Patent Office

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), specifically its administrative tribunal, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), serves as a critical forum for resolving patentability disputes, distinct from federal district courts. The PTAB reviews patentability decisions made by examiners during the application process (ex parte appeals) and adjudicates challenges to issued patents through post-grant proceedings like Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) and Post-Grant Reviews (PGRs). While not part of a judicial circuit, decisions from the PTAB are appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The PTAB handles a significant docket of patent challenges, with 1,433 petitions filed in FY25 (95% IPRs, 5% PGRs), although filings and institution rates have seen recent fluctuations.

The PTAB is known for its expeditious nature, with IPRs statutorily mandated to reach a final written decision within one year of institution, though a six-month extension is possible for good cause. Historically, it was perceived as a challenging venue for patent owners due to a lower burden of proof for petitioners (preponderance of the evidence) compared to district courts. However, since November 13, 2018, the PTAB applies the Phillips standard for claim construction, aligning with federal court practice, which aims for greater consistency in claim interpretation across fora. Recent trends, particularly in FY26, indicate a significant drop in IPR institution rates (37% through November 2025) compared to prior years, largely attributed to an expansion of discretionary denials, including consideration of "settled expectations" and parallel proceedings in district courts. PTAB proceedings are administrative trials conducted before a panel of three Administrative Patent Judges (APJs), not jury or bench trials in the federal court sense, and typically do not involve live witness testimony.

The PTAB operates under specific rules of practice for trials under the America Invents Act (AIA), which govern petition and motion practice, discovery, testimony, and evidence submission. Petitions and responses are subject to strict word limits. The PTAB has also introduced mechanisms such as the Director Review process and a permanent Motion to Amend Pilot Program. Proposed rule changes in October 2025 aim to further focus IPRs on claims not extensively challenged in prior litigation and may require petitioners to stipulate against raising invalidity grounds in other proceedings.

The tracked case, Samsung v. Maxell, Ltd., was terminated without institution, meaning the PTAB decided not to proceed with the requested review. This outcome is not uncommon, especially with the increased use of discretionary denials. For example, a separate IPR between Samsung and Maxell (IPR2025-01312) was instituted on February 9, 2026. This case highlights the strategic interplay between PTAB proceedings and district court litigation, as Maxell has also been involved in federal court patent infringement suits against Samsung, including one in the Eastern District of Texas where a $111 million jury verdict was later overturned.

The PTAB is staffed by Administrative Patent Judges (APJs), who are legally and technically trained professionals appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. These judges often possess extensive patent legal experience from various backgrounds, including private practice, government roles, or as former patent examiners. The current Chief Judge for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is Kalyan Deshpande, who has served the Board in multiple capacities since 2008 and is instrumental in leading post-grant trials and ex parte appeals. Other notable APJs are not consistently highlighted in public data, but the body of APJs collectively brings a depth of technical and legal expertise to patent validity determinations.