# File two petitions, and the Board keeps one. In two designated rulings, the Board instituted parallel petitions built on alternative theories: two priority dates in one case, two claim constructions in the other. The Director vacated all six institutions and sent both cases back to pick at most one petition per patent. Sources checked October 16, 2026 **6 of 6** parallel-petition institutions vacated in two designated rulings. Neither ruling ended the challenge outright. ## Before you read Two petitions against the same claims, one for each answer to a disputed priority date. The Board instituted both. What did the Director say the Board should have done? - Instituted both, as it did - Denied both - Resolved priority, or instituted at most the first-ranked petition Absent exceptional circumstances, the Board should either resolve the priority date issue or institute, at most, the first-ranked petition (PacifiCorp, precedential). ## Four petitions, two patents PacifiCorp and MidAmerican Energy filed two IPRs against each of two Birchtech patents. For each patent, one petition relied on prior art dated before the owner’s earliest priority date. The other challenged that priority date and relied on later, intervening art. The Board instituted all four. PacifiCorp, pp. 2–3 On January 12, 2026, the Director held that the Board “abused its discretion” and vacated every institution. PacifiCorp ## Why petitioners file two Petitioners file parallel petitions to hedge. When an open question would change which prior art counts, a second petition lets them argue both answers. That question might be the patent’s priority date, the filing date it is entitled to, or the meaning of a disputed claim term. Word limits make it hard to fit both theories in one petition. The Office’s guidance has long pushed the other way. Both rulings quote the Trial Practice Guide. PacifiCorp CrowdStrike ## PacifiCorp: two priority dates The petitioners argued their case was the rare exception the guide allows, a priority dispute. The Director said no, for two reasons. PacifiCorp, pp. 3–4 The Director sent the case back for the Board to decide, within 30 days, which petition against each patent to institute. The parties then settled. The USPTO’s Open Data Portal shows the lead case terminated by settlement on July 1, 2026. ODP status ## CrowdStrike: two constructions CrowdStrike, decided earlier and designated informative, involved the same move with claim construction. CrowdStrike filed two petitions against the same claims. One read the term “association” broadly and raised five obviousness grounds. The other read it narrowly and raised three. The patent owner pointed out that the eight grounds overlapped significantly. CrowdStrike, pp. 2–4 The Director held that instituting both was an abuse of discretion. Two petitions under two constructions “effectively expands the permitted word count.” The Board “should have construed the claim term and instituted review of, at most, one of the petitions.” Both institutions were vacated and the case sent back. CrowdStrike The Open Data Portal lists IPR2025-00068 as denied on August 13, 2025. ODP status The patent owner’s later Director Review request reports that the Board instituted IPR2025-00070 on remand. Patent owner’s request Whether IPR2025-00070 went to trial, and how it ended, is not yet confirmed from the official orders. ## Rank for the adverse answer If you split a challenge, the ranking is the real decision. Test it before you file. ## What to do Choose your side. ## Cuts the other way Neither ruling denied outright. Both remanded so the Board could institute one petition per patent, so a hedge costs you the second petition, not necessarily the challenge. The guide still allows multiple petitions in rare cases, and PacifiCorp’s “exceptional circumstances” language leaves a narrow opening. Only PacifiCorp binds; CrowdStrike is informative. And the remand results don’t show what one well-ranked petition would have achieved: PacifiCorp settled, and CrowdStrike’s second petition is still being traced. ## The takeaway Ranking deserves the same care as choosing the art. It may decide which case you get to try. ## Related stories - [Eight tries, eight losses.](https://postgrantproceeding.com/insights/d01-eight-tries-eight-losses) - [Same patent, same petitioner, opposite results.](https://postgrantproceeding.com/insights/d04-same-patent-same-petitioner-opposite-results) - [Thirteen rulings, thirteen deciding facts.](https://postgrantproceeding.com/insights/d18-thirteen-rulings-thirteen-deciding-facts) ## Sources - S14. PacifiCorp v. Birchtech Corp., No. IPR2025-00687, Paper 40 (USPTO Director January 12, 2026) (precedential, designated Jan. 12, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPR2025_00687_paper40.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 - 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 - Whether IPR2025-00070 went to trial, and how it ended, is not yet confirmed from the official orders. - not yet confirmed 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.