USPTO Highlights Three Key Decisions Upholding Revvo and Tesla Claim Construction Standards

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has officially designated three decisions as informative, each applying the Office’s claim construction precedents from Revvo and Tesla. These decisions, issued in 2026, clarify the USPTO Director’s approach to petitioners’ conduct and claim construction consistency in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.

In Ford Motor Co. v. AutoConnect Holdings, LLC, decided on May 12, 2026, the Director vacated the institution of IPR where the petitioner advanced indefiniteness arguments in district court only after institution, without sufficient justification. The petitioner further stipulated to withdraw these district court arguments only after the patent owner alerted the Office to the inconsistency. The Director’s action highlights the Office’s expectation that petitioners maintain consistent positions and act in good faith throughout parallel proceedings.

Similarly, in Terumo BCT, Inc. v. Haemonetics Corp., also decided on May 12, 2026, the Director vacated institution where the petitioner again raised indefiniteness arguments in district court post-institution without adequate justification. The Director emphasized that such post-institution conduct demonstrated the petitioner was not using the IPR process as an alternative to district court litigation, contrary to the intent of Congress as expressed in the America Invents Act (AIA).

The third decision, TikTok, Inc. v. Shopsee, Inc., issued on January 16, 2026, involved the Director exercising discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The petitioner had advanced differing claim construction positions before the district court and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The petitioner subsequently stipulated not to pursue the differing claim construction in district court if the Office instituted review. The Director found that the petitioner did not sufficiently explain why the differing claim constructions were warranted, and that the stipulation did not adequately reduce duplication or the risk of inconsistent outcomes between the district court and the PTAB.

These decisions collectively reinforce the USPTO’s commitment to procedural consistency and the integrity of the IPR process. They underscore that petitioners must present coherent claim construction positions and cannot use the IPR as a tactical tool to circumvent district court proceedings.

The Office’s application of the Revvo and Tesla precedents in these cases serves as a guidepost for future IPR proceedings, ensuring that the Board and district courts maintain aligned interpretations of patent claims and that the IPR process functions as Congress intended.

Practitioners should note the USPTO’s heightened scrutiny of post-institution conduct and inconsistent claim construction positions. Petitioners are advised to carefully consider their litigation strategy to avoid vacated institutions or denied petitions based on procedural grounds.

These informative decisions contribute to the evolving jurisprudence governing patent claim construction and procedural conduct in inter partes reviews, reflecting the USPTO’s role in balancing efficient patent dispute resolution with fairness and consistency.