Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 01 DECEMBER 2025

PRECEDENTIAL: PTAB Clarifies Real Party In Interest Analysis

Jones Day
Jones Day
Contributor
Jones Day

Jones Day

Jones Day is a global law firm with more than 2,400 lawyers in 40 offices across five continents....

View firm profile
Explore more from Jones Day

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has designated as precedential a decision that squarely reaffirms the statutory requirement to identify all real parties in interest (RPI) in AIA petitions.

United StatesIntellectual Property

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has designated as precedential a decision that squarely reaffirms the statutory requirement to identify all real parties in interest (RPI) in AIA petitions. By elevating Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband Inc., IPR2014‑00440, Paper 68 (PTAB Aug. 18, 2015) (except for § II.E.1), the Office has returned to the pre‑SharkNinja framework that requires petitioners to properly disclose real party in interest (RPI) before institution. This shift is more than procedural housekeeping: according to Director Squires, it reflects broader policy and national‑security concerns associated with opaque petitioning.

The AIA speaks directly to RPI identification. Under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) (and its PGR counterpart, § 322(a)(2)), a petition "may be considered only if ... the petition identifies all real parties in interest." Prior to SharkNinja, PTAB panels consistently treated this language as a threshold condition to

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from