decisions should therefore be vacated.

The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, finding that it was, in substance, an impermissible challenge to the Board’s institution determinations. The Court explained that § 314(d) bars appellate review not only of institution decisions themselves, but also of challenges “closely related” to those determinations. Characterizing the Board’s delay as an ultra vires “stay” did not change the analysis, particularly since no statutory deadline governed the timing of rehearing decisions and no IPR had yet been instituted.

The Federal Circuit further noted that the narrow exceptions to § 314(d), such as colorable constitutional claims, did not apply because EBS failed to raise a viable due process or other constitutional argument.

Claim construction: District court rulings don’t control

EBS next argued that the Board was bound by the district court’s earlier claim construction (applied during the prior Federal Circuit appeal) requiring a non-gasoline anti-knock [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Authentication approved: § 314(d) doesn’t bar review of IPR petition scope

by | Dec 18, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board inter partes review (IPR) decision, finding that:

  • § 314(d) does not bar review of an IPR petition’s scope.
  • Substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings that the prior art taught the disputed limitations.
  • The Board correctly distinguished similar but different claim elements.

International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., Case Nos. 24-1170; -1274 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 9, 2025) (Chen, Taranto, Stoll, JJ.)

IBM holds a patent related to systems and methods for single sign-on (SSO) operations, enabling users to create and access multiple accounts using a single set of login credentials. Rakuten petitioned for IPR, asserting an anticipation challenge under § 102 and three obviousness challenges under § 103. The Board instituted review and addressed three claim limitations central to the dispute.

The Board first addressed the “protected resources” limitation. It adopted IBM’s construction requiring URLs or URIs and ultimately found the anticipation challenge unmet, but not because Sunada prior art failed to disclose the limitation. Instead, Rakuten (the original IPR petitioner) expressly abandoned its § 102 anticipation ground at oral argument, and afterward the Board found that Rakuten had not carried its burden. However, the Board agreed that a prior art reference nonetheless satisfied the limitation because the Board concluded that a skilled artisan would understand Sunada’s express disclosure that “web applications” be identified by conventional URLs or URIs.

Next, the Board construed “identifier associated with the user” to mean information that uniquely identifies a user, adopting IBM’s preferred construction. The Board found that the prior art reference disclosed this limitation through its use of a “User ID.”

Finally, the Board determined that Rakuten failed to establish that the asserted prior art taught the limitation requiring the second system to send a request message to a first system “in response to a determination” during user account creation. The prior art disclosed sending such a request only to the user’s own computer (not to the first system) when additional user information was needed.

The Board held several challenged claims unpatentable and others not unpatentable based on the asserted prior art. IBM appealed regarding all the claims the Board found unpatentable, contending that the Board’s analysis of “protected resources” relied on a theory of patentability not raised in the reward company’s petition, and that the Board’s findings on “identifier associated with the user” lacked substantial evidence. Zillow cross-appealed with respect to all claims the Board held not unpatentable, arguing that the Board’s findings lacked substantial evidence.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board on both appeals. First, responding to Zillow’s reviewability challenge, the Court held that § 314(d) did not bar review of whether the Board stayed within the petition’s grounds. The Court explained that while institution decisions are unreviewable, courts routinely examine whether the final written decision relies on theories actually presented in the petition. Zillow argued that because IBM’s challenge was “closely tied” to the Board’s institution decision, § 314(d)’s bar on [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Institution decisions off limits: Federal Circuit rejects mandamus petitions based on due process, “settled expectations”

by | Dec 18, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied mandamus relief to three petitioners after the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) denied inter partes review (IPR) institution. The Court explained that Congress insulated the Director’s discretion from judicial review by making IPR institution determinations final and nonappealable, and that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) bars virtually all judicial oversight. In re Cambridge Industries USA Inc., Case No. 2026-101; In re Sandisk Technologies, Inc., Case No. 2025-152; In re HighLevel, Inc., Case No. 2025-148 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 9, 2025) (nonprecedential) (Prost, Chen Hughes, JJ.)

The Federal Circuit acknowledged that while “colorable constitutional claims” may present an exception to the no judicial review clause, no such claims were raised in these cases. The petitioners failed to identify the kind of property interests or retroactivity concerns that could support either a colorable due process claim or an alternative avenue for relief.

Settled expectations

The lead case, In re Cambridge Industries USA, addressed the USPTO’s use of the “settled expectations” factor as a basis for discretionary denial. The agency denied institution on two patents that had been in force for seven and nine years, respectively, concluding that the patent owner had developed “settled expectations” in those long-standing rights. The companion petition, In re Sandisk Tech., involved patents that had been in force for nine and 12 years, and the USPTO reached the same conclusion.

The Federal Circuit declined to disturb either decision. The Court held that the petitioners had not shown that the settled expectations factor exceeded the USPTO’s statutory authority or that the agency’s application of the factor was unreasonable. It also rejected the argument that the USPTO had effectively created a “maximum-patent-age cap” on institution. Emphasizing the narrow scope of mandamus review, the Court reiterated that it was not deciding whether the USPTO’s actions were correct or statutorily permissible, but only that the petitioners failed to establish a “clear and indisputable right” to relief in light of Congress’s limits on judicial review of institution decisions.

Efficiency

In HighLevel, a district court had already found the challenged patents ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Patent Trial & Appeal Board nonetheless denied IPR institution, determining that instituting review would not be an efficient use of agency or party resources and that the “efficiency and integrity of the patent system” were best served by declining review. The USPTO denied Director review.

The Federal Circuit rejected HighLevel’s contention that this decision violated due process, holding that HighLevel’s “mere reliance on the PTO evaluating its petition without regard to efficiency concerns arising from parallel litigation” was insufficient to establish a colorable constitutional claim.



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES