PTAB Year in Review – Significant PTAB Decisions in 2025

2025 was a particularly active year at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for Director Review and the designation of new precedential and informative decisions. The decisions selected below span a broad range of subject matter and reflect noteworthy PTAB policy on key issues.

Parallel District Court or ITC Proceedings

Hulu, LLC v. Piranha Media Distribution, LLC, IPR2024-01252, Paper 27 (PTAB Apr. 17, 2025) (informative).

Patent owner requested, on Director Review, that the panel institution decision be reversed because the district court entered final judgment that the challenged claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Acting Director held, in this informative decision, that “the efficiency and integrity of the patent system is best served by denying institution” where a district court has already found the challenged claims invalid.

Motorola Solutions Inc. v. Stellar, LLC, IPR2024-01205, Paper 19 (PTAB Mar. 28, 2025).

This Director Review decision issued soon after the USPTO rescinded the 2022 Fintiv memo under which the PTAB did not deny institution if a petitioner filed a stipulation not to pursue in the parallel proceeding the same grounds or any other ground that could have been reasonably raised before the PTAB (Sotera stipulation). The Acting Director vacated the panel decision granting institution and determined that Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation did not outweigh the other Fintiv factors, because the stipulation was not likely to moot the more expansive invalidity contentions in district court, which included combinations of prior art with unpublished system art.

Claim Construction

Revvo Tech., Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Tech., Inc., IPR2025-00632, Paper 20 (PTAB Nov. 3, 2025) (precedential).

On sua sponte Director Review, the Director determined the Board erred by limiting considerations of different claim construction positions to instances that implicate means-plus-function. This precedential decision explains that a petitioner taking alternative positions before the Board and a district court should, at a minimum, explain why the alternative positions are warranted.

Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2025-00340, Paper 18 (PTAB Nov. 5, 2025) (informative).

In this Director Review decision, designated informative, Director Squires held that a petitioner’s statement that it cannot raise indefiniteness challenges in an IPR is not a sufficient explanation for taking inconsistent claim construction positions before the Board and district court.

Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v. Sfara, Inc., IPR2024-00952, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 13, 2024) (informative).

The Acting Director designated as informative this Board decision that denied institution because Petitioner failed to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Petitioner argued claim terms should be construed as means-plus-function in district court and argued for plain and ordinary meaning at the PTAB. Under these facts, the Board determined that § 42.104(b)(2) requires the Petition to “identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” At a minimum, the Board held that the Petition should have explained why the inconsistent positions were warranted or set forth an alternative means-plus-function construction.

§ 325(d)

Ecto World, LLC v. RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., IPR2024-01280, Paper 13 (PTAB May 19, 2025) (precedential as to § A).

This precedential Director Review decision clarifies the application of 325(d) when a petition relies on asserted prior art submitted on an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) but not applied by the examiner. Such asserted prior art is sufficient to satisfy the first part of the Advanced Bionics two-part framework used by the PTAB for evaluating whether denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) is warranted. The decision then resolves a prior dispute among prior Board panels on the level of analysis required to satisfy part two of the framework and holds that a petitioner must explain, with reference to the precedential Becton Dickinson factors, how the examiner erred in overlooking the prior art.

Parallel Petitions

CrowdStrike, Inc. v. GoSecure, Inc., IPR2025-00068, Paper 25 (PTAB June 25, 2025) (informative).

On Director Review, the Acting Director found the Board abused its discretion in granting institution of two petitions challenging the same claims. When a petitioner files two parallel petitions to advance two different claim constructions, the Board should construe the claim term and institute review of, at most, one of the petitions.

314(a) Institution Discretion

Tessel, Inc. v. Nutanix, Inc., IPR2025-00298, Paper 17 (PTAB Aug. 22, 2025).

This Director Review decision determines, under the discretion authority granted by 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), that it “is not an efficient use of Office resources to institute an IPR on a patent where the inventors of that patent now advocate for its unpatentability.”

Real Parties in Interest

Corning Optical Comm. RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc., IPR2014-00440, Paper 68 (PTAB Aug. 18, 2015) (precedential, except for § II.E.1).

This 2015 decision was designated precedential after Director Squires removed the precedential designation from SharkNinja — a decision under which the PTAB did not conduct a real party in interest (RPI) analysis unless there was a potential statutory one-year time bar or estoppel that would prevent review. In Corning Optical, the Board determined that the petition failed to name all RPIs and, on that basis, granted a motion to dismiss, vacated the institution decision, and terminated the IPR. The Board stated that under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2), “an IPR petition may be considered ‘only if’ it identifies ‘all’ real parties-in-interest.” Director Squires also issued a memorandum explaining his rationale for the shift in policy, including to prevent misuse of AIA proceedings by foreign adversaries.

Section 101 & Artificial Intelligence

Ex parte Desjardins, 2024-000567 (PTAB Sept. 26, 2025) (precedential).

An Appeals Review Panel (ARP), consisting of Director Squires, Acting Commissioner Wallace, and Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge Kim, was convened to review a PTAB panel’s decision in an ex parte appeal in which the panel had entered a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In a precedential decision that vacated the Board’s new ground of rejection, the ARP found the claims were patent eligible because they recited improvements in how a machine learning model operates. The ARP provided guidance that examiners and PTAB panels should not evaluate claims directed to artificial intelligence at such a high level of generality to essentially equate any machine learning with an unpatentable algorithm without adequate explanation.

This article appeared in the 2025 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends report.