USPTO News

• On January 13, USPTO announced the design of SPARK, a new pilot program to incentivize meaningful participation by U.S. small and medium-sized businesses, universities, and non-profits in standards development organizations (SDOs) by offering a limited number of acceleration certificates that will expedite patent examinations or PTAB appeals at the USPTO.
• On January 21, USPTO announced the extension of its Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program until January 5, 2029 with the European Patent Office, the Japan Patent Office, the Republic of Korea’s Ministry of Intellectual Property, and the China National Intellectual Property Administration.

Final Rules

• There are no new final rules.

Interim Rules

• There are no new interim rules.

Proposed Rules

• There are no new proposed rules. 

General Notices

• There are no new general notices.

PTAB Decisions

• New Precedential PTAB Decisions
  • PacifiCorp v. Birchtech Corp., IPR2025-00687, -00688, -00717, -00718, Paper 40 (January 12, 2026) (designated: January 12, 2026) (vacating decisions granting institution of two parallel petitions where the petitions each challenge the same claims under different priority dates for the challenged patents, and remanding for the Board to institute at most one petition challenging each patent, and decide the priority issue if necessary) (Director Review decision).
  • Elong Int’l USA Inc. v. Feit Electric Co., Inc., IPR2025-00258, Paper 16 (June 25, 2025) (designated: January 9, 2026) (discretionarily denying institution where Petitioner filed a copycat petition and motion for joinder to a pending IPR, explaining that discretionary considerations are first reviewed for a petition as if joinder were not sought, and then reviewed as if joinder were to be granted).
  • Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc., IPR2025-00324, Paper 11 (June 25, 2025) (designated:  January 9, 2026) (discretionarily denying institution, explaining that although §315(b) permits time-barred parties to file a petition when seeking joinder under §315(c), the Office may consider fairness arguments when determining whether to exercise discretion and Petitions filed by time-barred parties should proceed only in exceptional circumstances).
  • LifeVac LLC v. DCSTAR Inc., IPR2025-00454, Paper 11 (July 11, 2025) (designated:  January 9, 2026) (declining to discretionarily deny institution of an IPR where Petitioner filed an earlier PGR that was denied institution).
  • Multi-Color Corp. v. Brook & Whittle Ltd., PGR2025-00025, Paper 10 (July 16, 2025) (designated: January 9, 2026) (declining to discretionarily deny institution of a PGR petition in view of the totality of the arguments, explaining that petitions for post-grant review are favored).
• New Informative PTAB Decisions
  • Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v. Micron Technology, Inc., IPR2025-00098, Paper 38 (January 15, 2026) (designated: January 16, 2026) (vacating and denying institution where Petitioner has not provided sufficient argument and evidence for the Office to determine whether Petitioner identified all RPIs) (Director Review decision).
  • Top Glory Trading Group Inc. v. Cole Haan LLC, IPR2025-01395, Paper 18 (January 12, 2026) (designated: January 12, 2026) (declining to discretionarily deny institution based on a significant change in design patent law despite the patent owner’s settled expectations).
  • Savant Techs. LLC d/b/a GE Lighting v. Feit Electric Co., Inc., IPR2025-00260, Paper 16 (June 12, 2025) (designated: January 9, 2026) (declining to discretionarily deny institution of a second petition necessitated by Patent Owner's assertion in district court of additional claims after Petitioner filed its first IPR).
  • Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2025-00217, Paper 9 (June 13, 2025) (designated: January 9, 2026) (declining to discretionarily deny institution where Patent Owner asserted and Petitioner challenged a large number of patents from different families involving diverse subject matter because the Board is better suited to review a large number of patents involving diverse subject matter than the district court).
  • Dabico Airport Sols. Inc. v. AXA Power ApS, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 (June 18, 2025) (designated: January 9, 2026) (discretionarily denying institution based on Patent Owner's settled expectations and Petitioner’s failure to provide any persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an appropriate use of Office resources).
  • Padagis US LLC v. Neurelis, Inc., IPR2025-00464, -00465, -00466, Paper 12 (July 16, 2025) (designated: January 9, 2026) (declining to discretionarily deny institution where Petitioner demonstrated apparent material error when the Examiner found priority to a provisional application despite earlier PTAB decisions of related patents reaching a contrary conclusion).
  • Amgen Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., IPR2025-00601, -00602, -00603, Paper 9 (July 24, 2025) (designated: January 9, 2026) (explaining that there may be some reasons why a patent owner can have settled expectations in a patent that has been in force for three years).
  • Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. H2 Intellect LLC, IPR2025-00480, Paper 11 (September 4, 2025) (designated: January 9, 2026) (declining to discretionarily deny institution where the challenged patent had not been commercialized, asserted, marked, licensed, or otherwise applied in Petitioner's technology space).
  • Apple Inc. v. Ferid Allani, IPR2025-00856, Paper 11 (September 5, 2025) (designated: January 9, 2026) (declining to discretionarily deny institution based on Petitioner’s expectations that the challenged patent would not be asserted against it, after Petitioner advised Patent Owner that it did not require a license and Patent Owner did not assert the patent until eleven years later, and after the patent expired).
  • Sun Pharm. Indus., Inc. v. Nivagen Pharm., Inc., IPR2025-00893, Paper 18 (September 19, 2025) (designated: January 9, 2026) (discretionarily denying institution where Petitioner takes a narrower claim construction position in district court and fails to explain why a broader construction is warranted in its Petition).
  • Alliance Laundry Sys., LLC v. PayRange LLC, IPR2025-00950, Paper 11 (September 19, 2025) (designated: January 9, 2026) (discretionarily denying institution where the patent owner presented evidence of licensing the challenged patent, creating some settled expectations that favored Patent Owner).

• New Director Review Decisions
  • TikTok Inc. v. CellSpin Soft, Inc., IPR2024-00757, IPR2024-00759, IPR2024-00760, IPR2024-00767, IPR2024-00768, IPR2024-00769 & IPR2024-00770
    • Order initiating Director Review – Paper 34 (Stewart June 5, 2025) (initiating director review on the Board’s denial of Patent Owner’s motion to terminate the Petitioner’s IPRs, including the Board’s rejection of arguments that Petitioner failed to name the CCP as a real party-in-interest, which is not a “person” under Return Mail).
    • Order authorizing additional briefing – Paper 38 (Squires January 23, 2026) (authorizing additional briefing on “(1) whether the evidence Patent Owner submitted is sufficient to put Petitioner’s RPI identification into dispute; and (2) what effect, if any, does the announced Joint Venture have on these proceedings” in view of Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v. Micron Technology, Inc., IPR2025 00098, -00099, Paper 38 (Director Jan. 15, 2026) (informative) and the announcement of Petitioner’s Joint Venture).
  • Revvo Technologies, Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.,IPR2025-00632 (see Claim construction) 
    • Order initiating Director Review – Paper 19 (Squires October 20, 2025)
    • Decision vacating decision granting institution, and remanding for further proceedings – Paper 20 (Squires November 3, 2025) (finding that the Board erred when it accepted Petitioner’s statement that it ‘accepts Patent Owner’s proposed constructions’ from the district‑court litigation without sufficiently explaining why its different positions were warranted, and when it concluded that a petitioner is only required to explain such differing positions when Section 112(f) is implicated).
    • Decision vacating decision granting institution, and denying institution – Paper 36 (Squires January 26, 2026) (vacating decision granting institution and denying institution when Petitioner’s explanation for different claim construction from the district court “amounts to nothing more than an assertion that a petitioner should be permitted to raise different claim constructions in the two forums when there is a chance that the district court will reject that petitioner’s preferred construction”).
  • Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v. Micron Technology, Inc., IPR2025-00098 & IPR2025-00099
    • Order to show cause – Paper 33 (Squires November 10, 2025) (ordering additional briefing for Petitioner to “show[] cause why the Petitions should not be denied institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)” for naming a Petitioner “listed on the Bureau of Industry and Security’s Entity List, which ‘identifies persons . . . reasonably believed to be involved, or to pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved, in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.’” (citing 15 C.F.R. § 744.16; 15 C.F.R. § 744 (Supp. IV 2023) (listing YMTC)).)
    • Decision vacating decisions granting institution, and denying institution – Paper 38 (Squires January 15, 2026) (finding Petitioner did not provide sufficient argument and evidence for the Office to determine whether Petitioner identified all RPIs).
  • Pacificorp v. Birchtech Corp., IPR2025-00687, IPR2025-00688, IPR2025-00717 & IPR2025-00718
    • Decision vacating decision granting institution, and remanding for further proceedings – Paper 40 (Squires January 12, 2026) (remanding for the Board to institute at most one petition challenging each patent, and decide the priority issue if necessary).