Posts Tagged: "post grant procedures"

On Thursday, May 14, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires issued a Director Discretionary Decision in which he denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) petition and marked the opinion precedential, underscoring six key principles that should guide whether the Office institutes America invents Act (AIA) proceedings.

During its latest “USPTO Hour” webinar, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recapped Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) updates over the last year-plus, including statistics that show drastic changes in the overall institution rate and number of denials of institution for inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. According to the USPTO’s figures (see chart below), in October 2024 the average institution rate was around 65%, whereas in February 2026 the overall institution rate was around 37%.

The U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday issued three orders denying mandamus petitions filed by inter partes review (IPR) petitioners at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Each of the petitioners was seeking relief from the court to compel the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to institute their IPR petitions, following decisions that denied institution of the IPRs.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we discuss whether patent owners are better off facing post-grant challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) or the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). PTAB practitioners Matt Phillips and Kevin Greenleaf joined me for about how patent owners and challengers should be strategically thinking about the shifting post-grant environment at the USPTO. Our conversation highlights the growing reality that post-grant practice is no longer defined solely by inter partes review (IPR), but that ex parte reexamination has seen a resurgence in popularity, which requires careful evaluating timing, procedural dynamics, cost, and institutional realities. Fundamentally we attempt to answer the question of whether patent owners are better off in reexamination, or whether they are better off with IPR at the PTAB.

In this episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, I speak with Matt Johnson, Co-Chair of the PTAB Practice at Jones Day, and we take an in-depth look at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) nearly a decade and a half after its launch. Johnson and I discuss the ongoing PTAB reset at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and suggest practical fixes for a better, reengineered PTAB. The majority of the conversation is devoted to concrete, targeted reform suggestions that would lead to a better functioning PTAB and more streamlined IPR review system. Instead of abstract complaints, Johnson proposes narrowing PGR estoppel to encourage early challenges, moving IPR estoppel to the point of institution to eliminate gamesmanship, separating institution decisions from full merits adjudication to reduce confirmation bias, and rethinking quiet-title concepts to better align notice to implementers with settled expectations of patent owners.

Panelists at IPWatchdog’s Virtual PTAB Masters Program 2026 last week had some cynical views on chances for pending patent reform bills, while on Friday other experts offered insights into developments at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) with respect to review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) cases. Speaking on Thursday’s panel, titled “Capitol Hill & PTAB Politics: Innovation Policy, Congressional Oversight and Mid-term Elections,” panelists first addressed the chances of bills such as the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) and the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act advancing this year.

On Friday, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office designated a series of decisions on discretionary denial requests as either precedential or informative, highlighting considerations important for both inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings. In particular, precedential designations underscored the favored status of patent validity challenges through PGR petitions, and clarified important timing factors when determining whether to grant petitioner requests for joinder.

As we wind down 2025 it is time to reflect on the year that was, and what the future will bring. This year was punctuated by a structural reset for the U.S. patent system. What unfolded was not just incremental reform, but a coordinated shift driven by leadership change, policy realignment, economic pressure, and accelerating adoption of AI—all converging to reshape how patents are examined, challenged, monetized, and managed. This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we explore the monumental changes and the biggest trends that impacted the patent and innovation industry during 2025, and which will play an important role in defining 2026.

On Friday, December 12, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced an update to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Trial Practice Guide implementing a requirement for parties to participate in a pre-hearing conference 15 days prior to America Invents Act (AIA) oral hearings in cases instituted by the USPTO Director. According to a USPTO press release, the purpose of the pre-trial hearing conference will be for the Board to guide the parties as to which issues they should address, as well as to give parties a chance to explain the issues they would like to focus on at the oral hearing.

The deadline for comments on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) issued in October, titled “Revision to Rules of Practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,” was yesterday, December 2. As of today, the Office has received 10,783 comments and has published just over 1,000 of them. The rules have been broadly welcomed by IP holders and practitioners, and broadly opposed by those who want to preserve the option to easily challenge patents. Below, we summarize several submissions from individuals and organizations on both sides.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has denied three mandamus petitions asking the court to step in and curb the recently-implemented practice by which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director decides whether to institute inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. In the one precedential ruling in In Re Motorola Solutions, Inc., the CAFC—in an opinion authored by Judge Linn—rejected Motorola’s arguments that then-Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution by deinstituting eight IPR petitions it filed against claims of Stellar LLC’s patents.

Back in April, IPWatchdog Founder and CEO Gene Quinn interviewed me on his podcast, IPWatchdog Unleashed, where we discussed 10 things U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart could do to fix the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) with the stroke of a pen. Gene summarized those suggestions here. Admirably, Acting Director Stewart had already been busy with reforms, and some of the suggestions I made have since come to pass. This article identifies those and follows up on suggestions still to be adopted. Here are the 10 suggestions, with the current status of each.

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a ruling in American Science and Engineering, Inc. v. Stewart vacating a final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that invalidated several of American Science and Engineering’s (AS&E) patent claims covering inspection systems using pencil-beam radiation sources. The appellate court faulted the PTAB for not properly articulating how the asserted prior art’s scatter detectors can detect radiation from the claimed pencil-beam configuration.

In the latest slew of Director Discretionary Denial decisions issued last week by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart largely delivered wins for patent owners, denying or partially denying institution on dozens of inter partes review (IPR) petitions. In one representative case, Stewart extended her increasingly important “settled expectations” doctrine to a patent that has been in force for only six years.