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. A party seeking to replace lead counsel must obtain Board authorization, and the motion should make clear that the party will continue to be represented by qualified counsel, with backup counsel in place as required by the rules. The fact that the motion here was unopposed likely made the result straightforward.

The Board’s reasoning appears procedural rather than substantive: because the patent owner requested withdrawal and substitution, and because no party opposed the request, the Board found good cause to grant it under the governing regulation. These orders typically turn on whether the request preserves orderly case management and avoids prejudice to the opposing party or disruption to the schedule. In other words, the Board is generally receptive to counsel substitutions so long as the case remains staffed appropriately and deadlines are not jeopardized.

For practitioners, the significance is less about precedent and more about PTAB practice discipline. First, if lead counsel needs to exit, parties should move promptly and ensure replacement counsel is properly identified and eligible to serve. Second, securing the other side’s non-opposition can materially smooth the path to relief. Third, even seemingly ministerial changes should be handled carefully in a fast-moving AIA proceeding, where missed deadlines and administrative missteps can have outsized consequences.

This order does not appear to change existing law or establish a new standard. Instead, it reinforces the Board’s established approach: counsel substitutions will generally be allowed when the request complies with § 42.10, the opposing party does not object, and the transition does not threaten efficient adjudication. For counsel managing PTAB matters, that is a useful operational takeaway—particularly in post-grant review proceedings, where strategic and staffing changes often occur under compressed timelines.

View full case on Docket Alarm

Microsoft Corporation has filed a new inter partes review petition against QOMPLX LLC at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, opening a fresh front in what could become an important dispute over patent validity and competitive positioning. The case, Microsoft Corporation v. Qomplx LLC, was filed on April 7, 2026, and is docketed as IPR2026-00325.

At this stage, the PTAB docket reflects the filing of the petition, with Microsoft as petitioner and QOMPLX as patent owner. The filing signals that Microsoft is asking the Board to review and potentially cancel one or more claims of a QOMPLX patent on prior-art grounds permitted under inter partes review—typically anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on patents and printed publications. As is often the case in newly filed IPRs, the specific patent number, challenged claims, and asserted references will be central details for practitioners to watch as the record develops.

For patent owners and petitioners alike, the early phase of this proceeding matters. Microsoft’s petition will need to lay out a precise claim construction theory, identify the prior art with particularity, and explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found the challenged claims unpatentable. QOMPLX, in turn, will have the opportunity to file a preliminary response aimed at defeating institution by attacking the merits, the petitioner’s evidentiary showing, or any procedural defects.

Why should IP counsel follow this case? First, PTAB challenges involving major technology companies often provide a useful preview of broader enforcement or licensing strategies. An IPR filing can be a defensive move against district court litigation, a pressure point in licensing negotiations, or part of a longer-term portfolio strategy. Second, the institution decision may offer insight into how the Board is treating the claimed technology area, especially if the patent involves software, analytics, cybersecurity, or enterprise systems—areas where both Microsoft and QOMPLX have significant business interests. Third, this proceeding may become a useful study in petition drafting, expert support, and discretionary institution arguments depending on whether there are parallel district court actions.

Practitioners should watch for the petition papers, any related litigation disclosures, the patent owner’s preliminary response, and ultimately whether the PTAB institutes review. Those filings will determine whether this is a routine validity challenge or a more consequential contest over a strategically important patent asset.

View full case on Docket Alarm