- 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 - Ford Motor Company v. Autoconnect Holdings LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 13, 2026 · IPR2026-00172 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution under § 314(a), finding Ford’s conditional claim-construction stipulation inadequate to resolve inconsistent positions in parallel litigation.
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 9,147,297 - Ford Motor Company v. Autoconnect Holdings LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 13, 2026 · IPR2026-00171 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied the petitions and instituted no trial under § 314(a), citing Petitioner’s inadequate claim-construction stipulation in the parallel litigation.
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
- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“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. In consideration of the foregoing, it is: ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,082,239 - Ford Motor Company v. Autoconnect Holdings LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 12, 2026 · IPR2025-01524 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
Director Review was granted, institution was vacated, and IPR was denied because Petitioner advanced broader indefiniteness arguments in related litigation.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewDirector review, grantedGranted
“As I recently explained, it is appropriate to deny institution when a Petitioner’s conduct demonstrates that the dispute “is less about a litigation alternative and more about inconsistent positions to gain an upper hand in the overall litigation.” Terumo BCT Inc. v. Haemonetics Corp., IPR2025- 01374, Paper 20 (Director May 12, 2026). Here, as in Terumo, Petitioner advanced indefiniteness contentions in the co-pending district court litigation at its first opportunity to do so after institution was granted. See Paper 15, 1–2 (listing seven allegedly indefinite terms and phrases impacting all challenged claims). Although Petitioner contends that its unpatentability arguments for the “and/or” and “one or more” claim limitations fit within the Tesla framework, i.e., that the prior art discloses the claimed features regardless of how those limitations are construed, Petitioner’s indefiniteness contentions are broader than those two limitations. See, e.g., Paper 15, 1–2; IPR2025-01383, Paper 9 at 8–10. Thus, it is appropriate to deny institution of these IPRs for the same reasons as articulated in Terumo.” slip op. at 3
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“As I recently explained, it is appropriate to deny institution when a Petitioner’s conduct demonstrates that the dispute “is less about a litigation alternative and more about inconsistent positions to gain an upper hand in the overall litigation.” Terumo BCT Inc. v. Haemonetics Corp., IPR2025- 01374, Paper 20 (Director May 12, 2026). Here, as in Terumo, Petitioner advanced indefiniteness contentions in the co-pending district court litigation at its first opportunity to do so after institution was granted. See Paper 15, 1–2 (listing seven allegedly indefinite terms and phrases impacting all challenged claims). Although Petitioner contends that its unpatentability arguments for the “and/or” and “one or more” claim limitations fit within the Tesla framework, i.e., that the prior art discloses the claimed features regardless of how those limitations are construed, Petitioner’s indefiniteness contentions are broader than those two limitations. See, e.g., Paper 15, 1–2; IPR2025-01383, Paper 9 at 8–10. Thus, it is appropriate to deny institution of these IPRs for the same reasons as articulated in Terumo. In its briefing, Petitioner states that it will stipulate to withdraw all indefiniteness arguments against the challenged patents from the related litigation if the Board agrees to maintain and not vacate institution of these IPRs. Paper 16, 2. This stipulation, which Petitioner offered only after Petitioner’s actions ran afoul of Revvo and Tesla and only after Patent Owner brought those actions to the Office’s attention, is insufficient.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Accordingly, the appropriate course of action is to grant Director Review, vacate the Notices granting institution, and deny institution.3 It is: ORDERED that Director Review is granted; FURTHER ORDERED that the Notices granting institution of inter partes review (Paper 11; IPR2025-01383, Paper 12; IPR2025-01524, Paper 10) are vacated; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trials are instituted.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,123,186 - Ford Motor Company v. Autoconnect Holdings LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 12, 2026 · IPR2025-01383 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
Director review was granted, the institution notices were vacated, and institution was denied because Petitioner advanced inconsistent claim positions in parallel litigation.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“As I recently explained, it is appropriate to deny institution when a Petitioner’s conduct demonstrates that the dispute “is less about a litigation alternative and more about inconsistent positions to gain an upper hand in the overall litigation.” Terumo BCT Inc. v. Haemonetics Corp., IPR2025- 01374, Paper 20 (Director May 12, 2026). Here, as in Terumo, Petitioner advanced indefiniteness contentions in the co-pending district court litigation at its first opportunity to do so after institution was granted. See Paper 15, 1–2 (listing seven allegedly indefinite terms and phrases impacting all challenged claims). Although Petitioner contends that its unpatentability arguments for the “and/or” and “one or more” claim limitations fit within the Tesla framework, i.e., that the prior art discloses the claimed features regardless of how those limitations are construed, Petitioner’s indefiniteness contentions are broader than those two limitations. See, e.g., Paper 15, 1–2; IPR2025-01383, Paper 9 at 8–10. Thus, it is appropriate to deny institution of these IPRs for the same reasons as articulated in Terumo. In its briefing, Petitioner states that it will stipulate to withdraw all indefiniteness arguments against the challenged patents from the related litigation if the Board agrees to maintain and not vacate institution of these IPRs. Paper 16, 2. This stipulation, which Petitioner offered only after Petitioner’s actions ran afoul of Revvo and Tesla and only after Patent Owner brought those actions to the Office’s attention, is insufficient.” slip op. at 3
- Director reviewDirector review, grantedGranted
“Accordingly, the appropriate course of action is to grant Director Review, vacate the Notices granting institution, and deny institution.3 It is: ORDERED that Director Review is granted; FURTHER ORDERED that the Notices granting institution of inter partes review (Paper 11; IPR2025-01383, Paper 12; IPR2025-01524, Paper 10) are vacated; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trials are instituted.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,290,153 - Ford Motor Company v. Autoconnect Holdings LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 12, 2026 · IPR2025-01342 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
Director Review was granted, the institution notices were vacated, and institution was denied because Ford advanced broader indefiniteness positions in related litigation.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“As I recently explained, it is appropriate to deny institution when a Petitioner’s conduct demonstrates that the dispute “is less about a litigation alternative and more about inconsistent positions to gain an upper hand in the overall litigation.” Terumo BCT Inc. v. Haemonetics Corp., IPR2025- 01374, Paper 20 (Director May 12, 2026). Here, as in Terumo, Petitioner advanced indefiniteness contentions in the co-pending district court litigation at its first opportunity to do so after institution was granted. See Paper 15, 1–2 (listing seven allegedly indefinite terms and phrases impacting all challenged claims). Although Petitioner contends that its unpatentability arguments for the “and/or” and “one or more” claim limitations fit within the Tesla framework, i.e., that the prior art discloses the claimed features regardless of how those limitations are construed, Petitioner’s indefiniteness contentions are broader than those two limitations. See, e.g., Paper 15, 1–2; IPR2025-01383, Paper 9 at 8–10. Thus, it is appropriate to deny institution of these IPRs for the same reasons as articulated in Terumo. In its briefing, Petitioner states that it will stipulate to withdraw all indefiniteness arguments against the challenged patents from the related litigation if the Board agrees to maintain and not vacate institution of these IPRs. Paper 16, 2. This stipulation, which Petitioner offered only after Petitioner’s actions ran afoul of Revvo and Tesla and only after Patent Owner brought those actions to the Office’s attention, is insufficient.” slip op. at 3
- Director reviewDirector review, grantedGranted
“Accordingly, the appropriate course of action is to grant Director Review, vacate the Notices granting institution, and deny institution.3 It is: ORDERED that Director Review is granted; FURTHER ORDERED that the Notices granting institution of inter partes review (Paper 11; IPR2025-01383, Paper 12; IPR2025-01524, Paper 10) are vacated; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trials are instituted.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,020,697 - Terumo BCT Inc. v. Haemonetics Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · May 12, 2026 · IPR2025-01391 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
Director Review was granted, the institution notice vacated, and institution denied because Petitioner took inconsistent claim-construction positions in the IPR and district court.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewDirector review, grantedGranted
“For the reasons below, Patent Owner’s requests for Director Review are granted.” slip op. at 3
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Petitioner’s conduct, which ensued following institution, demonstrates that this dispute is less about a litigation alternative, as Congress intended, and more about inconsistent positions to gain an upper hand in the overall litigation. See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, at 48 (2011) (explaining that IPRs were intended to provide “quick and cost effective alternatives to litigation”). Such conduct has negative consequences: It multiplies litigation expense, reduces patent value, discourages innovation, diminishes the integrity of the patent system, and depletes the Office’s resources. Discretion is afforded to the USPTO Director to ensure fairness, efficiency, and predictability in patent disputes in a focused inter partes context—as Congress envisioned—as distinct from the broad adversarial context in district court litigation. The Office’s review under Article I is ultimately regulatory; proceedings under Article III are adjudicatory. I would not have instituted these IPRs in the first instance had Petitioner engaged in this strategic litigation-style behavior before institution. Accordingly, the appropriate course of action is to grant Director Review, vacate the Notice granting institution of these IPRs, and deny institution.” slip op. at 4
- Strike new argumentOther
“Petitioner’s assertion that the term “controller” is not in controversy in these IPRs and so it was not required to construe the term in the Petitions is an inadequate justification for the different positions. As I have stated repeatedly, a petitioner should present a single construction and apply that construction consistently before the Board and the district court. See, e.g., Infineon Techs. Am. Corp. v. Mosaid Techs. Corp., IPR2025-01456, Paper 27 at 3–4 (Director Mar. 17, 2026) (“[A] petitioner should pick one [construction], and one consistent with its asserted District Court position.”). Failure to do so detracts from the Office’s goal of “providing greater predictability and certainty in the patent system.” Revvo, Paper 20 at 4–5. I also disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that these IPRs do not implicate Rule 42.104(b)(3). Rule 42.104(b)(3) requires a petition to “[p]rovide a statement of the precise relief requested for each claim challenged,” and to identify how each challenged claim is to be construed. The rule continues to state that “[w]here the claim to be construed contains a means-plus-function or step-plus-function limitation as permitted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the construction of the claim must identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Petitioner’s position in the district court that the term “controller” is a means-plus-function limitation undercuts its position that Rule 42.104(b)(3) does not apply here. Further, Petitioner’s citation to Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) as support for its position is inapposite, as the holding in that case addresses when the Board is required to construe a claim term, not when a party is required to follow Board rules. DR Response 7–8.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,758,652 - Ipr2026-00211Institution deniedPTAB · May 7, 2026 · IPR2026-00211 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR2026-00211 after review of discretionary and non-merits considerations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“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 proceedings: IPR2026-00156 IPR2026-00208 IPR2026-00210 IPR2026-00206 IPR2026-00209 IPR2026-00211 IPR2026-00207 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of discretionary” slip op. at 1
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 12,279,116
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.