# The precedent in your template may have retired. Fifty-three of the 341 entries on the USPTO’s list of designated PTAB decisions no longer carry that status, and only ten show when it changed. Two of the most recent, in February 2026, changed what happens when a petitioner corrects its real parties in interest. Sources checked October 16, 2026 **53 of 341** listed designations are no longer designated. Only 10 show the date it changed. ## Before you read About what share of the decisions on the USPTO’s designated list are no longer designated? - Under 5% - About one in six - About half About one in six: 53 of 341 entries, or 16%. ## Withdrawn overnight On February 3, 2026, the USPTO announced that two decisions on real parties in interest “are de-designated and no longer binding on the PTAB.” They had let petitioners correct their list of real parties and keep the original filing date. The stated reason: they “conflict with the decision in Corning Optical,” which “holds that a petitioner’s amended identification of RPIs requires according the petition a new filing date.” USPTO notice, Feb. 3, 2026 A brief written the day before that relied on them was citing guidance the Office had just withdrawn. So was any template built on them. ## What de-designation does The PTAB publishes most decisions without special status. A few are designated. Precedential decisions bind the Board within their scope. Informative decisions show good practice but don’t bind. De-designation removes that status. ## The numbers Our October 2026 inventory of the USPTO’s list has 341 entries, 338 of them unique case-and-paper entries. USPTO list Most of the archive is older ex parte and interference law. The AIA-trial entries are the ones most likely to show up in a current IPR or PGR brief. ## Only ten have a date The USPTO gives a de-designation date for 10 of the 53. For the other 43, you can’t tell from the list when the decision stopped counting, which matters if you are checking whether an older brief was right when it was written. ## The RPI turn Three de-designations on real parties in interest came within about four months: SharkNinja in September 2025, then Adello and Proppant in February 2026. In the same stretch, the Office designated decisions that enforce disclosure: Corning Optical (precedential except § II.E.1) in October 2025 and Tianma in March 2026. Corning Optical Tianma Curium shows why precision matters. After additional parties were identified, the petition got a new filing date, and that date didn’t make it time-barred. A correction that is still allowed can still create a timing problem. Curium, pp. 2–4 ## What to do ## Cuts the other way De-designation doesn’t overrule the reasoning, so an archived decision can still be cited as an ordinary Board decision, and some may still persuade. Thirty-nine of the 53 are older ex parte and interference entries that seldom arise in AIA trials. And the RPI shift isn’t absolute: Curium, informative since February 2026, accepted a correction with a new filing date where no time bar applied. Curium ## The takeaway A complete update changes what the next lawyer will recommend, not only how the old case is labeled. ## Related stories - [One in six designated PTAB decisions is no longer designated.](https://postgrantproceeding.com/insights/t07-one-in-six-designated-ptab-decisions-is-no-longer-designated) - [The rule changed, and Hunting Titan went with it.](https://postgrantproceeding.com/insights/d15-the-rule-changed-and-hunting-titan-went-with-it) - [A foreign government can’t petition. Prove you aren’t one.](https://postgrantproceeding.com/insights/d08-a-foreign-government-cant-petition-prove-you-arent-one) ## Sources - S40. USPTO, USPTO De-designates Two Decisions Involving Real Party in Interest (Feb. 3, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/subscription-center/2026/uspto-de-designates-two-decisions-involving-real-party-interest - S66. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc., No. IPR2014-00440, Paper 68 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2015) (precedential except § II.E.1, designated Oct. 28, 2025). https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/precedential-informative-decisions - S41. Curium US LLC v. Universität Heidelberg, No. IPR2025-01582, Paper 11 (USPTO Director February 25, 2026) (informative, designated Feb. 25, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPR2025_01582_paper_11.pdf - S17. Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. v. LG Display Co., Ltd., No. IPR2025-01579, Paper 12 (USPTO Director March 18, 2026) (precedential, designated Mar. 18, 2026). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPR2025-01579Paper12.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 - S32. USPTO, USPTO De-designates Hunting Titan in View of Final Rule Governing Motion to Amend Procedures (Oct. 18, 2024). https://www.uspto.gov/subscription-center/2024/uspto-de-designates-hunting-titan-view-final-rule-governing-motion-amend - S90. USPTO, PTAB designates one decision as precedential and de-designates one decision (May 2020). Before that May 5, 2020 de-designation, Oracle v. Click-to-Call, No. IPR2013-00312, Paper 26 was precedential only as to § III.A. https://www.uspto.gov/subscription-center/2020/ptab-designates-one-decision-precedential-and-de-designates-one-decision 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. Updated - October 17, 2026: The story now gives the USPTO's section limits: Corning Optical is precedential except § II.E.1, and Oracle v. Click-to-Call was precedential only as to § III.A before its de-designation. General information about published decisions, not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.