IPR

Subscribe to IPR via RSS

The USPTO’s recently published notice of proposed rulemaking (RIN 0651-AD89, Docket No. PTO-P-2025-0025) for inter partes review (IPR) proceedings seeks to curb multiple IPR challenges to the same patent. This aligns with the USPTO’s recent and decisive shift toward limiting accessibility of IPRs as a means to challenge patents outside of the district courts. While the USPTO claims to promote “fairness, efficiency, and predictability,” the practical impact would be a dramatic change in the risk calculus for accused infringers—especially those who never had their own opportunity to mount a proper challenge. Parties would be stuck with the results of someone else’s work product, no matter how flawed it was. For purposes of §§ 102/103, the USPTO effectively seeks to move beyond the presumption of validity and create a final determination of validity as far as IPR challenges are concerned.Continue Reading USPTO’s Proposed “One and Done” IPR Rule: Rethinking Finality, Fairness, and Efficiency

The Federal Circuit recently issued a nonprecedential order denying IOENGINE, LLC’s petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC (No. 2023-1367). IOENGINE sought further review of the court’s earlier decision on the boundaries of IPR estoppel, but the court declined to revisit the issue. The order marks the close of Federal Circuit review for this phase of a high-profile patent dispute and confirms the boundaries on IPR estoppel set by the Federal Circuit.Continue Reading Final Word on IPR Estoppel: Rehearing Denied in Ingenico v. IOENGINE

In a setback for automakers, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has once again upheld the validity of Neo Wireless’s U.S. Patent No. 10,447,450, rejecting challenges brought by several major automakers. The most recent decision, Ford Motor Co. v. Neo Wireless (Sept. 3, 2025), follows last year’s similar outcome in American Honda, GM, Nissan & Tesla v. Neo Wireless (Nov. 1, 2024).Continue Reading PTAB Again Upholds the Heavily Litigated Neo Wireless Patent: What the Latest Decisions Mean for Automakers

Qualcomm Incorporated v. Apple Inc., No. 23-1208 (Fed. Cir. 2025)—On April 23, 2025, the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s finding that claims of Qualcomm’s U.S. Patent No. 8,063,674 (“the ’674 Patent”) are unpatentable as being obvious over the prior art.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Provides Clarity on Use of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”) in IPRs

In a significant development for patent litigants, the Federal Circuit in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, affirmed an important limitation on the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). Specifically, the court held that estoppel stemming from inter partes reviews (IPR) applies only to grounds based on patents and printed publications—not to patents or printed publications evidencing other grounds that could not have been raised during the IPR.Continue Reading A Line in the Sand: Federal Circuit Bounds IPR Estoppel in Ingenico v. IOENGINE

On March 26, 2025, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office released a memorandum introducing a new interim process for handling institution decisions in inter partes reviews (IPRs) and post-grant reviews (PGRs). The Office just released a set of FAQs addressing questions about the memo.Continue Reading Breaking Down the Bifurcated PTAB Review Process: What the USPTO’s Recent FAQ Drop Reveals

AliveCor, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 23-1512 (Fed. Cir. 2025) – On March 7, 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions invalidating all claims of three AliveCor patents. Previously, the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) had found certain Apple Watch products infringe two of the three patents. Continue Reading You Snooze, You Lose: Federal Circuit Emphasized Once Again the Importance of Preserving Issues for Appellate Review

This case addresses the application of issue preclusion in relation to the validity of three patents. In particular, this case focuses on the implications of decisions made during the dismissal of pending litigations and examines whether these decisions render judgments final, justifying the application of issue preclusion to invalidate concurrently asserted patents.Continue Reading Koss Corporation v. Bose Corporation

After ten years of litigation, the Federal Circuit found that the district court conducted an improper collateral estoppel analysis and upheld ParkerVision’s position on each of the appealed issues.[1]Continue Reading Different Evidentiary Burdens in IPR Proceedings and District Court Means No Collateral Estoppel Effect on Related Patent Claims