Deadline Evolution: Director Extends Deadline for Requesting Director Review of Institution Grants to 30 Days

In Light & Wonder, Inc., v. Evolution Malta, Ltd., IPR2025-01072, Paper 30 (Director June 22, 2026) (precedential), the Director invoked his authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b) to waive the 14-day time period for requesting Director Review of decisions granting institution. The waiver extends the timeline to thirty days and applies to all cases “moving forward”—meaning parties now have the same time to request Director Review of grants of institution , denials of institution, and final decisions alike.

The determination to waive the 14-day deadline arose after considering the “unique procedural posture” of the Light & Wonder IPR proceedings and the parallel litigation involving the same parties. There, the district court granted Petitioner’s motion to dismiss the litigation with prejudice, after finding that the challenged claims were directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court’s decision issued after the Board instituted IPRs and after the deadline for requesting Director Review passed. And although Patent Owner moved to terminate the IPRs based on the district court’s finding of invalidity, the Board did not have authority to grant such a request.

“Recogniz[ing] that changed circumstances can surface after the deadline to file a request for Director Review has elapsed but before trial has progressed meaningfully” and that initiating sua sponte review “is not always the most efficient process,” the Director resolved to extend the deadline for requesting director review to 30 days “moving forward.”

The Director further explained that the Office may extend the deadline for requesting Director Review of an institution decision in “exceptional circumstances,” so long as the “trial has not progressed meaningfully.” Examples of exceptional circumstances include the dismissal of all, or substantially all claims in a co-pending litigation, findings of fact and conclusions of law that render all or substantially all challenged claims invalid, or a violation of a Sotera stipulation.

Finally, the Director concluded that termination of the Light & Wonder IPR proceedings was appropriate under Hulu. Because all of the challenged claims had been found invalid and trial had not meaningfully progressed, the Director found that “it is unnecessary and inefficient to maintain these IPRs.”