inter partes review – IP Law Watch

Returning Merits-Based Considerations to PTAB

Nov 12 2026

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires’s 10 November 2026 memorandum returns merits-based institution determinations to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), effective 16 November. But practitioners should not mistake the change for a wholesale restoration of the former delegated-institution model. The Director retains non-merits screening and ultimate statutory authority, while separate panels will decide institution and conduct any ensuing trial, with no overlap to avoid bias or preconceived perceptions of the arguments.

Federal Circuit Confirms § 112(a) Support Required for a Reference’s Provisional Prior-Art Date

In Dental Monitoring SAS v. Align Technology, Inc., the Federal Circuit vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Inter Partes Review (IPR) decision and held that under 35 U.S.C. § 102(d)(2), a published patent application receives the benefit of its provisional’s filing date for prior-art purposes only if the provisional provides written description support under § 112(a) for at least one claim of the published application.

USPTO’s PTAB Rulemaking Signals a Major Shift in IPR Practice

Aug 03 2026

The USPTO appears poised to finalize a significant revision to Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) practice. A final rule titled Revision to Rules of Practice Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (90 FR 48335) is currently undergoing Executive Order 12866 review (RIN: 0651-AD89), indicating that agency review has been completed and the rule is nearing publication.

USPTO Director Defines “Exceptional Circumstances” for Director Review—and Terminates Three IPRs

Jun 23 2026

In a precedential order issued 22 June 2026, USPTO Director John A. Squires took the rare step of initiating sua sponte Director Review across three inter partes review (IPR) proceedings to provide meaningful guidance on when “exceptional circumstances” justify extending the 30-day deadline to seek Director Review of an institution decision.

USPTO Introduces Patent Owner Pre Order Submission on SNQ in Ex Parte Reexam

Apr 07 2026

In an Official Gazette notice dated 1 April 2026, the USPTO announced a new procedure allowing patent owners to submit a limited “pre order” paper addressing whether a third party ex parte reexamination request raises a Substantial New Question (SNQ) of patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 303(a).

Return to In-Person Patent Trial and Appeal Board Hearings

Jul 23 2025

Effective 1 September 2025, all hearings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) will be conducted in person. Parties involved must attend these hearings physically and in person unless they can demonstrate a valid reason for not doing so. Acceptable justifications typically include situations such as significant financial difficulty for the arguing attorneys, medical issues, or similar substantial barriers to travel.

First Denial Based on USPTO’s New Discretionary Denial Factors

Jun 13 2025

Earlier this year, Chief Judge Boalick issued guidance on the USPTO’s recission of “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation,” explaining how the Fintiv factors should be addressed going forward. Shortly after, Acting Director Stewart issued a memorandum titled “Interim Processes for PTAB Workload Management” that provided additional non-Fintiv discretionary factors that should be assessed to determine whether discretionary denial of an IPR petition is appropriate.

Estoppel Estopped?

May 13 2025

The Federal Circuit recently resolved a split among the district courts whether patent infringement defendants who bring inter partes review (IPR) challenges are estopped from raising new prior art challenges in a co-pending district court litigation. While some district courts had earlier found estoppel to have broad effect, and thus prevent challenges based on products on sale or public use, the Federal Circuit’s decision means that estoppel is limited only to challenges based on patents or printed publications, opening the door to use patents and publications to provide evidence of what subject matter was “on sale” or “in public use.”

Federal Circuit Clarifies Scope of Estoppel Provision and Provides Guidance on “Patentably Distinct” Claims

Jul 30 2024

On 26 July 2024, the Federal Circuit entered its decision in SoftView LLC, v. Apple Inc.¹ holding that patent owner estoppel² applies to newly presented and amended claims, but does not apply to issued claims. The Federal Circuit also confirmed that patent owner estoppel prevents a patent applicant from later obtaining a patent claim that is “not patentably distinct” from a finally refused or cancelled claim, but that patent owner estoppel does not apply to defending issued, unamended claims.

Federal Circuit Rules AAPA in Challenged Patent Does Not Qualify as Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C § 311(b) but Signals AAPA Can Play Role in §103 Analysis

Feb 03 2022

On 1 February 2022, the Federal Circuit released its decision in Qualcomm v. Apple¹ providing guidance on the treatment of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) under 35 U.S.C § 311(b) in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. In doing so, the Federal Circuit vacated two IPR decisions² of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) where the PTAB had found several claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,063,674 (“the ’674 patent”) unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In doing so, the Federal Circuit remanded the case to allow the PTAB to address the specific issue of whether the AAPA cited by Apple improperly formed the “basis” of Apple’s § 103 challenge or was simply ancillary.

Tag:inter partes review