Precedential designation of Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc., IPR2014-00440, Paper 68 (except § II.E.1)

The memorandum designates Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband Inc., IPR2014-00440, Paper 68 (PTAB Aug. 18, 2015), as precedential, except for § II.E.1. It restores the Office's pre-SharkNinja practice of requiring petitioners to identify all real parties in interest before institution, and states that the Office will now enforce § 312(a)(2). Petitioners must accurately and completely identify all real parties in interest in the petition, because under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) a petition may be considered only if it does so, and that requirement must be satisfied before the Director can institute trial. Patent owners may properly raise RPI identification issues and expect the Board to address them. The memorandum rests on 35 U.S.C. §§ 312(a)(2) and 322(a)(2), and on Corning Optical and other pre-SharkNinja decisions. It also frames RPI disclosure as a national-security measure, citing concern about foreign state-backed actors and entity-list petitioners. WHAT IT DOES: Designates Corning Optical, IPR2014-00440, Paper 68, as precedential except for § II.E.1. Restores the pre-SharkNinja practice of requiring petitioners to identify RPIs before institution. States that the Office will now enforce § 312(a)(2)'s requirement that a petition identify all real parties in interest. Explains that policy difficulty in determining RPIs does not justify departing from the best reading of the statute, and that RPI disclosure serves national-security and transparency interests. WHO AND WHEN: Memorandum to all PTAB Judges dated October 28, 2025, from the Director. It concerns petitions for inter partes review and the identification of RPIs before institution; the memorandum also cites 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(2). It says Corning Optical's rule applies going forward (the Office 'will now enforce'), and does not state any other effective date or list covered cases. KEY QUOTE: "Under Corning Optical, the Office will now enforce § 312(a)(2)'s requirement that a petition must \"identif[y] all real parties in interest.\"" (p. 4) EARLIER GUIDANCE AFFECTED: Follows the September 26, 2025 de-designation of SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 (PTAB Oct. 6, 2020), as precedential, and restores the Office's pre-SharkNinja practice. Designates Corning Optical, IPR2014-00440, Paper 68, precedential except for § II.E.1, and cites the numerous other pre-SharkNinja cases collected there. PRACTICE TIP: Treat RPI identification as a threshold statutory requirement. Before filing, investigate and name every real party in interest, including those who fund, direct or benefit from the petition, and be prepared to address any RPI challenge before institution. Patent owners should consider raising RPI deficiencies. Issued by Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.