The Ninth Circuit’s April 20, 2026 decision in docket No. 23-2527 offers a useful reminder that appellate outcomes often turn as much on procedure and standards of review as on the underlying merits. In an opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr., the court addressed a civil appeal and clarified how federal appellate courts will evaluate the issues preserved below, the district court’s reasoning, and the appellant’s burden on review.

Although the full significance of the ruling will depend on the underlying claims and procedural posture, the opinion appears to fit squarely within a recurring Ninth Circuit theme: appellants must do more than identify alleged error.

In IPR2025-01188, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board terminated the proceeding after the parties settled following institution. The decision applies the familiar framework of 35 U.S.C. § 317 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74, which govern settlement and termination of inter partes review, but it is still a useful reminder of how the Board handles cases once trial is already underway.

The core ruling is straightforward: when the parties jointly request termination after institution and the Board has not yet decided the merits, the PTAB generally will terminate the review as to those parties.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s April 13, 2026 scheduling order in IPR2026-00094 is procedural rather than merits-driven, but it still deserves attention from PTAB practitioners. Scheduling orders set the roadmap for an inter partes review, and in practice they can shape strategy just as much as a substantive ruling by fixing the timing for briefing, discovery, expert work, and the oral hearing.

At a high level, the Board’s order establishes the case schedule that will govern the parties through trial.

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.

In a short but useful procedural order, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted the patent owner’s unopposed motion to withdraw existing lead counsel and substitute new lead counsel in PGR2025-00086. The order applies 37 C.F.R. § 42.10, the PTAB rule governing counsel recognition and changes in representation, and reflects the Board’s routine but important emphasis on continuity of representation.

Although the ruling does not break new doctrinal ground, it is a practical reminder that PTAB counsel changes are not automatic.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s docket entry in Entegris, Inc., PGR2026-00037, marks the start of a post-grant review proceeding that practitioners should watch closely. Although a newly filed PTAB matter does not yet provide a final merits ruling, the case is significant because post-grant review remains one of the most powerful mechanisms for attacking recently issued patents on a wide range of grounds, including patent eligibility, written description, enablement, indefiniteness, and novelty or obviousness.

Based on the filing posture, the key issue is not yet who ultimately wins, but what the PTAB will permit the challenger to litigate and how aggressively it will examine the patent under the broader PGR framework.