- in European Union
- with readers working within the Chemicals industries
- within Privacy, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration and Family and Matrimonial topic(s)
United States Patent and Trademark Office Director John Squires just issued a precedential decision with a clear message: if a party has already litigated and lost, don’t expect the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to provide another bite at the apple.
In Magnolia Medical Technologies v. Kurin (IPR2026-00097), Squires denied institution after the patent owner had already litigated the same issues in district court and lost all the way through the Federal Circuit.
Squires grounded the denial in congressional intent: America Invents Act (AIA) reviews exist as an alternative to litigation, not a supplement to it. When a party uses inter partes review (IPR) as a repeat challenge after a final loss in court, it falls outside the purpose of the statute and the Director has discretion to say no. Notably, Squires also took time to broadly outline the policy considerations and authority for discretionary denials.
What in-house counsel should know:
- The IPR window isn’t unlimited: timing and litigation posture matter enormously when seeking institution.
- Parallel litigation strategy must be coordinated before you file, not after a loss.
- Squires is actively policing misuse of the AIA trial process.
- The PTAB under Squires is not a fallback forum.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
