This IP Consultancy, Byte Law® piece criticizes the USPTO Director’s controversial decision to deny Tesla, Inc.’s petition for an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Intellectual Ventures II LLC (IPR2025-00340), which hinged on Tesla's explanation for inconsistent claim construction positions across forums. The author argues that this divergence was not a cynical legal maneuver but a statutory necessity, as Tesla had asserted the patent claim was indefinite in district court—a challenge explicitly prohibited in the IPR forum. Therefore, Tesla was compelled to use the neutral plain and ordinary meaning in the IPR to pursue valid prior art challenges, a justification the Director deemed insufficient. The rejection, which relied heavily on precedents like Revvo Techs., essentially forces petitioners into a "Catch-22" by demanding they undermine their primary court defense to gain access to the secondary IPR process. Ultimately, the source contends that the ruling is an unwarranted administrative overreach that obstructs access to the IPR system and shields potentially weak patents from review.