- Ipr2026-00181Institution deniedPTAB · May 26, 2026 · IPR2026-00181 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR2026-00181 after reviewing discretionary and non-merits considerations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“NOTICE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of discretionary and non- merits considerations, institution of inter partes review is denied in the following proceeding: IPR2026-00181 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of discretionary” slip op. at 1
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,860,450 - Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company / Pacificorp v. Birchtech Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · May 20, 2026 · IPR2025-00423 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1–4 and 6–29 because it instituted the ranked IPR2025-00422 under the Director’s instruction to maintain at most one IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“Paper 34. Birchtech Corp. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Request for Director Review in each case. See Paper 40; IPR2025-00422, Paper 39. The Director denied the request without prejudice in each case and remanded the cases to the Board to “allow discovery, narrowly tailored to resolve the RPI and privity issues.” Paper 49, 4. The Director later issued an Order Supplementing Director Review Decision in each case, instructing that “if the Board determines that Petitioners met their burden to identify all RPIs in the Petitions, then the Board should maintain at most one IPR challenging” the ’430 patent. Paper 72, 3.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,668,430 - Pgr2026-00021Institution deniedPTAB · May 19, 2026 · PGR2026-00021 · APJ John A Squires · PGR · Director review
The Director denied institution in PGR2026-00021 after discretionary review; the notice does not identify challenged claims or a specific discretionary ground.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“Before JOHN A. SQUIRES, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. NOTICE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 324(a), after review of discretionary and non-merits considerations, institution of inter partes review and post-grant review is denied in the following proceedings: IPR2026-00200 IPR2026-00202 IPR2026-00223 IPR2026-00201 IPR2026-00221 PGR2026-000211 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 324(a), after review of” slip op. at 1
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 12,280,146 - Ipr2026-00221Institution deniedPTAB · May 19, 2026 · IPR2026-00221 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR2026-00221 after reviewing discretionary and non-merits considerations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“NOTICE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 324(a), after review of discretionary and non-merits considerations, institution of inter partes review and post-grant review is denied in the following proceedings: IPR2026-00200 IPR2026-00202 IPR2026-00223 IPR2026-00201 IPR2026-00221 PGR2026-000211 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 324(a), after review of” slip op. at 1
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,058,757 - Pgr2025-00087Institution deniedPTAB · May 15, 2026 · PGR2025-00087 · APJ John A Squires · PGR · Director review
The Director denied institution of post-grant review in PGR2025-00087 after reviewing discretionary and non-merits considerations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“NOTICE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 324(a), after review of discretionary and non-merits considerations, institution of post-grant review is denied in the following proceedings: PGR2025-00087 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 324(a), after review of” slip op. at 1
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 12,371,685 - Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp. v. Railware, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 15, 2026 · IPR2026-00135 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied the petitions and declined to institute IPR, exercising discretion based on the complete record and the petitioner’s failure to present a consistent claim construction position.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“As I have indicated previously, a petitioner should present a single construction and apply that construction consistently. See Infineon Techs. 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2026-00133. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2026-00134 and IPR2026-00135. Americas Corp. v. Mosaid Techs. Corp., IPR2025-01456, Paper 27 at 3–4 (Director Mar. 17, 2026). Failure to do so, without adequate explanation, is problematic. Id.; Revvo, Paper 20 at 3–4. A petitioner may not avoid presenting its own claim construction position in a proceeding before the Office by presenting an analysis based on claim construction positions taken by other parties in a different proceeding. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) (requiring that the petition must “set forth . . . [h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed”); Trial Practice Guide2 §§ II.B.(3) and (6). Permitting such conduct would allow a petitioner to avoid taking a consistent claim construction position. Such conduct would undermine the purpose of inter partes review proceedings and detract from the Office’s goal of “providing greater predictability and certainty in the patent system.” Revvo, Paper 20 at 4–5. While certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on the complete record and a holistic assessment of all of the evidence in light of the arguments presented.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denial - Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp. v. Railware, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 15, 2026 · IPR2026-00134 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied the petitions and declined to institute inter partes review, citing the petitioner’s failure to present a single, consistent claim construction position.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“As I have indicated previously, a petitioner should present a single construction and apply that construction consistently. See Infineon Techs.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denial - Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp. v. Railware, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 15, 2026 · IPR2026-00133 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied the petitions and instituted no trial, exercising discretion based on the complete record and the petitioner’s failure to present a consistent claim construction position.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“As I have indicated previously, a petitioner should present a single construction and apply that construction consistently. See Infineon Techs. 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2026-00133. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2026-00134 and IPR2026-00135. Americas Corp. v. Mosaid Techs. Corp., IPR2025-01456, Paper 27 at 3–4 (Director Mar. 17, 2026). Failure to do so, without adequate explanation, is problematic. Id.; Revvo, Paper 20 at 3–4. A petitioner may not avoid presenting its own claim construction position in a proceeding before the Office by presenting an analysis based on claim construction positions taken by other parties in a different proceeding. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) (requiring that the petition must “set forth . . . [h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed”); Trial Practice Guide2 §§ II.B.(3) and (6). Permitting such conduct would allow a petitioner to avoid taking a consistent claim construction position. Such conduct would undermine the purpose of inter partes review proceedings and detract from the Office’s goal of “providing greater predictability and certainty in the patent system.” Revvo, Paper 20 at 4–5. While certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on the complete record and a holistic assessment of all of the evidence in light of the arguments presented.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“As I have indicated previously, a petitioner should present a single construction and apply that construction consistently. See Infineon Techs. 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2026-00133. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2026-00134 and IPR2026-00135. Americas Corp. v. Mosaid Techs. Corp., IPR2025-01456, Paper 27 at 3–4 (Director Mar. 17, 2026). Failure to do so, without adequate explanation, is problematic. Id.; Revvo, Paper 20 at 3–4. A petitioner may not avoid presenting its own claim construction position in a proceeding before the Office by presenting an analysis based on claim construction positions taken by other parties in a different proceeding. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) (requiring that the petition must “set forth . . . [h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed”); Trial Practice Guide2 §§ II.B.(3) and (6). Permitting such conduct would allow a petitioner to avoid taking a consistent claim construction position. Such conduct would undermine the purpose of inter partes review proceedings and detract from the Office’s goal of “providing greater predictability and certainty in the patent system.” Revvo, Paper 20 at 4–5.” slip op. at 2
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,517,782 - Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Kurin, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 14, 2026 · IPR2026-00097 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied Magnolia Medical Technologies’ petition and instituted no trial, exercising discretion because it sought a second challenge after losing in district court.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“completed jury trial does not entitle Petitioner to re-litigate the same issues at the Office. To permit such would fly in the face of the Congress’s stated goals for the AIA to be used as a litigation alternative. Here, Petitioner first contested validity of the challenged patent in the district court under the same grounds that could have been presented to the Office. See Ex. 2003. Accordingly, the parties expended substantial resources in district court on the issues presented in the Petition. DD Opp. 5–6. Only after the district court precluded its expert on November 3, 2025 did Petitioner file its Petition. Ex. 2006. Notably, the district court precluded the expert due to his failure to disclose the claim construction upon which he based his anticipation and obviousness opinions, something that was within Petitioner’s control. See id. at 3–4. Petitioner had the opportunity to fully and fairly litigate these issues before the district court, did so, and lost, and now is attempting to use the Office as a repeat challenge or second bite at the apple to undo its litigation loss. This is difficult to square with Congress’s intent and why it vested broad discretion in the Director to deny institution.” slip op. at 10
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 12,138,052 - Ford Motor Company v. Autoconnect Holdings LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 13, 2026 · IPR2026-00173 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR because Petitioner’s conditional claim-construction stipulation did not address its other inconsistent district-court positions or improve efficiency.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“But Petitioner does not address the other terms that it argues are indefinite in the district court. See Ex. 2026, 1–3. Instead, Petitioner “stipulates to withdraw all indefiniteness arguments . . . from the Related Litigation if the PTAB institutes this IPR.” DD Opp. 18. As I previously explained in similar circumstances, Petitioner’s stipulation to continue to pursue different constructions and abandon the inconsistent construction in district court only if the IPR is instituted is inadequate. See Tiktok, Inc. v. Shopsee, Inc., IPR2025-01485, Paper 13, 2–3 (Director Jan. 16, 2025). Petitioner’s claim construction stipulation does not increase efficiency and minimize the potential for inconsistent outcomes, unlike a stipulation that it will not pursue in the parallel litigation the grounds it raised or could have reasonably raised in the Petition. See id. at 3. At best, it replaces one argument in district court for another argument at the Board. Id. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). While certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on the complete record and a holistic assessment of all of the evidence in light of the arguments presented.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,173,100
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.