#inter-partes-review

#inter-partes-review

[W]hen the patented invention is the result of the work of joint inventors, the portions of the reference disclosure relied upon must reflect the collective work of the same inventive entity identified in the patent to be excluded as prior art." - Federal Circuit The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision on Thursday,

We blogged on these decisions here, here, here, here, and here. On October 17, 2025, newly appointed Director Squires issued an open letter and memorandum to the public and to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board), taking back authority previously delegated to the Board to decide whether to institute an IPR or PGR proceeding on the merits. Now, the Director will issue summary notices on whether to institute proceedings.

Two additional mandamus petitions have joined the Federal Circuit's growing docket challenging the USPTO's 2025 shift toward more restrictive inter partes review (IPR) institution practices under President Trump, bringing the total to five pending cases that collectively test the boundaries of appellate review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d). The newest petitions are In re HighLevel, Inc. (No. 25-148) and In re SanDisk Technologies, Inc. (No. 25-152).

"If Xerox wanted its more limited construction, it should have written the claims as it did in the substitute claim," said the CAFC.