Trending at the PTAB: The Journey of IPR Institution in 2025

January 5, 2026

Law360

By Cory C. Bell; Yinan Liu, Ph.D.; Xirui Zhang, Ph.D.

PTAB Implements Stricter IPR Institution Framework: In 2025, the PTAB adopted a more restrictive, policy-driven approach to IPR institution, introducing additional procedural requirements and discretionary considerations that lowered institution rates.
Centralized Control and Summary Notices Introduced: Director John Squires consolidated control over all institution determinations and introduced summary notices, reducing detailed reasoning to a limited set of cases.
New Compliance Standards Influence Petition Outcomes: Precedential and informative decisions reinstated real-party-in-interest enforcement and required alignment in claim construction positions, making strategic consistency essential for institution.

In 2025, the PTAB's policy pendulum swung under a new administration and new leadership. At the center of this shift is inter partes review institution, a decision that is generally final and nonappealable under Title 35 of the U.S. Code, Section 314(d).

Over the course of the year, IPR institution evolved into a more restrictive, policy-driven regime with reshaped discretionary briefing and assessment, and increasing procedural requirements.

This two-part article offers a chronological road map to that evolution.

Part 1 traces the main developments that redefined the PTAB's IPR institution in 2025, from acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart's bifurcated institution process to Director John Squires' reclamation of institution authority and the emergence of summary institution notices.

Part 2 turns to the policy rationale reflected in the institution decisions, designated precedential decisions, director review decisions, internal memoranda and the 2025 notice of proposed rulemaking.

By connecting those developments in retrospect, we hope to give PTAB practitioners, patent litigators and in-house counsel a practical reference for recalibrating PTAB and broader litigation strategies in 2026.

Evolution of an Increasingly Restrictive IPR Institution Regime

2025 opened with a reset of Fintiv. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rescinded Director Kathi Vidal's 2022 Fintiv memorandum, and Chief Judge Scott Boalick issued guidance restoring Fintiv's application where there is parallel International Trade Commission litigation or a Sotera stipulation. This reset was followed quickly by Stewart's PTAB workload memorandum and a series of discretionary denial decisions applying Fintiv.

The workload memorandum created a bifurcated institution process: discretionary denial considerations are first separately briefed and decided at the director level, and only petitions that pass that threshold are referred to a board panel for evaluation on the merits.

The memorandum also set out a nonexhaustive list of additional discretionary considerations, including parties' settled expectations. That concept, in turn, spawned a line of discretionary denial decisions relying on patent owners' settled expectations for patents generally in force six or more years.

Stewart also issued several director review decisions further elaborating on the discretionary considerations outlined in the workload memorandum.

The tables below summarize IPR institution outcomes under Stewart's bifurcated process between May 16 and Oct. 17.

As shown below, among Stewart's 579 director discretionary decisions in IPR proceedings, 366 (or 63.2%) proceedings were discretionarily denied, and 213 (36.8%) were referred for consideration on the merits.[1]

IPR Institution Outcome	Number of Proceedings	% of Proceedings
Total director discretionary decisions	579	—
Discretionarily denial decisions	366	63.2%
Referral decisions	213	36.8%

And among the 213 referred IPR proceedings, 160 (or 75.1%) proceedings were granted institution, while 40 (18.8%) were denied institution.[2]

Institution Decision Outcome	Number of Proceedings	% of Proceedings
Institution granted after referral	160	75.1%
Institution denied after referral	41	19.2%

By the fall, Squires had assumed direct control over all institution determinations, effectively centralizing the entire decision process — whether to deny based on discretionary considerations or refer for merits evaluation, whether to institute or deny on the merits, and whether to grant director review to reconsider or vacate an institution decision.

Under this centralized regime, Squires has issued seven summary notices that list IPRs under four categories: (1) discretionarily denied; (2) referred for merits and nondiscretionary review; (3) instituted on the merits; and (4) denied on the merits.

In most cases, whether institution is granted or denied — on discretionary or merits grounds — the parties receive only a bare summary line, with detailed reasoning reserved for a small subset of proceedings that may present novel or important factual or legal issues.

The tables below summarize IPR institution outcomes under Squires' centralized institution process from Oct. 31 to Dec. 23. Among the IPR proceedings listed across the seven summary notices issued by Squires, 128 (or 59.0%) proceedings were discretionarily denied, and 89 (41.0%) proceedings were referred for merits and nondiscretionary considerations.

IPR Institution Outcome	Number of Proceedings	% of Proceedings
Institution granted after referral	22	24.7%
Institution denied after referral	7	7.9%
Referred proceedings pending institution decisions	60	67.4%

By November, Squires had also layered in two additional threshold requirements for institution by designating as precedential Corning Optical Communications RF LLC v. PPC Broadband Inc. (except Section II.E.1), decided Aug. 18, and Revvo Technologies Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Technologies Inc., decided Nov. 3, and designating as informative Tesla Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, decided Nov. 5.

Through Corning, he restored real-party-in-interest enforcement at the institution stage. Through Revvo and Tesla, he imposed a requirement that petitioners affirmatively address any claim-construction inconsistencies between their positions in district court and at the PTAB.

Taken together, the 2025 institution developments reflect a restriction on the number of IPRs that will be instituted. Institution rates declined significantly, petition filings began to fall, and the petitions that did move forward tended to be those that were carefully framed, fully compliant with evolving threshold requirements and strategically aligned with positions taken in parallel litigation.

The timeline below provides a more detailed road map of the key events leading to the current IPR institution regime. Part 2 of this article will turn to policy rationale reflected in these events and offer practical takeaways for 2026.

Date (2025)	Event	Result
Feb. 28	The USPTO rescinded the 2022 "Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in America Invents Act Post-Grant Proceedings."	The USPTO reset Fintiv, removing safe harbors for IPR petitions with a parallel International Trade Commission litigation or a Sotera stipulation.
Mar. 20	The PTAB designated the majority opinion in Cambridge Mobile Telematics Inc. v. Sfara Inc.	In Cambridge Mobile, the board denied institution because the petitioner argued in district court that some claim terms were means-plus-function and case-dispositive, but the IPR petition simply asserted "plain and ordinary meaning" and did not explain why any differences in the claim constructions positions between the two forums are warranted.
Mar. 24	Chief Judge Boalick issued a memorandum providing guidance on implementing the office's rescission.	Boalick restored Fintiv to pre-2022 Fintiv practice: Fintiv applies where there is a parallel ITC case, Sotera stipulations are highly relevant but no longer dispositive, panels may consider any evidence bearing on trial proximity, including median time-to-trial statistics for the specific district court, not just the scheduled trial date, and must take a holistic assessment of all relevant circumstances.
Mar. 26	Stewart issued "Interim Processes for PTAB Workload Management."	This created a bifurcated institution process in which the acting director, consulting at least three PTAB judges, first decides whether to exercise discretion, and only petitions referred to a board panel will be evaluated on the merit for institution; it also authorized separate, substantial briefing on all relevant discretionary considerations, including Fintiv, General Plastic, Advanced Bionics, prior patentability adjudications, changes in law, settled expectations, reliance on expert testimony, national security interests, and workload needs.
Mar. 28	Stewart issued her director review decision in Motorola Solutions Inc. v. Stellar LLC.	Stewart vacated the board's institution decisions that relied on the rescinded 2022 interim procedure, noting that the board overweighted the petitioner's Sotera stipulation in its Fintiv analysis.
Apr. 17	Stewart issued her director review decision in Hulu LLC v. Piranha Media Distribution LLC.	Stewart vacated institution decisions and denies institution of IPRs challenging claims that a district court found ineligible under Section 101.
May 16	Stewart issued the first batch of director discretionary decisions under the bifurcated institution process.	This included a discretionary denial of institution in Arm Ltd. v. Daedalus Prime LLC, where the projected final written decision would be due after scheduled trial date and time-to-trial statistics. The denial decision was later vacated on director review, after the parallel district court litigation that drove the original denial is dismissed with prejudice
May 19	Stewart issued her director review decision in Ecto World LLC v. RAI Strategic Holdings Inc.	Stewart vacated the board's discretionary denial decision under Section 325(d), clarifying that reliance on prior art identified in a voluminous information disclosure statement satisfies step one of the Advanced Bionics framework, and that under Step Two, a petitioner must show how the examiner materially erred when the asserted prior art was cited in an information disclosure statement but not relied upon by the examiner
Jun. 3	Stewart issued her director review decision in Verizon Connect Inc. v. Omega Patents LLC.	Stewart vacated the final written decision, dismissed the petition and terminated IPR in light of seven prior challenges to the claims, including a separate IPR concluding the same challenged claims were unpatentable that is currently on appeal, stating that the decision "does not constitute a final written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)."
Jun. 12	Stewart issued her referral decision in Microsoft Corporation v. ParTec AG f/k/a Partec Cluster Competence Center GmBH.	Stewart referred the petition to the board despite Fintiv factors favoring denial, where the petitioner cited Ecto World and showed that the examiner materially erred in overlooking the prior art during prosecution, and that it was an appropriate use of office resources to review the potential error.
Jun. 12	Stewart issued her referral decision in Globus Medical Inc. v. Spinelogik Inc.	Stewart referred the petition to the board despite the patent owner's settled expectations of an 8-year-old patent, where the challenged patent expired almost four years ago due to nonpayment of maintenance fees, and the petitioner expected nonenforcement, suggesting the settled expectations consideration can cut both ways.
	Stewart issued her director discretionary decision in Tessell Inc. v. Nutanix Inc.	Stewart discretionarily denied institution where the named inventors advocated for the unpatentability of the challenged patent.
	Stewart issued her director discretionary decision in Savant Technologies LLC d/b/a GE Lighting v. Feit Electric Co.	Stewart referred the petition to the board because a second petition was necessitated by the patent owner's assertion in district court of additional claims after the petitioner filed its first IPR.
Jun. 13	Stewart issued her referral decision in Tesla Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC.	Stewart referred the petition to the board despite Fintiv factors favoring denial, where the petitioner filed a broad stipulation covering system art, the board previously found a reasonable likelihood that similar claims of an ancestor patent were unpatentable, and the board was better suited to review a large number of patents covering diverse subject matter involved in the complex district court case.
Jun. 18	Stewart issued her discretionary denial decision in Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. v. AXA Power ApS.	Stewart denied institution, raising, sua sponte, settled expectation as a consideration favoring denial, noting that "there is no bright-line rule," "the longer the patent has been in force, the more settled expectations should be," and "actual notice of a patent or of possible infringement is not necessary to create settled expectations," putting burden on the petitioner to proactively provide persuasive reasoning why IPR is an appropriate use of USPTO resources.
Jun. 25	Stewart issued her discretionary denial decision in Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. ParkerVision Inc.	Stewart denied institution and joinder request filed by a time-barred party despite Section 315(b) permitting time-barred parties to file a petition when seeking joinder under Section 315(c).
	Stewart issued her director review decision in CrowdStrike Inc. v. GoSecure Inc.	Stewart vacated decisions granting institution of two parallel petitions where a petitioner offered distinct claim constructions in each petition, and remanded for the board to institute at most one petition given the overlap in claims, explaining that allowing two parallel petitions here evaded the word limit and burdened the board and patent owner.
	Stewart issued her discretionary denial decision in Elong International USA Inc. v. Feit Electric Co.	Stewart discretionarily denied institution of a joinder petition, 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.
July 16	Stewart issued her referral decision in Padagis US LLC v. Neurelis Inc.	Stewart referred the petition to the board where the petitioner demonstrated apparent material error by the office during examination where the examiner found priority to a provisional application, despite earlier PTAB decisions of related patents reaching a contrary conclusion.
July 29	Chief Judge Boalick issued a memorandum on final written decision procedures for AIA trial proceedings.	Boalick required all board panels to address all grounds raised in the petition in the final written decisions, discouraging institution of petitions with redundant grounds that may be seen as inefficient use of the USPTO's resources
July 31	Stewart issued memorandum on enforcement and nonwaiver of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 42.104(b)(4), and permissible uses of general knowledge in inter partes reviews.	Stewart enforced Rule 104(b)(4), requiring petitioners to specify where each element of the claim is found in the relied prior art patents or printed publications, and limiting the use of general knowledge to supply a missing claim limitation; also noting that general knowledge may still be used in an IPR to support a motivation to combine or to demonstrate a person of ordinary skill in the art's understanding of a prior art reference's disclosure as teaching a claim limitation.
Aug. 14	Stewart granted a petitioner's request for rehearing discretionary denial in Advanced Micro Devices Inc. v. XtreamEdge Inc.	Stewart vacated the decision denying institution and referred the petition to the board where since the denial decision, the district court litigation was stayed pending the completion of venue discovery and motion to transfer, suggesting that procedural developments at the district court can reopen the door to institution.
Sept. 16	Stewart issued a memorandum on PTAB considerations of prior findings of fact and conclusions of law.	Stewart required the board to explain in the institution decision or final written decision on a finding of fact or conclusion of law that is different than the prior finding or conclusion of the USPTO, district court, or the ITC.
Sept. 19	Stewart issued her decision in Intel Corp. v. USTA Technology LLC.	Stewart discretionarily denied institution where one of the two challenged claims was subject to an ex parte reexamination when the petition was filed, the primary IPR reference was material to the patentability of the challenged claim but not considered by the examiner, noting that the most efficient process is for the petitioner to file a reexamination request that includes the primary IPR reference, rather than referring the petition to the board.
Oct. 9	Squires issued his director review decision in Interactive Communications International v. Blackhawk Network Inc.	Squires issued his final written decision and terminated proceeding without remand because the board improperly credited an unreliable expert witness. Squires stated that the decision "does not constitute a final written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)."
Oct. 17	Squires issued a memorandum on director institution of AIA trial proceedings.	Squires set a new institution determination process: (1) the director will review discretionary considerations, the merits and nondiscretionary considerations and decide whether to institute every IPR and post-grant review, in consultation with at least three PTAB judges; (2) the director will issue summary notices denying or granting institution; (3) any instituted IPR or PGR proceeding will be referred to a three-member panel of the PTAB to conduct the trial; (4) the bifurcated process for briefing discretionary considerations as outlined in the "Interim Processes for PTAB Workload Management" stays.
Oct. 28	Squires issued a memorandum designating Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc.(except § II.E.1) and dedesignating SharkNinja.	Squires restored a strict, pre-SharkNinja real party-in-interest regime, requiring the PTAB to enforce the Section 312(a)(2) requirement that all RPIs be identified before institution and RPI issues be resolved at institution, citing national security concerns.
Oct. 31	Squires issued "Summary Notice Decision on Institution," amended on Nov. 20.	The decision listed (1) proceedings discretionarily denied; (2) proceedings referred for merits and nondiscretionary considerations; and (3) proceedings instituted or denied on the merits; some proceedings listed with asterisks indicating opinions are forthcoming.
Nov. 3	Squires sua sponte issued his director review decision in Revvo Technologies Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Technologies Inc.	Squires vacated the board's institution decision and remanded it to the board, requiring the petitioner to explain why it takes different claim construction positions in the petition and in district court. Squires noted that merely adopting a patent owner's district court claim construction is not sufficient reason.
Nov. 5	Squires issued his director review decision in Tesla Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC.	Squires applied Revvo and Cambridge Mobile, vacated institution, and denied review, where the petitioner argued in district court that a limitation is indefinite, but IPR petition asked the board to apply its plain and ordinary meaning with no adequate explanation for the different claim construction positions. Squires noted that simply saying indefiniteness cannot be raised in IPRs is not a sufficient justification

Endnotes

[1] Statistics do not count for IPR proceedings referred for merit consideration without discretionary denial briefing.

[2] Twelve IPR proceedings referred after discretionary denial briefings were dismissed due to settlement before institution decisions.

[3] IPR2025-01061 was instituted on the merits and simultaneously stayed, without indication of prior discretionary review. See TikTok Inc. v. Distefano Website Innovations, LLC, IPR2025-01061, Paper 14 (Director Dec. 23, 2025).

Originally printed in Law360 on January 5, 2026. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm’s client.