USPTO Cracks Down on Inconsistent Claim Construction: Ford, Terumo BCT and TikTok PTAB Decisions Designated Informative

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on 13 May 2026 designated three decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) as informative, addressing how the agency handles inter partes review (IPR) petitioners who advance inconsistent claim construction positions in parallel district court proceedings. The three decisions – Ford Motor v. AutoConnect Holdings, Terumo BCT v. Haemonetics Corp., and TikTok v. Shopsee – each apply established PTAB precedent in a context where petitioners pursue indefiniteness arguments in district court that conflict with the claim construction positions taken before the Board.

PTAB decisions fall into three tiers: precedential, informative and routine. Precedential designation is binding on all PTAB panels, while informative designation indicates that other panels should consider the decision as instructive when adjudicating similar issues. Under Director Squires, the USPTO has actively used the designation process to shape PTAB practice, and the latest three designations form part of that ongoing direction-setting effort.

The three newly designated decisions apply two existing precedential rulings: Revvo Technologies v. Cerebrum Sensor Technologies and Tesla v. Intellectual Ventures II. Both precedents establish a core rule that IPR petitioners may not advance claim construction positions before the PTAB that conflict with positions taken in parallel district court litigation. The new designations extend this principle into the specific scenario in which a petitioner pursues indefiniteness arguments at the district court level while taking inconsistent claim construction positions at the PTAB.

In Ford Motor Co. v. AutoConnect Holdings, LLC (IPR2025-01342, Paper 27, Director, 12 May 2026), Ford pursued indefiniteness arguments in district court following the Board’s institution of IPR. The IPR petition itself proceeded on the basis that the challenged claims were sufficiently definite to permit claim construction and prior-art analysis. After the patent owner brought the inconsistency to the Office’s attention, Ford stipulated to withdraw its district court arguments. The Director found this post-hoc withdrawal to be without sufficient justification and vacated the institution decision, returning the case to its pre-institution status.

Terumo BCT, Inc. v. Haemonetics Corporation concerns an IPR involving patents on blood component apheresis technology. The decision addresses how the consistency principle applies where the petitioner’s claim construction positions in district court diverged from those advanced before the Board, with the USPTO emphasising the need for strict alignment between the two forums.

TikTok v. Shopsee involves IPR proceedings on patents in the e-commerce and social media platform space. The decision addresses how the Office handles consistency requirements where both parties take divergent positions in parallel proceedings, providing additional guidance on the practical application of the Revvo Technologies and Tesla framework. Although the three cases span distinct technology areas, they collectively reinforce a single message: petitioners before the PTAB must take claim construction positions consistent with those advanced in any parallel district court proceedings.

The practical implications for accused infringers are direct. Companies considering an IPR petition must carefully audit their existing district court positions on claim construction and invalidity arguments before filing. The dual-track tactic of pursuing indefiniteness in district court while advancing definite claim construction at the PTAB now carries a significantly elevated risk of discretionary denial or vacatur of institution.

The designations also signal the USPTO’s continued use of the Director’s discretionary authority to curb perceived tactical use of the IPR system. Director Squires has steadily reinforced this posture since taking office, including through the precedential Magnolia Medical decision targeting litigation-leverage IPRs. For Japanese companies that rely on US patent litigation and PTAB proceedings as part of their enforcement and defence strategies, the importance of cross-forum consistency in claim construction has materially increased.