IP Law Daily, PATENT—P.T.A.B.: USPTO Director designates as precedential PTAB decision requiring explanation for inconsistent claim constructions, (Nov 4, 2025)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

Director Squires vacated the institution of inter partes review for failure to justify inconsistent claim construction positions between district court and PTAB proceedings.

USPTO Director John A. Squires, on November 3, designated as precedential his decision vacating the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) institution of an inter partes review (IPR) in Revvo Technologies, Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc., IPR2025-00632. The Director remanded the case to the Board, holding that a petitioner must provide a sufficient explanation when it advances different claim construction positions before the PTAB and a district court. The ruling clarifies that even when means-plus-function issues under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) are not implicated, unexplained shifts in claim interpretation violate 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), which requires a petition to identify “how the challenged claim is to be construed” (Revvo Technologies, Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc., IPR2025-00632 (Paper 20) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2025)).

Background. Revvo Technologies, Inc., the petitioner, develops intelligent tire monitoring and predictive analytics systems for commercial and consumer vehicles. Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc., the patent owner, manufactures adaptive tire and wheel sensor systems that employ machine learning to measure and report real-time tire performance.

The dispute centers on U.S. Patent No. 11,835,421 B2 (the ’421 patent), owned by Cerebrum, titled “System and Method for Monitoring Tire Conditions Using Sensor-Based Predictive Analysis.” The ’421 patent claims a system integrating wheel-mounted sensors and a data analysis module that predicts tire wear and pressure conditions to enhance safety and efficiency. The invention forms part of Cerebrum’s broader portfolio in automotive sensor analytics.

Revvo petitioned for IPR of the ’421 patent, challenging its validity in light of prior art. On September 15, 2025, the PTAB granted institution (Paper 13). Cerebrum argued that the petition should have been denied because Revvo had taken conflicting claim construction positions—advocating one set of constructions in the district court and another before the PTAB. Cerebrum cited 10X Genomics, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, IPR2023-01299 (PTAB Mar. 7, 2024), and Orthopediatrics Corp. v. K2M, Inc., IPR2018-01546 (PTAB Feb. 14, 2019), where institution was denied for a similar inconsistency. The PTAB rejected Cerebrum's arguments, reasoning that since the patent owner did not dispute the constructions and § 112(f) was not implicated, the petition complied with Rule 42.104(b)(3).

The Director initiatedsua sponte review (Paper 19) on October 20, 2025, to address the Board’s treatment of claim construction inconsistencies.

Director’s analysis. Director Squires held that the Board’s narrow interpretation failed to reflect established precedent requiring explanation for differing claim constructions across forums. Citing Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v. Sfara, Inc., IPR2024-00952, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 13, 2024) (informative), he reaffirmed that petitioners must justify alternative claim construction positions. Similarly, in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v. Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., IPR2025-00893, Paper 18 (Director Sept. 19, 2025), the Director reiterated that “although a party is not necessarily precluded from arguing different claim construction positions before a district court and the Board, a party should explain why different positions are warranted.”

Further, the Director referenced the 2018 USPTO rulemaking that aligned PTAB claim construction standards with those used in federal courts (83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, Oct. 11, 2018). That regulatory change was intended to “minimize inconsistency” and promote predictability across forums by discouraging petitioners from adopting broader constructions at the PTAB for invalidity while asserting narrower ones in court to avoid infringement. Allowing such strategic divergence, the Director observed, undermines the USPTO’s objective of “providing greater predictability and certainty in the patent system” (83 Fed. Reg. at 51,342–43).

Applying these principles, the Director concluded that Revvo’s statement that it “accepts Patent Owner’s proposed constructions” from district court litigation did not adequately explain why it departed from its own prior claim interpretations. This deficiency rendered the petition noncompliant with Rule 42.104(b)(3). The Director emphasized that such inconsistency, absent justification, constitutes procedural error even when § 112(f) issues are absent.

Outcome. While noting that such a procedural failure might ordinarily warrant denial of institution, Director Squires instead vacated the PTAB’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Board was authorized to permit additional briefing and ordered to issue a decision within 30 days of this order or within 30 days of any supplemental submissions.

The Case is No. IPR2025-00632.

Judge: Weatherly, M.

Attorneys: Orion Armon (Cooley LLP) for Revvo Technologies, Inc. Christopher D. Bright (Snell & Willmer LLP) for Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.

Companies: Revvo Technologies, Inc.; Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.

Cases: Patent USPTO GCNNews