Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation et al. v. Railware, Inc. et al.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Holding
The Director denied institution in IPR2026-00133, IPR2026-00134, and IPR2026-00135 (covering Patents 9,517,782, RE47,835, and RE49,115, directed to railroad technology) on discretionary grounds under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) because Petitioner Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies failed to present its own claim construction position, instead relying on constructions advanced by other parties in prior district court litigation. Applying the precedential Revvo decision (IPR2025-00632), the Director held that a petitioner may not substitute third-party claim construction positions for its own, as doing so undermines the requirement of a single, consistent construction and the predictability goals of IPR proceedings. The Director issued the denial sua sponte following a holistic assessment of the complete record.
Why It Matters
Petitioners must affirmatively present and own a claim construction position in the petition itself under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) — piggybacking on constructions advanced by other parties in parallel district court proceedings is a standalone basis for discretionary denial even if the petitioner has not yet taken a construction position in its own concurrent litigation. This decision reinforces Revvo as a hard rule that the Director is actively enforcing across related IPR filings.
- Written description, enablement and indefiniteness (§ 112) →
- Claim construction →
- PTAB discretionary denial →
- PTAB Director Review →
- Fed. Cir. · Oct. 7, 2026In re Gamble
- Fed. Cir. · Oct. 2, 2026Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. v. Inari Agriculture, Inc.
- Fed. Cir. · Oct. 1, 2026Satius Holding, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
- Fed. Cir. · Sept. 30, 2026TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY
- Fed. Cir. · Sept. 30, 2026Wang v. Viking Drill & Tool, Inc.