# Thirteen rulings, thirteen deciding facts.

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.

Sources checked October 16, 2026

**5 · 7 · 1** denials, referrals and split rulings among the 13 designated on January 9, 2026. Counted by ruling.

## Before you read

Of the 13 discretionary-denial rulings designated on January 9, 2026, how many referred the petition for review?

- 2
- 5
- 7
- 13

Seven referred, five denied, and one (Amgen) split: two petitions denied, one referred.

## One day, thirteen rulings

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. USPTO list

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. Home Depot

## The map

Filter by result or status. Each card gives the deciding fact the ruling highlights, not the only one it weighed.

## The four that bind

The four precedential rulings pair up neatly. Both denials are about joinder. Both referrals are about post-grant review. Elong Realtek LifeVac Multi-Color

## Patterns across the thirteen

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.

Consistency is required: Sun Pharma was denied on claim construction despite favorable timing. Joining late is disfavored, and filing a PGR early is favored.

## What to do

Choose your side.

## Cuts the other way

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.

These rulings were made between June and September 2025. Since October 20, 2025, the Director decides institution directly, weighing discretion and merits together. Director institution memo 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.

## Related stories

- [Past the Director is not past the Board.](https://postgrantproceeding.com/insights/d02-past-the-director-is-not-past-the-board)
- [Age starts the argument. It doesn’t end it.](https://postgrantproceeding.com/insights/d03-age-starts-the-argument-it-doesnt-end-it)
- [Same patent, same petitioner, opposite results.](https://postgrantproceeding.com/insights/d04-same-patent-same-petitioner-opposite-results)

## Sources

- S10. Elong Int’l USA Inc. v. Feit Electric Co., Inc., No. IPR2025-00258, Paper 16 (USPTO Director June 25, 2025) (precedential, designated Jan. 9, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPR2025_00258_paper_16.pdf
- S58. Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc., No. IPR2025-00324, Paper 11 (USPTO Director June 25, 2025), also covering IPR2025-00325 (precedential, designated Jan. 9, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/precedential-informative-decisions
- S54. LifeVac LLC v. DCSTAR Inc., No. IPR2025-00454, Paper 11 (USPTO Director July 11, 2025) (precedential, designated Jan. 9, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/precedential-informative-decisions
- S12. Multi-Color Corp. v. Brook & Whittle Ltd., No. PGR2025-00025, Paper 10 (USPTO Director July 16, 2025) (precedential, designated Jan. 9, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/PGR2025_00025_paper_10.pdf
- S09. Alliance Laundry Sys., LLC v. PayRange LLC, No. IPR2025-00950, Paper 11 (USPTO Director September 19, 2025) (informative, designated Jan. 9, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPR2025_00950_paper_11.pdf
- S08. Dabico Airport Sols. Inc. v. AXA Power ApS, No. IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 (USPTO Director June 18, 2025) (informative, designated Jan. 9, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPR2025_00408_paper_21.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
- S07. Apple Inc. v. Ferid Allani, No. IPR2025-00856, Paper 11 (USPTO Director September 5, 2025) (informative, designated Jan. 9, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPR2025_00856_paper_11.pdf
- S05. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. H2 Intellect LLC, No. IPR2025-00480, Paper 11 (USPTO Director September 4, 2025) (informative, designated Jan. 9, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPR2025_00480_paper_11.pdf
- S56. Padagis US LLC v. Neurelis, Inc., No. IPR2025-00464, Paper 12 (USPTO Director July 16, 2025), also covering IPR2025-00465 and -00466 (informative, designated Jan. 9, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/precedential-informative-decisions
- S11. Savant Techs. LLC d/b/a GE Lighting v. Feit Electric Co., Inc., No. IPR2025-00260, Paper 16 (USPTO Director June 12, 2025) (informative, designated Jan. 9, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPR2025_00260_paper_16.pdf
- S57. Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, No. IPR2025-00217, Paper 9 (USPTO Director June 13, 2025) (informative, designated Jan. 9, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/precedential-informative-decisions
- S55. Amgen Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. IPR2025-00601, Paper 9 (USPTO Director July 24, 2025), also covering IPR2025-00602 and -00603 (informative, designated Jan. 9, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/precedential-informative-decisions
- S06. USPTO, Director Institution of AIA Trial Proceedings (Oct. 17, 2025; effective Oct. 20, 2025). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Director_Institution_of_AIA_Trial_Proceedings.pdf
- S88. USPTO, Precedential and informative decisions (PTAB), as checked Oct. 16, 2026, and PostGrantProceeding's inventory of the list (341 entries, Oct. 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/precedential-informative-decisions

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.