Sharp Drop in Patent Challenges Shows Shift From Volume to Value

A reported drop in patent infringement filings from early 2025 to early 2026 was unexpected, given improving conditions for patent enforcement.

Recent changes at the US Patent and Trademark Office, including adjustments to administrative patent validity hearings known as interpartes review, have strengthened the hand of patent owners and were expected to drive more litigation. Instead, filings are down.

One potential explanation is a change in the overall shape of the patent enforcement process. Patent owners are focusing resources on a smaller number of high-stakes cases and shifting away from low-value, high-volume litigation, according to the data.

This change isn’t just affecting how many cases are filed—it’s reshaping how those cases are defended.

Patent Litigation Filings

The first quarter of 2026 produced 389 lawsuits by operating companies and 469 by nonpracticing entities, putting the year on pace to be one of the least active in recent memory and a sharp decline from 2025. Compared to the first quarter of 2025, district court filings in the first quarter of2026 fell by 21.6%.

The drop is largely explained by the pullback of repeat, high-volume filers. For example, Cedar Lane Technologies filed 52 cases last year, but only 10 so far this year. Secure Matrix LLC, an entity associated with high volume filer Jeffrey Gross, filed just six cases in the first quarter of 2026 compared to 35 in all of 2025. Other low-value, quick-settlement filers show the same pattern.

Some non-practicing entities appear to be changing course rather than stepping away. IP Edge, for example, recently announced a rebranding focused on pursuing higher value, higher risk cases. The company plans to move away from the high-volume model that once made it one of the most prolific filers, where many cases ended in quick, relatively modest settlements.

In its place, IP Edge is signaling a shift toward fewer but more substantial matters. Those cases haven’t yet fully appeared in the data, but each is likely to carry far greater stakes than the nuisance suits that have declined.

Shifting to Reexaminations

This move from volume to value has a direct consequence: The cases matter more. And as the stakes rise, so too does the importance of reliable tools for challenging patent validity.

That shift is most visible in how accused infringers are responding. Inter partes review, or IPR, filings are down sharply, while ex parte reexamination requests are up, according to a site that tracks patent challenges. Compared to the first quarter of 2025, IPR petitions fell by 64.2% in 2026, while reexamination requests rose by 157.1%.

At first glance, this divergence might appear to be a narrow procedural story tied to changes at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. But in the context of higher-value litigation, it reflects something broader: a reassessment of risk.

IPR has long been the default tool for challenging patent validity. It offers a relatively fast timeline and the ability for the defendant to participate in the proceeding. But over the past year, rising rates of discretionary denial in IPR proceedings has made institution less predictable, particularly when the related litigation case was filed in faster-moving district courts.

The PTAB has made clear that it won’t expend resources on cases that are well developed in district court.

This trend is evident in cases involving non-practicing entities. A report from United Patents, an organization that helps its members fight patent challenges, shows that the institution rate for patents owned by non-practicing entities in the first quarter of 2026 was 24.6%, compared to 40.5% for operating companies.

Some of this gap may be explained by venue selection. Non-practicing entities often file in faster jurisdictions, while operating companies weigh a wider range of strategic considerations when choosing where to litigate.

Key Takeaway

The takeaway is straightforward: Reexaminations remain a favored defensive tool, especially when responding to non-practicing entity assertions with a higher likelihood of discretionary denial.

Reexaminations involve a different set of tradeoffs than IPRs. They tend to move more slowly and offer less procedural control, but they also avoid the discretionary denial risk that has become a defining feature of IPR practice.

For defendants whose exposure is concentrated in a small number of cases, that predictability is increasingly appealing. The data reflects this shift: accused infringers aren’t stepping away from validity challenges but instead are reallocating them. For patent owners, the move away from IPRs may seem favorable, but reexaminations present their own challenges. Many lack experience navigating these proceedings and the subtleties that can make them difficult to defend.

The practical impact is clear: As IPR outcomes become less predictable, defendants are reevaluating how they challenge patent validity. At the same time, stronger enforcement conditions are driving plaintiffs to focus on fewer, higher-value cases.

As patent litigation shifts from volume to value, defense strategies are evolving in parallel—making reexaminations an increasingly common first step in validity challenges.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

Patrick T. Muffo, a shareholder at Polsinelli, is a full-service intellectual property attorney focusing on the litigation of complex patent and trademark disputes.

Polsinelli IP attorneys Suni Sukduang, James Murphy, and Ryan Murphy contributed to this piece.

Interested in writing? Review our author guidelines, and submit pitches to Insights@bloombergindustry.com.