The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has upheld the discretion of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to deny Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reviews based on ongoing litigation timelines. On February 13, 2026, in a decision affecting major tech companies, the court sided against a coalition of Apple, Cisco, Google, and Intel, who challenged this discretionary practice under the Fintiv precedent. The court found that the USPTO’s policy aligns with the director’s statutory authority, presenting a setback for these companies as they navigate patent challenges in a complex legal environment. Further details can be found at Law360.
Under the precedent set by the Fintiv decision, the PTAB can decide not to institute inter partes review (IPR) proceedings if related court actions are scheduled to conclude around the same time or before a PTAB decision would be rendered. This approach is intended to streamline judicial and administrative resources, preventing duplicative proceedings and inconsistent outcomes.
Critics of the decision argue that it unfairly hinders the ability to challenge potentially invalid patents efficiently. Big Tech companies, which are frequently targeted in patent litigation, have voiced concerns that this discretion could be leveraged inconsistently, harming their defense strategies. However, the court’s decision underscores the USPTO’s broad authority to manage its docket and resources effectively, a flexibility deemed crucial, especially amidst the increasing complexity of patent disputes.
The ruling follows similar sentiments expressed in the judiciary, emphasizing that procedural efficiency should not be compromised by concurrent legal processes. This decision will likely impact how aggressively tech companies pursue IPR as a parallel strategy to courtroom battles.
As patent law continues to evolve, stakeholders across the technology sector are carefully evaluating this development, considering potential policy shifts or adjustments to their legal strategies. Meanwhile, the ongoing friction between administrative discretion and corporate litigation strategies ensures this topic remains a critical area for legal scrutiny and advocacy.