USPTO Denies Discretionary Rejections in Seven IPR Petitions
USPTO declined to exercise discretionary denials in seven IPR petitions on June 25, 2026.
Why it matters: This clarifies how the USPTO applies discretionary denial (the choice to refuse some patent challenges), affecting legal strategies and patent dispute resolution. It may lead to more cases proceeding at the PTAB, shaping how law firms manage patent litigation risks and costs.
- On June 25, 2026, USPTO declined discretionary denial for seven IPR (inter partes review) petitions, confirming a stricter standard.
- In January 2026, USPTO designated four precedential and nine informative decisions clarifying discretionary denials in IPR and PGR (post-grant review).
- Precedential cases include LifeVac LLC v. DCSTAR Inc. and Multi-Color Corp. v. Brook & Whittle Ltd., defining when discretionary denial applies.
- May 2026 precedential decision Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Kurin, Inc. upheld discretion to keep PTAB proceedings fast and cost-effective.
On June 25, 2026, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) declined to exercise discretionary denials across seven inter partes review (IPR) petitions. Discretionary denial refers to the USPTO’s choice not to institute a review even if the petition meets formal requirements. This uncommon refusal signals a clearer, narrower application of this discretion, directly affecting patent litigation strategies and the role of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
Earlier in 2026, the USPTO issued significant precedential and informative decisions to guide when discretionary denials apply in both IPR and post-grant review (PGR) petitions. Four precedential rulings—including LifeVac LLC v. DCSTAR Inc. and Multi-Color Corp. v. Brook & Whittle Ltd.—clarified strict standards for declining institution based on discretionary reasons.
In May 2026, USPTO Director John Squires reinforced this framework in the Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Kurin, Inc. decision, emphasizing that discretionary denial should preserve PTAB’s function as a "quick and cost-effective alternative" to district court litigation. The decision highlights balancing access against avoiding duplicative efforts.
For legal professionals and firms managing patent portfolios and litigation risk, these rulings provide clearer guidance on when the USPTO will exercise discretion to deny institution of IPR proceedings. This recent refusal to deny discretionary institution in multiple petitions likely encourages petitioners to pursue more challenges before the PTAB, impacting how firms approach patent disputes and manage litigation costs.
By the numbers:
- 7 IPR petitions — declined discretionary denials on June 25, 2026
- 4 precedential and 9 informative USPTO decisions — issued in January 2026 on discretionary denials
- May 2026 — date of USPTO Director’s precedential ruling reinforcing discretionary denial framework
Yes, but: While the USPTO has narrowed discretionary denial usage, full public detail on the agency's reasoning remains limited, so future interpretations may evolve.
What's next: Legal teams will watch for additional USPTO decisions applying these standards, potentially influencing IPR filing strategies and district court litigation patterns.