1Elong v. Feit Electric
Deciding factA copy filed with a joinder motion, judged on its own and as if joined; the court trial came first either way.
Denied
On January 9, 2026, the Office designated 13 Director rulings on discretionary denial at once: five denials, seven referrals and one split. Each turned on one or two facts that can be cited by either side. Here is the map.
Before you read
Of the 13 discretionary-denial rulings designated on January 9, 2026, how many referred the petition for review?
Seven referred, five denied, and one (Amgen) split: two petitions denied, one referred.
Part 1 of 6
Under the process in place in 2025, the Director decided discretionary denial first: whether to refuse a petition for reasons other than the merits. If the Director didn’t deny, the petition was referred to the Board for the usual merits decision. On January 9, 2026, the Office designated 13 of these rulings at once: 4 precedential, which bind the Board, and 9 informative, which don’t.
13 rulings designated Jan 9, 2026
Tap a segment to see the rulings.
Counted by ruling. Several rulings cover more than one petition.
Each ruling says it rests on “a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented.” Each also highlights the facts that decided it.
Part 2 of 6
Filter by result or status. Each card gives the deciding fact the ruling highlights, not the only one it weighed.
Deciding factA copy filed with a joinder motion, judged on its own and as if joined; the court trial came first either way.
Deciding factA time-barred party seeking joinder, with no exceptional circumstances.
Deciding factAn IPR after the same challenger’s earlier PGR was not instituted. PGRs are favored.
Deciding factA PGR filed within nine months, by a petitioner that wasn’t a party to the court cases.
Deciding factA third petition after two merits denials, offered to cure the old reference’s gaps: roadmapping, using an earlier denial as a guide to fix the next petition. Licensing also created settled expectations.
Deciding factA patent “in force almost eight years, creating settled expectations.” The owner’s separate argument that the art was already before the Office failed, and the petition was still denied.
Deciding factA young patent and no trial before about 2029, but a different reading of “composition” in court than at the Board, unexplained.
Deciding factA thirteen-year history, but the owner wrote in 2012, waited eleven years and asserted the patents after they expired.
Deciding factOver twelve years in force, but the owner targeted phones, tablets and watches, and a hardware retailer “did not have reason to anticipate assertion.”
Deciding factAn apparent examiner error on priority, contradicting an earlier Board ruling affirmed on appeal. It outweighed an earlier court trial date.
Deciding factA second petition made necessary by the owner’s newly asserted claims, filed within three months, with the court case stayed.
Deciding factA trial before the final decision, but “eleven patents spanning nine different families” in court and a broad stipulation. “The Board is better suited to review a large number of patents involving diverse subject matter.”
Deciding factNo parallel litigation. Two patents in force seven and six years: denied for settled expectations. One issued in 2022: referred, because the owner didn’t explain why three years created strong expectations.
Part 3 of 6
The four precedential rulings pair up neatly. Both denials are about joinder. Both referrals are about post-grant review.
| Result | The point | |
|---|---|---|
| Elong | Denied | A joinder petition is judged on its own, then as if joined |
| Realtek | Denied | Time-barred joiners proceed only in exceptional circumstances |
| LifeVac | Referred | A non-instituted PGR generally won’t support denying a later IPR |
| Multi-Color | Referred | PGR petitions filed within nine months are favored |
Joining late is disfavored; filing early in a PGR is favored. Both points bind the Board at the discretionary stage.
Part 4 of 6
Age is a starting point. In the rulings that state a patent’s age, denials came at six to eight years, and referrals came at twelve and thirteen years, where the petitioner explained why it had no reason to expect assertion.
Six data points from four rulings. Dark bars were denied; light bars were referred.
Source
Consistency is required: Sun Pharma was denied on claim construction despite favorable timing. Joining late is disfavored, and filing a PGR early is favored.
Part 5 of 6
Choose your side.
Part 6 of 6
These are 13 rulings chosen for publication, not a sample of all Director decisions, so counts within the batch don’t predict outcomes. Nine are informative and don’t bind. Every ruling stresses a holistic assessment, so no single factor here decides another case.
Use it for
Don’t use it for
These rulings were made between June and September 2025. Since October 20, 2025, the Director decides institution directly, weighing discretion and merits together. The reasoning still guides; the two-step sequence does not.
The takeaway
Cite the fact that decided the ruling, not just its outcome. The other side will.
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.