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, -00134, and -00135 (covering Patents 9,517,782 B2, RE47,835 E, and RE49,115 E, directed to railroad technology) because Petitioner Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies failed to present its own claim construction position as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), instead relying on claim construction positions advanced by other parties in prior district court litigation. Applying the precedential Revvo decision, the Director held that a petitioner may not substitute third-party constructions for its own and must present a single, consistent construction applied throughout the petition.
Why It Matters
Petitioners must affirmatively stake out and consistently apply their own claim construction position in every IPR petition — piggybacking on constructions advanced by other parties in parallel district court proceedings, even while reserving one's own litigation position, is fatal to institution under the Director's post-Revvo enforcement of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3).
- 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.