Click to enter your existing username and password or create a new account. Click to purchase an individual user subscription with your credit card.
Not For Reprint
Page printed from:
Insights from Acting Director Stewart’s Decisions on Discretionary Denial under the New Interim Processes for PTAB Workload Management
Just three months ago, Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Coke Morgan Stewart rescinded existing guidelines governing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) discretion to deny petitions for inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) when parallel litigation is already pending in federal district court or the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). Acting Director Stewart replaced those guidelines with new interim processes that rely on the Director to issue decisions on patent owners’ requests for discretionary denials.
13 minute read July 31, 2025 at 11:57 PM
By
Lea Speed and Dominic Rota
Just three months ago, Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Coke Morgan Stewart rescinded existing guidelines governing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) discretion to deny petitions for inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) when parallel litigation is already pending in federal district court or the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).
This premium content is locked for The Intellectual Property Strategist subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN The Intellectual Property Strategist
Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Most firms are aiming their newest tools at the work they already do — pouring their most powerful technology into running the same tasks a little faster. But when everyone automates the same tasks at once, no one pulls ahead. That reaches the future a little faster while leaving a firm’s largest opportunity untouched — and that opportunity isn’t doing more of the existing work, but transforming how the high-value work gets done.
AI is becoming both an accelerant and a distraction for cybersecurity. In many respects, AI is acting as a stress test for existing security operations by exposing how difficult many organizations still find it to enforce basic controls consistently at scale.
Artificial intelligence is rapidly embedding itself into legal workflows, but much of the conversation treats all use cases as if they carry the same level of risk, even if they do not. The more useful question is not whether AI works, but where it can be safely applied and where it cannot.
AI-savvy lawyering is already something that clients are starting to demand. The technology is capable; the challenge now is cultural and organizational change.