PTAB

The USPTO Appeals Review Panel reinstated all OTDP rejections, holding that Federal Circuit precedent makes the anti-harassment rationale independently sufficient even without patent-term extension.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board cancels all eight claims of Intellectual Ventures’ U.S. Patent 11,664,889, which covers TD-CDMA closed-loop power control in 3G wireless networks, finding them unpatentable over prior art combinations led by the Dateki reference.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a split final written decision in a pair of inter partes review proceedings filed by ResMed Corp., finding one Cleveland Medical Devices sleep apnea treatment patent unpatentable while upholding claims in a closely related companion patent, illustrating the all-or-nothing stakes of IPR litigation on patent families.

A PTAB leadership panel on June 26, 2026 reversed the Board’s earlier cancellation of an Express Mobile website-building patent, holding that PTAB should not reach a different validity outcome than the jury when both forums consider the same evidence — a ruling with broad implications for GoDaddy’s $253M exposure.

The PTAB held that a child patent in a continuation family is not invalid for obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) if its expiration date does not exceed the original patent’s expiration date — including any patent term adjustment (PTA) — providing important clarity for continuation patent strategy.

USPTO Director John Squires vacated a PTAB panel’s obviousness finding on U.S. Patent No. 11,828,425, ruling the Board failed to explain why its conclusion on claim 2 differed from a jury verdict finding the same claim valid and infringed — reinforcing the September 2025 PTAB parallel-proceedings memorandum.

USPTO Director Squires issued a precedential decision vacating three IPR institution grants after a federal court found all challenged Lightning Roulette patents invalid under § 101, while simultaneously establishing a new 30-day deadline for parties to request Director Review of institution decisions.

A new PTAB panel — assembled after a conflict-of-interest controversy forced removal of the original APJ — issues a second Final Written Decision finding U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856 unpatentable on obviousness grounds, dealing another blow to Centripetal Networks’ once-$1.9 billion patent assertion against Cisco.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board upheld two Zaxcom wireless audio recording patents in back-to-back IPR final written decisions, finding that Academy Award and Emmy Award recognition for the technology defeated RØDE Microphones’ obviousness challenge.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidated all claims of Inari Medical’s U.S. Patent No. 11,554,005 covering a system for treating embolism, finding the claims anticipated by and obvious over prior art in a Final Written Decision from IPR2025-00289.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued split decisions in Stratasys Inc.’s ongoing patent dispute with Chinese 3D-printing rival Bambu Lab and its parent Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology, invalidating claims in one Stratasys patent while upholding another covering networked 3D printing.

The PTAB issues a Final Written Decision upholding Yangtze Memory Technologies’ U.S. patent on electrostatic discharge bus architecture, rejecting Micron’s invalidity challenge — and earlier rejecting Micron’s novel argument that national security grounds should shield the IPR from Board review.

USPTO Director Squires issued a precedential decision denying IPR institution, articulating six principles limiting AIA proceedings and finding that the petition improperly sought to relitigate issues resolved at a completed jury trial.

USPTO Director Squires terminated three AMD inter partes review proceedings against XtreamEdge’s FPGA and cloud computing patents after finding AMD violated its Sotera stipulations by pursuing overlapping invalidity arguments in parallel district court litigation.

The USPTO Director vacated institution of three IPRs filed by Ford, finding that Ford’s use of plain-and-ordinary meaning at PTAB while arguing the same claim terms were indefinite in parallel district court litigation constituted an impermissible inconsistency under the Revvo standard.

USPTO Director John Squires ordered the PTAB’s Delegated Rehearing Panel to review a decision invalidating a web-design patent, finding the Board gave ‘no explanation’ for diverging from a $170 million jury verdict that upheld the same patent on substantially similar evidence.

The PTAB invalidated all challenged claims in two Maxell video processing patents, continuing Samsung’s campaign to dismantle the patent portfolio behind a $112 million E.D. Texas jury verdict that was already overturned on JMOL.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidated all claims in two Trina Solar TOPCon solar cell patents, finding them obvious over prior art including a 2013 Fraunhofer Institute publication, in a pair of IPR proceedings brought by Canadian Solar and Runergy.

The PTAB issued final written decisions invalidating all claims in two Trina Solar patents covering TOPCon solar cell technology, handing a major win to competitors Runergy and Canadian Solar in a patent battle spanning the ITC, Delaware, and California.

The PTAB held that preventing harassment by multiple assignees can independently support an obviousness-type double-patenting rejection, even when the reference patents were filed later and expire later.

The Federal Circuit dismissed Dolby’s appeal of a favorable PTAB decision for lack of Article III standing, holding that a patent owner who wins an IPR cannot appeal to compel adjudication of a real-parties-in-interest dispute absent a concrete injury; the Supreme Court denied cert on June 22, 2026.

The Federal Circuit addressed the PTAB’s discretionary authority under § 314(a) to deny IPR petitions based on factors including the stage of parallel district court litigation and the efficiency of institution — affirming the PTAB’s broad discretion in institution decisions and its authority to consider the NHK-Fintiv framework for balancing IPR efficiency against parallel litigation.