Insights
Search Results
News Articles
3.20.26
Jad Mills, Richard Torczon Appointed to PTAB Bar Leadership
On March 20, 2026, Wilson Sonsini partner Jad Mills was elected to the board of directors of the PTAB Bar Association and senior counsel Richard Torczon was appointed to Chair of the organization’s Trials Committee. The PTAB Bar Association is committed to preserving and promoting the professional and ethical standards of lawyers and stakeholders who appear before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
Newsletters
2.05.26
The PTAB Review – January 2026
The January 2026 issue of The PTAB Review discusses notable developments at the PTAB, including changes to institution procedures, and precedential and informative decisions, explores several appellate decisions relevant to PTAB trials, and examines potential rule changes submitted for comment.
Newsletters
1.08.26
Litigation Trends to Watch in 2026
Entering 2026, Wilson Sonsini litigators see a landscape defined by AI driven disputes, continued tightening of patent review standards, renewed securities and governance litigation, stronger consumer and influencer enforcement, and escalating Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) exposure—trends that require companies to align legal strategy with technical and operational controls.
Client Highlights
12.02.25
Wilson Sonsini Secures PTAB Institution in Five IPRs Filed for Azurity Pharmaceuticals
On November 19, 2025, Wilson Sonsini obtained a significant milestone for Azurity Pharmaceuticals, with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituting inter partes review in all five petitions the firm filed on Azurity’s behalf. The petitions challenge methods and compositions for treating chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The Board’s institution decisions found a reasonable likelihood that Azurity will prevail on at least one challenged claim in each proceeding and authorized full trials on the grounds raised. The Board’s decisions are a notable milestone in the current PTAB environment, where institution rates have tightened significantly. Three Administrative Patent Judges independently concluded the challenges were reasonably likely to succeed, and the cases will now proceed to the yearlong trial phase.
Alerts
6.12.25
Patent Office Denial of “Late” Inter Partes Review Petitions Changes Expectations
On June 6, 2025, the acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Coke Morgan Stewart, issued a decision in iRhythm Technologies v. Welch Allyn, Inc.1 that initiates a new basis for discretionary denial of inter partes review (IPR) petitions. The Director denied institution of iRhythm’s IPR petitions because iRhythm had upset Welch Allyn’s settled expectations in the enjoyment of its patents. iRhythm is the first such IPR discretionary denial and raises questions about the scope of this new doctrine and its congruence with judicial and congressional developments.
Newsletters
1.31.25
2024 PTAB Year in Review
We begin with a review of 2024 petition filings and outcomes at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. We then provide a summary of notable developments at the PTAB, including proposed rule changes and director review decisions. Next, we explore several appellate decisions relevant to PTAB trials. Finally, we provide an update on summary affirmances and written opinions in America Invents Act appeals before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Newsletters
10.22.24
The PTAB Review - October 2024
The PTAB Review begins by exploring collateral estoppel from unpatentability determinations in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. Next, it summarizes recent developments at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office relevant to IPRs and other PTAB proceedings. Finally, it reviews a recent Federal Circuit decision addressing expert qualifications as relevant to PTAB proceedings.
Newsletters
8.21.24
The PTAB Review - August 2024
This issue of The PTAB Review begins by providing an analysis of how institution decisions consider declaration testimony submitted by a patent owner. Next, it summarizes proposed rulemaking from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) about practices at the PTAB, including discretionary denial of institution. Third, it summarizes a USPTO decision providing guidance for patenting antibodies using means-plus-function claims. Finally, it reviews a recent precedential Federal Circuit decision cautioning against an overly rigid approach to obviousness.
Alerts
7.01.24
U.S. Supreme Court Administrative Law Decisions Raise Questions for U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Proceedings
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two important administrative law cases that are expected to increase judicial authority over agency adjudications and rulemaking. In Securities & Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy (decided June 27), the Court held that when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeks civil penalties for securities fraud, the defendant is entitled to a jury trial. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (decided June 28), the Court held that courts should not defer to an agency statutory interpretation. While each ruling might have significant effects on some agencies, their effect on the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) should be much more limited because, generally, USPTO regulatory authorities are much more limited and because USPTO’s primary reviewing court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, is a specialized court that does not defer to USPTO on legal questions.
Newsletters
4.08.24
The PTAB Review - April 2024
This issue begins by summarizing a recent Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision strictly applying the public availability standard for prior art references as a basis for denying institution. Next, we examine a recent appellate decision addressing the ability of a joinder petitioner to oppose a motion to amend that the primary petitioner elects not to oppose. Third, we consider prohibitions against incorporation by reference at the Federal Circuit and at the PTAB. Finally, we summarize recent United States Patent and Trademark Office formal guidance regarding the legal standards for determining obviousness.