The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is advancing a set of proposed changes to how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) handles its Inter Partes Review (IPR). These proposals, if adopted, will further reshape post-grant patent challenges and have ripple effects across litigation, tech strategy, and licensing. 

After extending the comment period to Dec. 2, 2025, the USPTO will now evaluate the feedback before deciding whether to finalize the rules. No timeline has been set for issuing a decision. 

The proposed PTAB rule making would force patent challengers to make an early, irreversible choice about where and how to fight validity. At the center of the proposal is a sharp expansion of estoppel that, if finalized, would fundamentally alter post-grant strategy.

Estoppel Today vs. Under the Proposed Rules

Today, estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) kicks in only after a final written decision. If a challenger loses an IPR, they’re barred from raising in district court or the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) any invalidity ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in that IPR.  But, until a final determination, challengers retain the opportunity to litigate validity in court, on any basis. Recent trends for challengers to offer Sotera-style stipulations to persuade PTAB to accept review of their challenge can still preserve certain invalidity arguments, even if institution is granted. 

Under the proposed rules, estoppel effectively moves upstream. And that’s a big deal. The proposal would require a petitioner to stipulate that, if the PTAB institutes the IPR, the petitioner and its real parties in interest will not pursue any § 102 or § 103 invalidity challenges in any other forum, including district court and the ITC. This includes even challenges that could not have been made before PTAB; for example, challenges based on physical devices and not purely on printed publications. 

Additionally, the proposed rules seek to prevent repeat IPR challenges when patent claims have been reviewed and upheld. If a claim has been found valid by a district court, the ITC, the USPTO in a prior proceeding, or after a Federal Circuit reversal, the USPTO will decline to institute a new IPR. The USPTO believes that once claims have received meaningful scrutiny, another round of review adds little value, especially since accused infringers can still raise validity defenses in district court. With this proposed change, defendants will recognize that their options could be cut off by earlier proceedings in which they had no involvement.

These proposals are far more restrictive than statutory estoppel and will change how challengers approach timing and forum selection.