1Cambridge Mobile v. Sfara
- In court
- The “component” terms are means-plus-function limitations and indefinite, which it called case-dispositive.
- At the PTAB
- Plain meaning, with no express construction.
The rulingInstitution denied.
Since December 2024, the Office has designated eight rulings against petitioners whose claim-construction positions didn’t line up: usually one reading in court and another at the Board, and once two readings in two Board petitions. Three denied institution. Five undid institutions the Board had already granted. Losing the ruling was not always the end of the challenge.
Before you read
In how many of the eight rulings had the Board already started review before the ruling undid it?
Five: CrowdStrike, Revvo, Tesla, Terumo and Ford. The other three denied institution.
Part 1 of 7
One week after the Board instituted Terumo’s IPRs, Terumo told a district court that claims reciting a “controller” were indefinite. Its petitions had said the claims needed no construction.
On May 12, 2026, the Director withdrew institution and denied both petitions.
“I would not have instituted these IPRs in the first instance had Petitioner engaged in this strategic litigation-style behavior before institution.”
Part 2 of 7
Claim construction is the step where a tribunal decides what a claim’s words mean. Petitioners now argue it in two places at once: in district court, where they are accused of infringing, and at the PTAB, where they challenge validity.
District court
Where the petitioner is accused of infringing.
PTAB
Where the petitioner challenges validity.
The rule that has emerged is short: you may take different positions in the two places, but you must explain why. A party “is not necessarily precluded from arguing different claim construction positions before a district court and the Board,” but “a party should explain why different positions are warranted.”
The PTAB rules require a petition to state how each challenged claim should be read, and to identify the structure behind any means-plus-function term, a term defined by what it does rather than what it is.
A party is not necessarily precluded from taking different positions, if it explains why.
Every ruling the Office designated on this issue went against the petitioner.
Part 3 of 7
Each ruling went against the petitioner. Three denied institution. Five undid institutions the Board had already granted, and two of those sent the case back to the Board. The count is by ruling: Ford’s covered three IPRs, and Terumo’s and CrowdStrike’s two each.
The rulingInstitution denied.
The rulingBoth institutions vacated; sent back for the Board to construe the term and decide which proceeding, if any, to institute.
What happened nextODP lists IPR2025-00068 as denied on Aug 13, 2025. The patent owner’s August 2025 Director Review request reports that the Board instituted IPR2025-00070 on remand. Whether IPR2025-00070 went to trial, and how it ended, is not yet confirmed from the official orders.
The rulingDenied.
The rulingInstitution vacated; sent back to the Board.
What happened nextOn remand the Board instituted again. Revvo argued the court might later reject its narrower constructions. On January 26, 2026 the Director called that “wait and see,” vacated institution and denied the petition (Paper 36).
The rulingInstitution vacated; petition denied.
The rulingInstitution denied.
The rulingInstitution withdrawn; both petitions denied.
The rulingInstitution vacated in all three IPRs; petitions denied.
What happened next is a separate question. In Revvo, the Board instituted again on remand, and the Director denied the petition on January 26, 2026. In CrowdStrike, the patent owner’s later filing reports that the Board instituted one petition on remand. The official orders in CrowdStrike’s IPR2025-00070 are still being checked.
The explanations changed from case to case. The rulings did not.
Part 4 of 7
The last three rulings turn on timing. TikTok offered a fix that depended on institution. Terumo created its inconsistency after institution. Ford offered its fix only after the owner objected.
The checkpoint is the petition. Positions must be consistent there.
Part 5 of 7
Six things a petitioner might say about its two positions. Guess first, then tap each card to see what the rulings say.
Part 6 of 7
Choose your side to see the steps that apply to you.
Part 7 of 7
Only Revvo is precedential. The other seven are informative, so they guide the Board but do not bind it.
The Office chose which rulings to designate, and nobody has counted the petitions that survived the same objection.
CrowdStrike also shows that the remedy is not always outright denial. The Director vacated both institutions and sent the case back to decide which proceeding, if any, to institute. The patent owner’s later filing reports that the Board then instituted IPR2025-00070.
The takeaway
The position has to be consistent when the petition is filed, not when someone notices the gap.
Each item is marked in the story with a dashed outline. We update the story when the official record confirms or corrects it.
Precedential decisions bind the Board within their designated scope. Informative decisions show the Office’s reasoning but do not bind the Board. Court opinions are cited for what they decided; later history was checked on the date shown above.