The Patent Trial and Appeal Board terminated IPR2025-01302 after the parties settled following institution of trial, illustrating the Board’s usual approach when a dispute becomes moot before a final written decision. The order is a reminder that, even after institution, settlement can still bring an IPR to a close—though timing and procedural posture matter.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and the PTAB’s trial rules, an instituted inter partes review may be terminated upon joint request of the petitioner and patent owner, unless the Office has already decided the merits. Here, because the parties reached agreement after institution but before final resolution, the Board exercised its discretion to terminate the proceeding rather than continue on its own to a final written decision.

That result is consistent with the Board’s longstanding practice. Once parties settle, the PTAB generally asks whether any issues remain that would justify continued review in the public interest. In most cases, if the record is not so far advanced that a merits decision is imminent, and if there are no unusual circumstances, termination is granted. The opinion in this matter appears to fit squarely within that framework: settlement removed the live controversy, and the Board chose not to expend further administrative resources deciding patentability issues the parties no longer wished to litigate.

For practitioners, the decision matters less for any doctrinal change and more for what it reinforces procedurally. First, post-institution settlement remains a viable exit ramp. Institution does not lock parties into a final written decision. Second, parties should move promptly once settlement is reached. Delay can matter, because the further a case progresses, the more likely the Board may consider whether to proceed despite settlement. Third, counsel should ensure compliance with the PTAB’s settlement-filing requirements, including treatment of any settlement agreement as business confidential information where appropriate.

This order does not appear to create new precedent or change existing law. Instead, it reflects the PTAB’s established discretionary practice under Section 317: when the dispute has been resolved and the Board has not yet reached the merits, termination is often the practical outcome.

For patent litigators and in-house teams managing parallel district court and PTAB disputes, the case underscores a familiar but important strategic point: settlement leverage does not disappear after institution, and coordinated resolution can still eliminate the cost and risk of a final written decision.

View full case on Docket Alarm