Of 63 ex parte reexamination denials mailed May 15 to October 14, 2026 with a readable order, 18 rested on § 325(d), where a challenger brought back art or arguments from its own earlier inter partes review. The other 45 found no substantial new question. These are floors.
Before you read
A requester’s first reexam request, built on one version of a reference, is denied. It refiles with another language version of the same reference and a new one. What happened?
Denied again. In 90/016,466 (Oct 14, 2026), the order cited § 325(d) and In re Vivint.
Part 1 of 3
Section 325(d) lets the Office refuse a request where “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” We read the order in every reexam denial mailed between May 15 and October 14, 2026 that the Open Data Portal returned.
63 denials with a readable order · 18 on § 325(d) · 45 no substantial new question
Eight more denials in the window had no readable order and are left out. The query may not return every record, so treat these counts as floors.
Part 2 of 3
Part 3 of 3
Same-challenger status didn’t always lead to § 325(d). Two follow-up requests after discretionary IPR denials, 90/016,044 and 90/016,418, were decided on the substantial-new-question test instead. And two requests were ordered after discretionary IPR denials: 90/016,221 and 90/016,531.
Each by a challenger reusing at least some of its own IPR art or arguments.
90/016,221 and 90/016,531, both after discretionary IPR denials.
The takeaway
Changing the version of a reference is not the same as bringing new art.
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.