The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s October 1, 2026 order in IPR2025-01254 is a useful reminder that while PTAB proceedings are presumptively public, the Board will protect genuinely confidential business information when the movant makes a sufficient showing. In this order, the Board granted the Patent Owner’s motions to seal, allowing certain materials to remain non-public under the applicable protective framework.
Although the order appears procedural rather than merits-driven, it matters because sealing disputes frequently shape how parties present technical and commercial evidence in inter partes review. Parties often need to submit license terms, product specifications, internal business records, or other sensitive materials to support arguments on secondary considerations, real-party-in-interest issues, priority, or claim construction. The Board’s ruling confirms that such information can be shielded when the request is properly tailored and justified.
The legal backdrop is familiar to PTAB practitioners: there is a strong public interest in access to Board records, but that interest is not absolute. Under PTAB practice, a party moving to seal must typically show that the information is truly confidential, that sealing is narrowly requested, and that the relief is consistent with the protective order regime. The Board generally disfavors overbroad sealing and expects parties to file public, redacted versions where possible. By granting the Patent Owner’s motions, the Board necessarily concluded that the requested treatment met that standard.
For practitioners, the practical lesson is straightforward. A successful motion to seal should do more than label material “confidential.” It should explain why disclosure would cause competitive harm, identify the specific portions warranting protection, and demonstrate that the request is no broader than necessary. This is especially important at the PTAB, where judges regularly scrutinize whether parties are trying to hide substantive arguments rather than just sensitive facts.
This order does not appear to announce a new legal standard or change existing PTAB law on sealing. Instead, it reinforces the Board’s established approach: confidentiality protection is available, but only on a disciplined record. That makes the decision less about doctrinal innovation and more about execution. For patent owners and petitioners alike, the message is that careful confidentiality planning remains essential from the outset of an IPR—particularly when key evidence will depend on proprietary technical or commercial documents.