- Ipr2026-00351Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 23, 2026 · IPR2026-00351 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR2026-00351 after determining that the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of the merits, the petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. Accordingly, institution of inter partes review is denied in the following proceedings:” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of the merits, the petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. Accordingly, institution of inter partes review is denied in the following proceedings:” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 11,878,049 - Liftwerx USA Inc. v. Liftra IP ApsInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 28, 2026 · IPR2026-00102 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not sufficiently explain where the prior art taught the claimed elements.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner is required to show how the construed claim is unpatentable under the asserted grounds by “specify[ing] where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Here, Petitioner fails to specify where in the prior art each claim element is found. For example, Petitioner’s analysis based on Signore and Weaver includes a statement that each reference “discloses pressure mandrels with tap shoes,” with quotations from the references and colorized figures. See Pet. 49–51. Yet Petitioner does not explain why Signore’s “plurality of torque clamps” teach “tap shoes,” and Petitioner’s highlighting of a figure from Weaver does not elucidate which elements from Weaver that Petitioner regards as “tap shoes.” See id. As such, I find Petitioner’s showing to be insufficient for institution. “It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)).” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDenied
“Petitioner is required to show how the construed claim is unpatentable under the asserted grounds by “specify[ing] where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Here, Petitioner fails to specify where in the prior art each claim element is found. For example, Petitioner’s analysis based on Signore and Weaver includes a statement that each reference “discloses pressure mandrels with tap shoes,” with quotations from the references and colorized figures. See Pet. 49–51. Yet Petitioner does not explain why Signore’s “plurality of torque clamps” teach “tap shoes,” and Petitioner’s highlighting of a figure from Weaver does not elucidate which elements from Weaver that Petitioner regards as “tap shoes.” See id. As such, I find Petitioner’s showing to be insufficient for institution. “It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)).” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 12,104,578 - Ipr2026-00305Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 14, 2026 · IPR2026-00305 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
Institution of IPR2026-00305 was denied because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
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 proceedings: IPR2026-00255 IPR2026-00284 IPR2026-00307 IPR2026-00261 IPR2026-00300* IPR2026-00308 IPR2026-00281 IPR2026-00305 IPR2026-00309” slip op. at 1
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Other
“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: IPR2026-00255 IPR2026-00284 IPR2026-00307 IPR2026-00261 IPR2026-00300* IPR2026-00308 IPR2026-00281 IPR2026-00305 IPR2026-00309” slip op. at 1
NonePatents in suitUS 7,840,427 - Pgr2026-00008Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 6, 2026 · PGR2026-00008 · APJ John A Squires · PGR · Director review
The Director denied institution of PGR2026-00008 after finding that the petitioner failed to meet the merits threshold.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“merits, the petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition, or that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable, as appropriate. Accordingly, institution of inter partes review or post-grant review is denied in the following proceedings: IPR2026-00070 PGR2026-00008 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of the merits, the” slip op. at 1
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“merits, the petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition, or that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable, as appropriate. Accordingly, institution of inter partes review or post-grant review is denied in the following proceedings: IPR2026-00070 PGR2026-00008 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of the merits, the” slip op. at 1
NonePatents in suitUS 12,337,715 - Alpinestars S.P.A. / Alipinestars USA Inc. v. Dainese S.P.A.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 9, 2026 · IPR2025-00750 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1–22 under the challenged obviousness grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Petitioner misstates the Decision’s reasoning. As is clear from the previous discussion, we determined that Petitioner’s articulated reasons for combining EP’536 with CN’180 lacked a rational underpinning, not because “EP’536 does not relate to ‘air bags,’” but because the means by which EP’536’s device inflates differs fundamentally from that of CN’180’s device. Dec. 17–18. Petitioner did not acknowledge this critical difference in the Petition, and continues not to do so in its Rehearing Request.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“EP’536 with CN’180 lacked a rational underpinning because EP’536’s inflation mechanism differs fundamentally from CN’180’s inflation mechanism. Dec. 17–18. As we stated, whereas CN’180’s fall-protection belt uses an airbag that requires an external source of pressurized air to inflate, EP’536’s garment does not need an external inflation device because “the gas generating agent 18 in each envelope automatically generates gas and inflates the envelopes in response to rising temperatures.” Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 15; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 5, 19). This difference reflects the fundamentally different purposes of the two devices: CN’180’s device is designed to provide “fall protection” to, e.g., “elderly people,” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 1, 3), whereas EP’536’s device provides “adaptive thermal insulation” for, e.g., garments worn by fire fighters. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 1–3, 250. Because of the different means by which EP’536’s and CN’180’s devices inflate and the different purposes for doing so, we were not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references as Petitioner proposed. Dec. 18. We further noted that the modification would not have improved the reusability of EP’536’s device “by having only one mechanism to recharge,” because EP’536’s “gas generating agent does not need any ‘mechanism to recharge.’” Dec. 18. Instead, we noted EP’536’s teaching that its gas generating agent “automatically recombines or condenses in response to a temperature decrease to return the envelopes, and therefore the garment, to its original thickness, at which point the gas generating agent is ready for subsequent reactivation.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 139–141). Finally, we determined that replacing EP’536’s envelopes with CN’180’s airbag “would have made EP’536’s invention unsuitable for its intended purpose: providing a protective garment with ‘adaptive thermal insulation.’” Dec. 19. We stated that “Petitioner does not suggest, and we have found nothing in the record to establish, that CN’180’s airbag would provide this feature.” Id. at 20.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“rationales for combining EP’536 and CN’180. Reh’g Req. 6–7. First, Petitioner asserts that we “improperly rejected Petitioner’s ‘simple substitution’ evidence in view of [the Board’s] incorrect conclusion that EP’536 does not disclose an ‘external source of inflation [EP’536’s dosing aids].’” Id. at 6 (citing Dec. 18–19). This argument is unpersuasive at least because, as we discussed above, EP’536’s dosing aids do not constitute an external source of inflation. Petitioner further argues that we incorrectly evaluated its “obvious to try” rationale because, contrary to our analysis, Petitioner did in fact identify a problem to be solved by its “finite number of solutions”: “simplify[ing] the design and reduc[ing] the number of required inflation mechanisms.” Id. at 6–7. The Petition’s entire “obvious to try” discussion is as follows: [A] POSITA would have found it obvious to try a one-piece airbag 10 with strip-shaped inflation units 12 in the EP’536- CN’180 airbag system because it would have been a selection from a finite number of identified predictable solutions (i.e., using one chamber with connected individual inflation units 12 versus multiple individual envelopes 20). 5 Petitioner also argues that dosing aids are “needed in order to make the disclosed device reusable.” Reh’g Req. 5–6. This is incorrect, as EP’536 conveys that the reusability of the device is a result of the gas generating agent condensing or recombining when temperatures fall. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 139– 141. Even if it were true, however, it is unclear how it would support Petitioner’s argument. Pet. 16. As is evident, Petitioner did not identify a design need, market pressure, or other problem that would have been addressed by its identified “solutions,” and therefore we were not persuaded by this rationale. Dec. 19. Petitioner’s attempt to cure this deficiency in its Rehearing Request is tardy. We cannot misapprehend or overlook an assertion that Petitioner fails to make in the Petition. It is also insufficient. Petitioner does not provide any evidence of a known design need or market pressure to “simplify [EP’536’s] design” or reduce the number of “required inflation mechanism” it uses.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 12,012,065 - Ipr2025-01316Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 9, 2026 · IPR2025-01316 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR2025-01316 because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and § 324(a), after review of the merits, the petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition, or that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable, as applicable. Accordingly, institution of inter partes review or post-grant review is denied in the following proceedings:” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 10,812,646 - Ascentcare Dental Product, Inc. v. Solmetex, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 23, 2025 · IPR2025-01104 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim obvious over the asserted prior-art combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2025). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon institution of inter partes review, the review proceeds “on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Based on our consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we conclude that the information does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“the ’329 patent was filed would have had “at least a B.S. degree in mechanical engineering or a related field with at least two years’ experience designing dental devices” and that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree, and vice versa.” Pet. 32. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s definition is overly narrow and argues that “[n]othing in the claims of the ’329 Patent requires experience designing ‘dental devices.’” Prelim. Resp. 19. According to Patent Owner, “the claims are directed to the structural components of a dental isolation mouthpiece, and an individual with a mechanical engineering degree and experience designing medical devices would be a [person of ordinary skill in the art] for purposes of the ’329 Patent.” Id. (citing Ex. 2030 ¶ 83). We adopt Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill for purposes of this Decision. We determine that this level of ordinary skill in the art—i.e., an individual with a mechanical engineering degree and experience designing medical devices—is consistent with the level of technical understanding and competence reflected in the ’329 patent Specification and the asserted prior art references, based on our review of the current record. Moreover, our determination in this Decision would be the same were we to adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner asserted “[p]lain and ordinary meaning” for “a plurality of protrusions” in claims 9 and 30, whereas Petitioner proposed “an internal structure attached to the second wall that prevents the collapse of the first and second wall during suction.” Prelim. Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 2039). Here, Patent Owner argues that “protrusion” should be construed to mean “a structure attached to the second wall but not the first wall,” with respect to claims 1, 9, and 30, and to mean “a structure attached to the first wall but not the second wall,” with respect to claim 21. Id. at 24. Patent Owner also argues that structure attached to both the first wall and the second wall is inconsistent with “the plain and ordinary meaning of ‘protrusions’ in light of the specification.” Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 2030 ¶¶ 111–112). We address Patent Owner’s arguments in the context of our analysis of Petitioner’s contentions below.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“combination deficient. Petitioner argues that Park’s walls are “likely to collapse under the suction force,” based not on Park, but on Baughan, which states that “discs” in Baughan are used to prevent the “flexible sleeve” of Baughan from collapsing. Pet. 89. (citing Ex. 1007, 3:46–48). Petitioner reasons that because Park uses silicone, a flexible material, Park’s walls must also collapse like Baughan. Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 32, 34). Petitioner, however, directs us to no disclosure in Park to suggest that the material used in Park or the arrangement of Park would collapse in the same manner as Baughan. Indeed, if Park’s mouthpiece collapses as Petitioner speculates, it would appear likely to render Park inoperable. See Ex. 2030 ¶ 205. Additionally, Petitioner recognizes that in Park “the sidewalls and the insertion part 111 would help resist this collapsing force,” and states that in Park it “is unclear whether the mouth prop 100 includes a spine or other rigid structure running through the middle of the mouth prop 100.” Pet. 89– 90. Thus, whether Park is susceptible to collapse is, at best, unknown. See Prelim. Resp. 48 (asserting that a person of ordinary skill would have known “that silicone can have varying degrees of hardness, tensile strength, and elasticity such that Park’s mouthpiece would not necessarily collapse under suction”) (citing Ex. 2030 ¶¶ 189–90; Ex. 2036; Ex. 2037). Even assuming, as Petitioner asserts, that “additional anti-collapsing structure would assist at the weakest areas of the tongue retractor” in Park, Petitioner offers insufficient reasoning for why a person of ordinary skill would have turned to Baughan and modified the structure taught by Baughan to instead conform to what is recited in claim 1. Petitioner’s suggestion that “common sense” would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structures of Baughan to solve a problem with collapse in Park that Park does not suggest was a problem is likewise unpersuasive and insufficient. Pet. 93 (further asserting that “it was well known in the art how to make projections on a flat surface”). Petitioner’s reliance on Johnson as generically teaching that protrusions can be on flat surfaces does not supply a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made the proposed modifications outside of improper hindsight. See also Prelim. Resp. 58, 59 (arguing that the projections in Johnson are on a semicircular surface, not on a flat surface as Petitioner asserts) (citing Ex. 1008 Figs. 4, 5). Based on the evidence and arguments presented, we determine that Petitioner fails to show sufficiently for purposes of instituting inter partes review that the asserted combination of Park, Baughan, and Johnson, or in further combination with Zheng, teaches “protrusions protruding from an interior surface” of one wall of the mouthpiece “towards” an opposing wall of the mouthpiece, as required by claim 1, or that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the asserted references in the manner alleged by Petitioner.” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,011,329 - Pgr2025-00061Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 23, 2025 · PGR2025-00061 · APJ John A Squires · PGR · Director review
The Director denied institution of PGR2025-00061 after finding the petitioner failed to meet the applicable merits threshold.
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 the merits, the petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition, or that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable, as applicable. Accordingly, institution of inter partes review or post-grant review is denied in the following proceedings:” slip op. at 1
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“NOTICE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and § 324(a), after review of the merits, the petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition, or that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable, as applicable. Accordingly, institution of inter partes review or post-grant review is denied in the following proceedings:” slip op. at 1
NonePatents in suitUS 12,110,780 - Cambridge Industries USA, Inc. v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 19, 2025 · IPR2025-00434 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied because Shen and Soldano did not establish a reasonable likelihood of anticipating claims 1–7.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“When rehearing a decision on petition, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The party challenging the decision has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and the request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed” in its papers. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“II. ANALYSIS In our Decision, we concluded that Petitioner had failed to carry its burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing that either Shen or Soldano anticipated claims 1–7. Dec. 18, 26. Petitioner argues that we should institute review for three reasons. First, Petitioner argues that we abused our discretion by (a) “refusing” to interpret the scope of the claimed” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Owner’s interpretation of “carrier” as meaning “one or more components for supporting ROSA components such as an AWG.” Dec. 9 (quoting Pet. 11). For our analysis of Petitioner’s challenges, we referred to this interpretation of “carrier” as Petitioner’s second alternative construction. Id. We also noted that Petitioner appeared to dispute Patent Owner’s interpretation when it argued that “carrier” should mean “a ceramic or silicon substrate.” Id. (quoting Pet. 10). We referred to this interpretation of “carrier” as the first alternative construction. Id. Rather than resolve this apparent dispute about the meaning of “carrier,” we found that both of Petitioner’s anticipation challenges failed under both interpretations of “carrier.” Id. at 10–26. Because we found that Petitioner had failed to carry its burden regardless of which interpretation of “carrier” applied, we found it unnecessary to resolve the dispute over that interpretation. Id. at 9–10. For the reasons expressed in Parts II.B–C below, we maintain our conclusion that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of proving that either Shen or Soldano anticipates any claim under either interpretation of “carrier.” Accordingly, Petitioner fails to demonstrate an abuse of discretion in our alleged “refusal” to interpret “carrier.”” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Reh’g Req. 14. We cannot weigh Petitioner’s arguments based on its assertions about “caselaw” because Petitioner cited no cases to support its arguments. See id. Nevertheless, we infer that Petitioner intends its statements of “caselaw” to refer to the requirements to make out a case for anticipation. If so, Petitioner demonstrably miscasts what appear to be the legal principles for proving anticipation. As stated in our Decision: “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).” Dec. 7. Making a showing that a prior art reference anticipates a patent claim thus necessarily requires proof that a single reference “expressly or inherently” describes every element of that claim and with all elements being arranged in the reference as they are in the” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 10,379,301 - Orca Security Ltd. v. Wiz, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 15, 2025 · IPR2025-01086 · APJ Lisa A Murray · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Orca did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, based on its unexplained inconsistent positions on a claim term.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons given below, on this record, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims. B. Real Parties in Interest” slip op. at 2
- Prior constructionPrior construction not adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The Board has recently clarified that “[s]imply noting that the petitioner is adopting a patent owner’s claim construction proposals from district court . . . is not a sufficient reason for advancing different positions in the two forums.” Revvo Techs., Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Techs, Inc., IPR2025-00632, Paper 20, 5 (PTAB Nov. 3, 2025) (precedential). In Revvo, as in this case, the petitioner did not propose its own constructions for claim terms in the Petition, but instead accepted the patent owner’s proposed constructions from the related district court litigation. Id. at 2. Although the petitioner had proposed different constructions for the claim terms in district court, it did not explain why it was taking a different position before the Board. Id. The Board’s trial rules “do not necessarily prohibit petitioners from taking inconsistent claim construction positions before the Board and a explain why alternative positions are warranted.” Revvo, Paper 20, 3–4 (quoting Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v. Sfara, Inc., IPR2024-00952, Paper 12 at 8–9 (PTAB Dec. 13, 2024) (informative)). Petitioner has not sufficiently done so here. Moreover, the fact that Petitioner cannot raise its indefiniteness challenge in an inter partes review is not a sufficient reason to allow Petitioner to take inconsistent claim construction positions before the Board and the district court. Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2025- 00340, Paper 18, 3 (Nov. 5, 2025) (informative). As explained in the Board’s Tesla decision: Petitioner’s statement that it cannot raise indefiniteness challenges in an inter partes review is not a sufficient explanation. Indeed, the statement amounts to an assertion that a petitioner should be permitted to raise inconsistent invalidity challenges in the two forums. Petitioner’s explanation may have risen to a sufficient level, for example, if Petitioner had shown that, notwithstanding the alleged indefiniteness of the claim term, an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that the asserted art satisfies the claim limitation (such as if the limitation prescribed a range and only the outer bounds of the range were unclear). Instead, Petitioner argued indefiniteness in the district court and then adopted Patent Owner’s plain and ordinary meaning construction from the district court litigation in its Petition. Allowing a petitioner to advance a claim construction before the Board when that petitioner has made inconsistent indefiniteness arguments in” slip op. at 7
Claim constructioncites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 12,001,549
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.