Patent Litigation Strategies and the Fintiv Framework

Erick

Welcome to this episode of the PTAB Podcast. As always, the views and opinions expressed in this podcast do not necessarily represent those of Brown Rudnick. This podcast is presented for informational and educational purposes only.

Erick

I am again here with my friend and patent litigation guru Dr. Angela Liu. Thanks for joining me today, Angela!

Dr. Angela Liu

t's always great to be here with you, Erick! Let's talk some PTAB!

Erick

Alright, let’s kick things off with what’s probably one of the biggest shake-ups we’ve seen recently in PTAB practice: Motorola versus Stellar. Four patents, four petitions for Inter Partes Review, or IPR, and one sweeping Director Review that overturned everything. This case isn’t just about patents. It’s about the finality of PTAB decisions and how they intersect—or clash—with district court litigation. Angela, where do we start?

Dr. Angela Liu

I think to understand the stakes here, we need to look at which patents were involved. These aren’t obscure technology assets; they’re foundational in their sectors, and Motorola clearly saw them as barriers to their innovations. The patents—ranging from communications infrastructure to specialized circuit designs—represent critical intellectual property for Stellar.

Erick

Right! And Motorola’s approach was textbook—staggering multiple parallel proceedings. Four IPR petitions targeting key aspects of those patents, all while facing district court litigation on nearly identical grounds. You’ve gotta admit, that’s—

Dr. Angela Liu

It’s strategic, yes. But Stellar’s move to request a Director Review was brilliant. They saw early on that the PTAB’s reliance on Fintiv factors could work in their favor. Remember, the Board initially granted institution, which, at first glance, might seem typical. But their analysis of factors 3 and 4—that’s where the wheels started to come off.

Erick

For anyone unfamiliar, we’re talking about the Fintiv framework here—a set of six factors used by the PTAB to decide whether to deny institution of an IPR due to parallel district court litigation. Angela, factor 3 was where the Director really laid the groundwork for her decision, wasn’t it?

Dr. Angela Liu

Exactly. Factor 3 handles the investment already made in parallel proceedings. In this case, Stellar rightly argued that significant resources had been spent—on expert reports, extensive depositions, even the claim construction phase. The trial date was just eleven months away, and yet the PTAB seemed to downplay that investment. The Director disagreed, emphasizing that these weren’t just routine procedural steps—they were substantial milestones.

Erick

And let’s not forget the broader implication. This wasn’t just about tallying hours or money spent in court. The Director essentially said: Hey, if you’re this far along in district court, duplicating efforts at the PTAB undermines judicial efficiency. That’s... that’s not small.

Dr. Angela Liu

No, it’s not. And factor 4—examining the overlap between issues—was equally pivotal. Despite Motorola's Sotera stipulation, which is supposed to avoid duplication, the Director pointed out that it wasn’t airtight. The district court proceedings included invalidity arguments that went beyond what the IPR covered, like system prior art combinations. So, it wasn’t the “true alternative” Motorola claimed it would be.

Erick

Which really underlines the evolving nature of these stipulations, doesn’t it? Petitioners can’t just rely on broad language to avoid discretionary denial anymore. There's a shift, Angela, and it feels like Stellar exploited it perfectly.

Dr. Angela Liu

Absolutely. They didn’t just react; they anticipated. By meticulously documenting their district court progress—everything from opening statements to expert testimony—they built a case that resonated with the Director’s holistic approach to the Fintiv analysis.

Erick

You know, if I were advising a patent owner, I’d say this case shows one thing: minute details matter. Every hearing, every timeline, every objection can tip the scales. And Stellar? They tipped them masterfully. The takeaway is this—plan your litigation strategy to align with procedural milestones. Perhaps even course-correct if the PTAB comes knocking.

Dr. Angela Liu

Couldn’t agree more. Stellar’s strategy wasn’t reactive; it was proactive. And that’s exactly how they turned what could have been a losing battle into a landmark Director Review. We’ll unpack more of the Fintiv framework and how it shaped this decision. But for now, remember—the smallest strategic choices can have the biggest impact.

Erick

So, Angela, let’s dive deeper into the Fintiv framework we touched on earlier. This six-factor test has really come to define much of the PTAB’s approach when district court proceedings are in play. How exactly are the factors applied in cases like this?

Dr. Angela Liu

Definitely. So, it all starts with Factor 1: whether the district court granted a stay or is likely to grant one. Basically, if the court’s willing to pause its own proceedings for the PTAB decision, that weighs in favor of institution. It shows the courts themselves see efficiency in letting the PTAB take the lead.

Erick

Right, but then Factor 2 flips the lens. It’s all about timing—how close is the district court’s trial date compared to the PTAB’s statutory deadline for a final decision? If you’ve got a district court barreling ahead to trial within months, while an IPR’s decision sits a year out, well, that speaks volumes.

Dr. Angela Liu

Exactly. Timing isn’t just optics here—it directly impacts judicial efficiency and whether the PTAB adds value or just duplicates effort. Now, Factor 3, that’s where the investments made by the court and parties come into play. This is one of the most controversial factors, especially in the Stellar case.

Erick

Oh yeah, we’ll get to why that matters in a bit. Factor 4, though—that’s all about overlap. If the issues you’re raising at the PTAB have already been hashed out or are being addressed in district court, well, that overlap can lean towards denial. But Angela, isn’t this where Sotera stipulations were supposed to help?

Dr. Angela Liu

Originally, yes. A Sotera stipulation tells the court that the petitioner won’t pursue in litigation the exact arguments they’re raising in the IPR. The idea was to avoid redundancy. But as Stellar demonstrated, even a stipulation has limits, especially if district court arguments include combinations or nuances outside the PTAB’s scope.

Erick

Right, and then there’s Factor 5—are the petitioner and defendant the same entity? If they overlap, denying the IPR might make more sense since it’s the same fight, just in two places. If they’re different parties, well, that changes things.

Dr. Angela Liu

Lastly, Factor 6 is the wildcard. It covers any other circumstances that could influence the PTAB’s discretion. Things like public policy issues, potential impacts on efficiency, or even specific details unique to that case. It’s intentionally broad to give flexibility.

Erick

And that flexibility? It’s a game-changer. Each factor might pull in different directions depending on the specifics of the case. Take Factor 3 in this decision—that’s where Stellar gained real traction with their arguments. But we'll dig into that next.

Erick

Alright, so let’s unpack why Factor 3 became such a game-changer in Stellar's case. The district court investments here really stirred up the debate. Angela, was it the extent of their efforts or something unique about the timing that caught everyone’s attention?

Dr. Angela Liu

What’s different is how the Director reframed what “investment” even means. Instead of just focusing on the burden to the court, which can feel intangible, the emphasis shifted to what’s concrete: the steps already taken by the court and the parties. Stellar didn’t just rely on abstract arguments. They brought receipts—figuratively, of course.

Erick

Exactly. They highlighted expert reports, depositions, and, crucially, claim construction. That’s a huge one. Those aren’t trivial milestones in litigation, and Stellar made sure the Director knew exactly how much ground had already been covered by the time those IPR petitions rolled in.

Dr. Angela Liu

And it worked. The Director flat-out rejected the idea that just because patent litigation is inherently resource-intensive, that should tip the scale toward institution. That reasoning would apply to nearly every case. Instead, the ruling laser-focused on the specific trial prep done in this case.

Erick

Right, right. And then Factor 4. For years, the Sotera stipulation was kinda the ace in the hole for petitioners looking to sidestep discretionary denial. But here, Angela, it got tossed aside like yesterday’s precedent.

Dr. Angela Liu

Well, not entirely tossed aside. The Director called out its limitations, particularly when the invalidity arguments in district court extend beyond what’s on the table at the PTAB. Take this case—the stipulation didn’t account for combinations with unpublished system prior art. That’s a pretty glaring gap.

Erick

Yeah, and that’s my point. You can’t just slap a stipulation on and cross your fingers anymore. The Director wants details and alignment. If your district court case looks like a loaded buffet of invalidity theories, and your IPR just has a specific slice of pie, don’t expect the PTAB to buy into the “no duplication” argument.

Dr. Angela Liu

Exactly. Petitioners need to craft stipulations that are, frankly, bulletproof. That means addressing overlaps comprehensively, even considering nuances like what prior art could be moot and what remains in play. Anything less, and you’re vulnerable.

Erick

And the implications here are massive—not just for petitioners but for patent owners, too. Stellar turned this into a masterclass on leveraging Fintiv factors. They didn’t just wait for the PTAB to rule—they actively documented every shred of progress, making it almost impossible to argue that an IPR wouldn’t be duplicative.

Dr. Angela Liu

It’s a strategy shift, no doubt. For years, we saw PGRs and IPRs weaponized as delay tactics. Now the emphasis is on efficiency and integrity. Patent owners can flip the narrative, showing why forcing two proceedings isn’t just wasteful but counterproductive.

Erick

And for everyone listening, take note—this isn’t just about patent law. It’s strategy, plain and simple. The better you align your actions to these Fintiv factors, the stronger your position, whether you’re filing or fighting.

Dr. Angela Liu

Absolutely. Stellar’s meticulous approach turned the Fintiv framework into an ally rather than an obstacle. There’s a lot more to unpack, especially about how the Director framed these decisions holistically. But for now, one thing’s clear: strategy, preparation, and precision are the pillars of success in modern patent battles.

Erick

Speaking of strategy, Angela, let’s take a closer look at Factor 3—this one really shifted the narrative, didn’t it? The Board originally interpreted the investment in the district court case as an unnecessary burden on the system, thinking an IPR could alleviate that. But the Director saw things quite differently.

Dr. Angela Liu

Exactly. The Board’s reasoning essentially boiled down to, “litigation burdens courts, so why not let the PTAB handle part of it?” But, Erick, that idea is too broad—it could apply to... almost every case, you know? What the Director wanted to see was evidence of tangible, case-specific investments.

Erick

And boy, did Stellar deliver on that front. They outlined everything—depositions, expert reports, claim construction briefs. Even a full Markman hearing had already happened. And let’s not forget—they had a trial date set for March 10, 2025. That’s just eleven months before the PTAB would’ve made any final decision.

Dr. Angela Liu

Right! Those aren’t insignificant milestones. Stellar showed, step by step, how far along their case was. This wasn’t just about making a list; it was about proving why institution would only duplicate, not streamline. The Director called out the Board for misinterpreting the intent of Factor 3—

Erick

Exactly. “Focus on actual investment,” she said. Forget this abstract stuff about courts being overwhelmed in general. Look at the specifics—what’s already been achieved, and does opening a parallel proceeding really make sense?

Dr. Angela Liu

And here, it clearly didn’t. The Director flat-out rejected the idea that a court’s overall burden should outweigh the actual progress made. It’s a shift in thinking—one that really levels the playing field for patent owners who’ve already put in the legwork.

Erick

You know, it’s funny—sometimes the simplest arguments are the most compelling. Stellar basically said, “Look at the clock and the calendar. The trial’s close. We’ve done the work. Why should we go through all this again just because Motorola filed an IPR?” Hard to argue with that.

Dr. Angela Liu

Well, it’s hard to argue when you have the receipts, right? Stellar didn’t just assert—they substantiated. And when you think about it, Erick, this isn’t just a win for them. This sets a precedent for how Factor 3 will likely be treated going forward. Investment matters—

Erick

Real investment. Specific to the case at hand. I mean, it’s a no-brainer when you put it that way. But Angela, this isn’t the end of the story. Factor 4 brought its own curveballs, especially with how the Director treated Motorola’s Sotera stipulation.

Erick

So, Angela, with Factor 3 redefining how we think about case-specific investments, Factor 4 brings its own twist. It’s not just about overlap—it really spotlights how Sotera stipulations are faring. And spoiler alert—they’re not looking as bulletproof as they used to.

Dr. Angela Liu

Right, Erick. Sotera stipulations have long been used to dodge discretionary denials under Fintiv. They basically say, “We promise not to pursue any invalidity arguments in court that we raised or could have raised in the IPR.” But here, that wasn’t enough.

Erick

The Director didn’t buy it. And why? Because the district court invalidity arguments weren’t limited to just what was in the IPR. They included something the PTAB couldn’t address—unpublished system prior art.

Dr. Angela Liu

Exactly. And that made all the difference. Motorola’s stipulation wasn’t a “true alternative,” as the Director put it. Sure, it might reduce some duplication, but it couldn’t eliminate it. The gap between the IPR grounds and the broader invalidity theories in court was just too wide.

Erick

Which takes a big chunk out of the power of these stipulations. You can’t just wave one around like a free pass anymore. Petitioners now have to demonstrate that their IPR really is an alternative to the district court proceedings, not just a parallel track.

Dr. Angela Liu

And that’s a tough bar. The Director also looked at context. For instance, Motorola’s district court strategies included prior art combinations beyond the PTAB’s scope, so their stipulation still left duplicative work for the court. This wasn’t just a paperwork issue—it fundamentally undermined the efficiency argument.

Erick

So, basically, if you’re a petitioner banking on a Sotera stipulation to save you, think again. The Director has made clear that specifics matter. Broad promises don’t cut it.

Dr. Angela Liu

Absolutely. Petitioners need to think strategically. If there’s overlap, they’ll have to go the extra mile—maybe crafting stipulations that address every potential duplication issue or really narrowing the scope of their arguments in court versus at the PTAB.

Erick

And for patent owners? This is huge. It flips the power dynamics. If you can spotlight where a Sotera stipulation falls short, you’ve got a compelling case for discretionary denial. Stellar nailed that here. They dissected Motorola’s stipulation and showed why it just didn’t hold up.

Dr. Angela Liu

They did. And by doing so, they amplified the importance of Factor 4 within Fintiv’s framework. No longer is it just about whether a stipulation exists—it’s about whether it actually works. That’s a critical shift for both sides of the table.

Erick

And it’s not just academic. This ruling makes it clear—actions in one forum can and will be scrutinized in another. Whether you’re the petitioner or the patent owner, strategy now means thinking two steps ahead and addressing inconsistencies.

Dr. Angela Liu

Right. The Director’s holistic approach is reshaping practice as we know it. And that ripple effect, Erick, it’s just getting started. But before we get too far ahead, there’s still more to unpack about how these factors interact overall.

Erick

So, Angela, building on what we discussed earlier about the Director's holistic approach, there’s a bigger shift happening here. The Director didn’t just dissect the Fintiv factors in isolation—they redefined how these factors interact. This isn’t a checkbox exercise anymore; it’s a strategic game being played on a much larger scale.

Dr. Angela Liu

Exactly, Erick. The Director emphasized that no single factor should dominate the analysis. Instead, it’s the combined weight of all six factors that determines the outcome. And this shift—it’s significant. It tells practitioners that piecemeal arguments just won’t cut it in this new landscape.

Erick

Right, because think about it—if you’ve got progress in district court, a looming trial date, and evidence that duplicating efforts won’t really serve judicial efficiency, you can’t just hope a Sotera stipulation closes the gap. It’s not enough to, you know, check off half the boxes and call it a day.

Dr. Angela Liu

Exactly. This case—for Stellar—showed that success lies in presenting an integrated argument. You can’t just lean on one factor, like, say, the investment in district court, without tying it to the efficiency of the broader system. It’s about showing that discretionary denial is the only outcome that truly aligns with the purpose of the Fintiv framework.

Erick

And that’s the thing—emotion and logic play a role here. It’s like, when you lay out everything, you’re asking the Director to feel the inefficiency of parallel proceedings.

Dr. Angela Liu

That’s a great way to put it. The holistic approach isn’t just about facts—it’s about the broader narrative you’re presenting. For Stellar, they connected the dots between district court progress and the inefficiency of reopening those same issues at the PTAB. Plain and simple...

Erick

...While simultaneously dismantling Motorola’s arguments piece by piece. I mean, Angela, you’ve gotta admit, this sets—

Dr. Angela Liu

A precedent. It absolutely does. And the best part? It invigorates patent owners who, up till now, might’ve thought their efforts in district court didn’t hold enough weight. This decision changes the game.

Erick

It’s a turning point, for sure. But, of course, even with this holistic approach, there’s still the question of execution. You know, whether petitioners can adapt to this—

Dr. Angela Liu

—And whether patent owners will capitalize on it. Both sides need to rethink. But what’s fascinating is how Stellar used this case to expose the vulnerabilities in traditional strategies. Take Motorola’s Sotera stipulation—

Erick

Angela, as we look deeper into the implications for patent owners, it’s clear this ruling represents more than just a recalibration of individual factors—it signals broader strategy shifts. Let’s start with Sotera stipulations. Petitioners often treated these as a safety net, wouldn’t you agree?

Dr. Angela Liu

Exactly, Erick. For years, Sotera stipulations gave petitioners a way to sidestep the overlap issue under the Fintiv framework. They’d promise not to duplicate arguments from the IPR in district court, and boom—conflict resolved. But this ruling tore that playbook apart.

Erick

Right. Because the Director didn’t just nod and accept the stipulation at face value. She dug deeper and found that Motorola’s district court invalidity arguments stretched well beyond the IPR’s scope. Like this unpublished system prior art—it wasn’t even covered in the stipulation.

Dr. Angela Liu

Exactly. And that’s the key distinction here, Erick. Just having a stipulation wasn’t enough. The Director determined it didn’t make the IPR a true alternative. Efficiency’s the goal, right? If the stipulation still leaves substantial litigation work on the table, it defeats the purpose.

Erick

And that’s a wake-up call for petitioners. Relying on Sotera stipulations alone is like walking into court with one hand tied behind your back. You’ve gotta show that your IPR eliminates duplication, not just most of it.

Dr. Angela Liu

Exactly. It changes the game for patent owners too. They now have a solid footing to argue against these stipulations by pointing out gaps. Stellar did this masterfully. They peeled apart Motorola’s stipulation, showing where it fell short and why it still allowed duplication.

Erick

And let’s not ignore the emphasis on actual investment. Stellar kept receipts—they showed blow-by-blow progress in district court. Depositons, Markman hearings, expert work... They even had a trial date locked down. That’s not just effort, Angela. That’s strategy.

Dr. Angela Liu

Absolutely. And strategically documenting every milestone paid off for Stellar. The Director shifted the conversation by focusing on specifics—how far along the district court case was and why reopening the same issues at the PTAB wouldn’t serve judicial efficiency.

Erick

You know, for patent owners, the takeaway is crystal clear: investment trumps generalities. It’s all about painting a bigger picture that highlights progress while pointing out inefficiencies in opening up an IPR at that stage.

Dr. Angela Liu

Definitely. And for petitioners? They need to rethink their stipulations. This isn’t just about promising no overlap—it’s ensuring the IPR won’t undercut progress already achieved elsewhere. The bar for what counts as effective strategy has just been raised.

Erick

No doubt. It’s a recalibration for everyone playing in this space. Stellar proved that meticulous preparation and timing really matter. And this isn’t just a ruling—it’s a road map for patent litigation moving forward.

Dr. Angela Liu

Couldn’t have said it better myself. What Stellar achieved here sets a new standard. And for both sides, the lesson is clear: adapt, document, and strategize smarter. There’s no room for complacency anymore.

Erick

Angela, following from where we left off, Stellar really outlined the path forward for patent owners. A critical part of that is how they documented every step of their progress in district court. Let’s dive into that playbook and see what lessons stand out.

Dr. Angela Liu

Absolutely. Erick, Stellar left no stone unturned. They presented a detailed record of everything: invalidity contentions, claim construction briefs, depositions, expert reports, and even the scheduled trial date itself. These weren’t just procedural checkmarks—they were tangible demonstrations of progress.

Erick

And that’s the key, right? It wasn’t just about saying, “Oh, we’ve done a lot of work.” They showed exactly how far along they were, step by step. Because let’s be real, Angela—progress is persuasive.

Dr. Angela Liu

It’s more than persuasive—it’s pivotal. The Director zeroed in on that progress and weighed it heavily in the holistic Fintiv analysis. Essentially, Stellar argued, “Why duplicate all this effort in a parallel PTAB proceeding?” And the Director agreed, because it was documented so meticulously.

Erick

And that feeds into their next move—challenging the Sotera stipulation. Now, Angela, this is where Stellar really outmaneuvered traditional tactics.

Dr. Angela Liu

Exactly. They dissected the stipulation and pointed out its limitations. Sure, it promised not to duplicate the invalidity arguments from the IPR in district court. But it still left critical gaps, like issues with system prior art combinations. Stellar didn’t just let that slide—they exposed it.

Erick

And by doing so, they showed the stipulation wasn’t the ironclad strategy Motorola hoped it would be. Because, let’s face it, Angela, if a stipulation doesn’t eliminate duplication, it’s not doing its job.

Dr. Angela Liu

Exactly. And this ruling sets a precedent. Patent owners can now scrutinize these stipulations with a sharper lens and argue that unless they’re airtight, they’re not enough to overcome Fintiv concerns. Stellar just raised the bar for what counts as strategic stipulation drafting.

Erick

And speaking of strategy, let’s talk about early claim construction. Stellar didn’t wait—they pushed for a Markman hearing early on, wrapped it up, and locked in key definitions before the IPR petitions even landed.

Dr. Angela Liu

That timing was everything. By completing claim construction early, they could argue that the district court had already invested heavily. It’s a simple but effective move—showing the court and the parties have passed major milestones well before the PTAB clock even started ticking.

Erick

And then there’s developing expert testimonies early. This one’s an underrated strategy, Angela, but it made all the difference for Stellar.

Dr. Angela Liu

Absolutely. The Director specifically noted expert reports as a key part of district court progress. Stellar brought in their experts early, put their arguments on paper, and made sure those contributions were part of the documented investment. It’s proactive preparation that strengthens the Fintiv argument.

Erick

And finally, the argument for efficiency. Stellar made it clear—duplicative efforts don’t just hurt the parties, they hurt the whole system. Highlighting the economic inefficiency of having two tracks was the cherry on top.

Dr. Angela Liu

Exactly. They framed it not just as a burden to themselves but as wasteful for the courts and the PTAB system as a whole. It’s a powerful way to position your case as aligned with judicial efficiency, which, ultimately, is what the Fintiv framework strives for.

Erick

So, the lesson here is clear for patent owners: be meticulous, be proactive, and document everything. Stellar didn’t just react—they set the narrative. And that’s how they reshaped the impact of Fintiv factors in their favor.

Dr. Angela Liu

Spot on, Erick. It’s all about strategy and precision. Coming up, we’ll flip the perspective and talk about what this means for petitioners, especially regarding when and how to file IPRs. Stay tuned.

Erick

Angela, let’s pick up where we left off and flip the perspective—petitioners have to rethink their strategy in this post-Stellar landscape. Filing IPRs earlier is a no-brainer, don’t you think? Waiting too long only gives patent owners more ammunition to build a case against institution.

Dr. Angela Liu

Exactly, Erick. Timing is everything. When petitioners wait until the one-year statutory deadline to file, they risk running into significant progress made in district court, just like we saw in Stellar. Filing earlier avoids that issue and minimizes the investment argument that patent owners can leverage under Factor 3.

Erick

Right. And let’s talk about stipulations. Sotera stipulations used to be the golden ticket, but that shine’s wearing off. Petitioners can’t just throw in boilerplate language and call it a day anymore. What’s the fix here?

Dr. Angela Liu

The fix is precision, Erick. Petitioners have to craft stipulations that truly eliminate overlap. That means addressing not only what’s in the IPR but also considering any broader invalidity arguments being made in district court. If the stipulation doesn’t close every gap, Factor 4 is still a ticking time bomb.

Erick

And then there’s the focus of the IPR itself. You can’t just go broad and hope for the best. Petitioners have to zero in on “core” invalidity theories, the ones most likely to succeed. Anything else dilutes the argument and opens the door for discretionary denial.

Dr. Angela Liu

Absolutely. Narrowing the scope isn’t just about efficiency—it also aligns with the PTAB’s goal of avoiding duplication. If you’re tackling every angle in both forums, you’re proving the patent owner’s point about duplication.

Erick

And that’s where seeking district court stays comes in. Petitioners need to be proactive here, Angela. The earlier you push for a stay, the less investment there is for patent owners to argue about.

Dr. Angela Liu

Exactly. Waiting until significant progress has been made in the district court weakens the argument for a stay. Petitioners who act early show they’re serious about streamlining the process, and that can factor into the PTAB’s holistic analysis under Fintiv.

Erick

Finally, alternative strategies for Fintiv. The standard playbook isn’t cutting it anymore. Petitioners need to start thinking outside the box to address these discretionary denial issues. Thoughts?

Dr. Angela Liu

One approach could be focusing on references or theories that district courts can’t address due to statutory limits. By showing that the PTAB provides a unique, non-duplicative forum, petitioners can counter the efficiency argument patent owners often rely on. It’s about emphasizing the differences, not just the similarities.

Erick

That’s the theme here, isn’t it? Adapt or face denial. Stellar raised the bar, and petitioners need to up their game. But Angela, this isn’t just about strategies—it’s a full-on shift in how cases are handled. And petitioners? They’ve gotta step up.

Dr. Angela Liu

Exactly. The Director’s ruling made it clear: the old ways aren’t enough anymore. For petitioners, evolution isn’t optional—it’s essential. And, as always, those who adapt the fastest will come out on top.

Erick

Angela, building on what we discussed earlier about adaptation being key for petitioners, the Motorola v. Stellar ruling doesn’t just tweak the Fintiv framework—it redefines the landscape. It’s like watching the rules of the game change mid-season. Petitioners and patent owners—both groups are going to feel this one.

Dr. Angela Liu

Absolutely, Erick. For patent owners, there’s a clear path forward: document everything, push early for progress in district court, and scrutinize those Sotera stipulations like a forensic analyst. They’ve now got the tools to argue against parallel PTAB proceedings more effectively than ever.

Erick

And for petitioners? It’s adapt or die. Filing earlier, tightening the scope of arguments, and crafting bulletproof stipulations aren’t just suggestions—they’re survival strategies. The Director’s holistic approach isn’t leaving much room for slip-ups anymore.

Dr. Angela Liu

Right. This ruling demands precision from everyone involved. It isn’t enough to lean on old tactics. Every step, whether in the district court or the PTAB, needs to be part of a cohesive strategy that shows efficiency and avoids redundancy.

Erick

And you know, Angela, it’s funny. For years, the narrative was all about leveraging PTAB as the go-to arena for invalidity battles—quick, efficient, decisive. This decision challenges that assumption by showing how crucial the district court’s role still is.

Dr. Angela Liu

It really does. And it’s a good reminder that patent practice is as much about adapting to changed circumstances as it is about knowing the law. The playing field keeps shifting, and those who evolve their strategies—not just their arguments—are the ones who’ll succeed.

Erick

Exactly. It’s strategy over tradition. Stellar gave us a masterclass in that, and whether you’re a patent owner or a petitioner, the takeaway is the same. Think smarter, act earlier, and don’t underestimate the power of timing and preparation.

Dr. Angela Liu

Couldn’t agree more, Erick. This decision isn’t the end of the story—it’s the start of a new chapter for how we approach patent litigation. So, for everyone listening, now’s the time to revisit your playbook and adapt to these game-changing dynamics.

Erick

And there it is. A shifting landscape that’s going to keep us all on our toes. Until next time, Angela, it’s been a great discussion.

Dr. Angela Liu

Always a pleasure, Erick. Here’s to staying sharp.