# Eight tries, eight losses. 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. Sources checked October 16, 2026 **8 of 8** designated rulings went against the petitioner. Counted by ruling, not by petition or final outcome. ## Before you read In how many of the eight rulings had the Board already started review before the ruling undid it? - None - Two - Five - All eight Five: CrowdStrike, Revvo, Tesla, Terumo and Ford. The other three denied institution. ## One week 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. Terumo, pp. 2–5 ## Same words, two rooms 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. 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.” Sun Pharma, informative 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. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), applied in Cambridge Mobile ## Eight rulings, eight losses 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. 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. Revvo, Paper 36 In CrowdStrike, the patent owner’s later filing reports that the Board instituted one petition on remand. Patent owner’s request The official orders in CrowdStrike’s IPR2025-00070 are still being checked. The explanations changed from case to case. The rulings did not. ## The timing trap 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. USPTO informative designations, May 13, 2026 ## The excuse test Six things a petitioner might say about its two positions. Guess first, then tap each card to see what the rulings say. ## What to do Choose your side to see the steps that apply to you. ## Cuts the other way 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. CrowdStrike, Paper 25 The patent owner’s later filing reports that the Board then instituted IPR2025-00070. Patent owner’s request ## The takeaway The position has to be consistent when the petition is filed, not when someone notices the gap. ## Related stories - [File two petitions, and the Board keeps one.](https://postgrantproceeding.com/insights/d06-file-two-petitions-and-the-board-keeps-one) - [Thirteen rulings, thirteen deciding facts.](https://postgrantproceeding.com/insights/d18-thirteen-rulings-thirteen-deciding-facts) - [Past the Director is not past the Board.](https://postgrantproceeding.com/insights/d02-past-the-director-is-not-past-the-board) ## Sources - S42. Cambridge Mobile Telematics v. Sfara, No. IPR2024-00952, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. December 13, 2024) (informative). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ipr2024-00952_paper_12_cambridge_v._sfara-informative.pdf - S15. CrowdStrike, Inc. v. GoSecure, Inc., No. IPR2025-00068, IPR2025-00070, Paper 25 (USPTO Director June 25, 2025) (informative, designated June 26, 2025). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ipr2025-00068_paper25_.pdf - S36. Sun Pharm. Indus., Inc. v. Nivagen Pharm., Inc., No. IPR2025-00893, Paper 18 (USPTO Director September 19, 2025) (informative, designated Jan. 9, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPR2025_00893_paper_18.pdf - S02. Revvo Technologies, Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc., No. IPR2025-00632, Paper 20 (USPTO Director November 3, 2025) (precedential, designated Nov. 3, 2025). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ipr2025-00632_revvo_v_cerebrum_paper20_20251103_.pdf - S43. Revvo Technologies, Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc., No. IPR2025-00632, Paper 36 (USPTO Director January 26, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ipr2025-00632_revvo_v_cerebrum_II_paper36.pdf - S03. Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, No. IPR2025-00340, Paper 18 (USPTO Director November 5, 2025) (informative, designated Nov. 5, 2025). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPR2025-00340_tesla-informative.pdf - S44. USPTO, USPTO designates as informative three decisions applying the Office’s Revvo and Tesla claim construction precedent (May 13, 2026) (Ford v. AutoConnect; Terumo v. Haemonetics; TikTok v. ShopSee, IPR2025-01485). https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-designates-informative-three-decisions-applying-offices-revvo-and-tesla - S01. Terumo BCT, Inc. v. Haemonetics Corp., No. IPR2025-01374, Paper 20 (USPTO Director May 12, 2026) (informative, designated May 13, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPR2025-01374_Paper_20.pdf - S04. Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLC, No. IPR2025-01342, Paper 27 (USPTO Director May 12, 2026) (informative, designated May 13, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPR2025-01342Paper_27.pdf - S45. Patent Owner’s Request for Director Review, CrowdStrike, Inc. v. GoSecure, Inc., No. IPR2025-00070 (filed August 25, 2025), describing the Board’s institution decision on remand (Paper 28). https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1556829/download-documents?artifactId=mD7QnqJxVeqTD_QT7sKn-WjraBSlLLMxtw7IqhfnC9vfj7jNRPF0U64 - S53. USPTO Open Data Portal: patent file-wrapper records for ex parte reexamination (90/ control numbers) and PTAB trial status, as pulled by PostGrantProceeding on Oct. 14 and 15, 2026. https://data.uspto.gov ## Not yet confirmed - The official orders in CrowdStrike’s IPR2025-00070 are still being checked. - Whether IPR2025-00070 went to trial, and how it ended, is not yet confirmed from the official orders. 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. General information about published decisions, not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.