titution.”Takeaway: Parties should be aware of the risks in taking differing positions on claim construction before different venues, especially in the event of a disputed construction in a parallel proceeding.USPTO’s Proposed Rule Concerning Director Review ProcessOn April 15, the USPTO announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) to formalize the Director Review process implemented after the Supreme Court’s holding in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 594 U.S. 1, 24 (2021). The proposed rules largely track the interim guidance with some changes.The proposed rule is silent on the type of issues that must be present to request review. “Under the interim process, . . . requests for Director Review of Board decisions on whether to institute an AIA trial, or decisions granting rehearing of such a decision, are limited to decisions presenting: (a) an abuse of discretion, or (b) important issues of law or policy.” Rules Governing Director Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions, 89 Fed. Reg. 26807, 26810 (April 16, 2024) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. Part 42). “Under the interim process, requests for Director Review of PTAB final written decisions, or decisions granting rehearing of such decisions, are available for decisions presenting: (a) an abuse of discretion, (b) important issues of law or policy, (c) erroneous findings of material fact, or (d) erroneous conclusions of law.” 89 Fed. Reg. 26807, 26810. However, these requirements are not included in the proposed rule.The proposed rule does not change the standard for sua sponte Director Review, largely leaving it up to the discretion of the Director. The NPR explains that “[u]nder the interim process . . . sua sponte Director Review is typically reserved for issues of exceptional importance.” 89 Fed. Reg. 26807, 26811. Consistent with the interim process, “the Director may initiate review sua sponte at any point within 21 days after the expiration of the period following a request for rehearing.” 89 Fed. Reg. 26807, 26811.The proposed rule include

ive Innovation. The Strategy aims to grow the economy, create quality jobs, and address global challenges by increasing participation in STEM, inventorship, and innovation among youth and those from historically underrepresented and underresourced communities.Final RulesAdoption of Updated World Intellectual Property Organization Standard ST.26; Revision to Incorporation by Reference, 89 Fed. Reg. 36677 (May 3, 2024) [adopting version 1.7 of World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standard ST.26, which addresses application disclosures containing nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences]Interim RulesThere are no new interim rules.Proposed RulesPatent Trial and Appeal Board Rules of Practice for Briefing Discretionary Denial Issues, and Rules for 325(d) Considerations, Instituting Parallel and Serial Petitions, and Termination Due to Settlement Agreement, 89 Fed. Reg. 28693 (April 19, 2024) [covered above]Rules Governing Director Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions, 89 Fed. Reg. 26807 (April 16, 2024) [covered above]Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees during Fiscal Year 2025, 89 Fed. Reg. 23226 (April 3, 2024) [covered above]PTAB DecisionsNew Precedential PTAB DecisionsThere are no new precedential PTAB decisions.New Informative PTAB DecisionsThere are no new informative PTAB decisions.New Director Review DecisionsVidendum Production Solutions, Inc. v. Rotolight Limited, IPR2023-01218Decision subject to Director Review – Paper 9 (January 25, 2024) [Institution Decision discretionarily denying institution on the basis that the petition challenged the same patent as a previously filed petition (serial challenge)]Decision vacating decision on institution and remanding for further proceedings – Paper 12 (April 19, 2024) [determining that the Board erred in exercising its discretion to deny institution, finding that because “the first and second petitioners are neither the same party, nor possess a significant relationship under Valve, General Plastic factor one necessarily outweighs the