- Apple, Inc. v. Wecrevention, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 24, 2026 · IPR2026-00242 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied the petitions and instituted no trial, exercising discretion based on Petitioner’s unexplained inconsistent claim-construction positions before the Board and district court.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“As I have indicated previously, petitioners should be presenting a single construction and applying that construction consistently. See Infineon Techs. Americas Corp. v. Mosaid Techs. Corp., IPR2025-01456, Paper 27 at 3–4 (Director Mar. 17, 2026). Failure to do so, without adequate explanation, is problematic and raises concerns of strategic litigation behavior spill-over into the PTAB inconsistent with Congress’s intent to provide a quick and cost-effective alternative to district court litigation. Id.; Revvo, Paper 20 at 3–4; see H.R. Rep. No. 112-98 at 48 (2011). Here, Petitioner offers no explanation for its divergent positions.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“As I have indicated previously, petitioners should be presenting a single construction and applying that construction consistently. See Infineon Techs. Americas Corp. v. Mosaid Techs. Corp., IPR2025-01456, Paper 27 at 3–4 (Director Mar. 17, 2026). Failure to do so, without adequate explanation, is problematic and raises concerns of strategic litigation behavior spill-over into the PTAB inconsistent with Congress’s intent to provide a quick and cost-effective alternative to district court litigation. Id.; Revvo, Paper 20 at 3–4; see H.R. Rep. No. 112-98 at 48 (2011). Here, Petitioner offers no explanation for its divergent positions.” slip op. at 3
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,894,098 - Tiktok, Inc. v. Shopsee, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 16, 2026 · IPR2025-01485 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied the Petition under § 314(a), declining to institute an IPR.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“[W]hen a petitioner advances different positions before the Board and a district court, that petitioner is required to explain why those different positions are warranted.” Tesla Inc., v. Intellectual Ventures II, LLC, IPR2025-00340, Paper 18 at 3 (Director Nov. 5, 2025) (informative) (citing Revvo Techs., Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Techs., Inc., IPR2025-00632, Paper 20 at 3–5 (Director Nov. 3, 2025) (precedential)). Petitioner has not done so. Rather, Petitioner has stipulated that it will continue to pursue different constructions and abandon the inconsistent construction in district court if the IPR is instituted. This is not in keeping with our precedent, and I decline to modify it to permit this approach. Additionally, Petitioner’s claim construction stipulation is distinguishable from its stipulation that “it will not pursue in the parallel litigation the grounds it raised or could have reasonably raised in the petition, and that it will not pursue any ground that relies on Ohliger or the Veepio system.” DD Opp. 1–2. The latter stipulation increases efficiency by reducing duplication between the district court and the Board. It also minimizes the potential for inconsistent outcomes in the two proceedings. Petitioner’s stipulation not to continue to advance different claim construction positions lacks similar benefits. At best, it replaces one argument in district court for another argument at the Board. Accordingly, the Petition is denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Decided for patent owner
“[W]hen a petitioner advances different positions before the Board and a district court, that petitioner is required to explain why those different positions are warranted.” Tesla Inc., v. Intellectual Ventures II, LLC, IPR2025-00340, Paper 18 at 3 (Director Nov. 5, 2025) (informative) (citing Revvo Techs., Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Techs., Inc., IPR2025-00632, Paper 20 at 3–5 (Director Nov. 3, 2025) (precedential)). Petitioner has not done so. Rather, Petitioner has stipulated that it will continue to pursue different constructions and abandon the inconsistent construction in district court if the IPR is instituted. This is not in keeping with our precedent, and I decline to modify it to permit this approach. slip op. at 2
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,134,316 - Fujirebio Diagnostics, Inc. v. Quanterix Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-01060 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Quanterix’s request for discretionary denial and denied institution of IPR based on the examiner’s consideration of copying evidence and the holistic assessment.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“is appropriate because the patent examiner found that the objective indicia of nonobviousness evidence was persuasive in allowing the patent application. DD Req. 13–30. Although Petitioner addresses the sufficiency of Patent Owner’s evidence, Petitioner has not persuasively demonstrated that the Office erred in evaluating this evidence. DD Opp. 21; Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). Rather, Petitioner merely disagrees with the Examiner’s treatment of the evidence without showing material error. DD Opp. 21–26. “If reasonable minds can disagree regarding the purported treatment of the art or arguments, it cannot be said that the Office erred in a manner material to patentability.” See Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 9. Under these circumstances, discretionary denial is appropriate.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Furthermore, to the extent resolution of this issue may require additional evidence regarding objective indicia of nonobviousness, a district court may be the more appropriate venue, as it may allow for more robust discovery. Accordingly, the considerations that favor discretionary denial outweigh those that counsel against it. Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petition is denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › CopyingObjective indicia with nexusDecided for patent owner
“particular, in allowing the challenged patent, the patent examiner stated that Patent Owner provided rebuttal evidence of copying by others sufficient to overcome the obviousness rejection. Ex. 1002, 659–660. The patent examiner explained that “no group prior to the effective filing date had done more than perhaps suggest” using the claimed assay, “while dozens of groups utilized” that assay “after the date of Applicant’s contribution.” Id. at 660. Patent Owner argues that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. 325(d) is appropriate because the patent examiner found that the objective indicia of nonobviousness evidence was persuasive in allowing the patent application. DD Req. 13–30. Although Petitioner addresses the sufficiency of Patent Owner’s evidence, Petitioner has not persuasively demonstrated that the Office erred in evaluating this evidence. DD Opp. 21; Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). Rather, Petitioner merely disagrees with the Examiner’s treatment of the evidence without showing material error. DD Opp. 21–26. “If reasonable minds can disagree regarding the purported treatment of the art or arguments, it cannot be said that the Office erred in a manner material to patentability.” See Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 9. Under these circumstances, discretionary denial is appropriate.” slip op. at 2
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,275,092 - Hisense USA Corporation / Hisense Electronica Mexico S.A. De C.V. v. Videolabs, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00881 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a), declining to institute IPR.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsDecided for patent owner
“Other considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for twelve and eleven years, creating settled expectations for Patent Owner. DD Req. 1, 7–8. Patent Owner also provides evidence that the challenged patents have been licensed to over twenty companies. Id. at 4; Ex. 2002. In addition, Patent Owner provides evidence that it has been in contact with Petitioner since December 2022, when Patent Owner sent Petitioner a notice letter regarding Patent Owner’s patent portfolio. DD Req. 4–5, 9; Ex. 2004. Patent Owner 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00880. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00881, IPR2025-00882, and IPR2025-00883. specifically notified Petitioner about the challenged patents in June 2023, when Patent Owner provided Petitioner with a claim chart during licensing negotiations. DD Req. 9. Petitioner’s arguments regarding Patent Owner’s settled expectations are not persuasive, and Petitioner does not otherwise provide persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an appropriate use of Board resources. Dabico Airport Sols. Inc. v. AXA Power ApS, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025).” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In consideration of the foregoing, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial is granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,291,236 - Google LLC v. Advanced Coding Technologies LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-01000 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution under § 314(a), citing likely district court trial before the projected final written decision, settled expectations, and the holistic record.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is December 11, 2026. DD Req. 6 n.1. The district court’s scheduled trial date is March 2, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin between July 2026 and October 2026. Id. at 6–7; DD Opp. 45–48. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“In addition, the challenged patents have been in force for thirteen, seven, and six years, creating settled expectations for Patent Owner, and Petitioner does not provide persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an appropriate use of Board resources. Dabico Airport Sols. Inc. v. AXA Power ApS, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025). Additionally, Petitioner’s arguments that the Office made a material error during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 29–38.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for patent owner
“seven, and six years, creating settled expectations for Patent Owner, and Petitioner does not provide persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an appropriate use of Board resources. Dabico Airport Sols. Inc. v. AXA Power ApS, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025). Additionally, Petitioner’s arguments that the Office made a material error during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 29–38.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,218,995 - Belden Inc. / PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Commscope, Inc. Of North CarolinaInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00833 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution under § 314(a), finding discretionary denial appropriate based on a holistic assessment that included settled expectations and the prosecution search.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsDecided for patent owner
“Other considerations favor discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patent has been in force for nine years creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. DD Req. 2. Patent Owner provides evidence that the invention was commercialized at least seven years ago and is still on the market. Id. at 3; Ex. 2001; Ex. 2006. Patent Owner also provides evidence of patent marking of the commercialized product. DD Req. 3–4; Ex. 2001, 2. Finally, Patent Owner provides evidence that Petitioner has been aware of the challenged patent since at least 2022, showing where Petitioner cited the challenged patent in an unrelated inter partes review and an information disclosure statement. DD Req. 4.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Petitioner argues that the Examiner erred during prosecution by performing an incomplete search after being reversed on appeal. DD Opp. 22–23. In particular, Petitioner argues that the search was based on the Examiner’s prior claim construction and not the Board’s claim construction decided on appeal. Id. Thus, according to Petitioner, the Examiner should have performed “a targeted prior art search for bags made of a ‘flexible material’ consistent with the Board’s interpretation.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 19–20). This argument is unconvincing as the evidence of record indicates that the Examiner did perform a search for flexible bags and Petitioner does not sufficiently address why this search was inadequate. Ex. 1003, 20. Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petition is denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,266,697 - Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. VB Assets, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00868 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests and denied the petitions under § 314(a), instituting no trial based on the holistic assessment of the record.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsDecided for patent owner
“Other considerations, however, weigh in favor of discretionary denial. In particular, each of the challenged patents has been in force for more than ten years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. Additionally, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00866, IPR2025-00867,” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In consideration of the foregoing, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s requests for discretionary denial are granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,515,765 - Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. VB Assets, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00867 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution under § 314(a), citing settled expectations and prior adjudications of the challenged patents.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDecided for patent owner
“Other considerations, however, weigh in favor of discretionary denial. In particular, each of the challenged patents has been in force for more than ten years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. Additionally, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00866, IPR2025-00867,” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“and IPR2025-00869 have all been subject to previous adjudications. The patents challenged in IPR2025-00866, IPR2025-00867, and IPR2025-00869 were involved in prior Board proceedings. In those proceedings, the Board denied institution of two petitions and entered a final written decision finding the challenged claims not unpatentable in the third proceeding. DD Req. 12; see also IPR2025-00867, Paper 8, 11–12; IPR2025-00869, Paper 8, 12. The patents challenged in IPR2025-00866 and IPR2025-00867 were also subject to a prior district court proceeding, in which the patents were found not invalid. DD Req. 12; IPR2025-00867, Paper 8, 12. It is not an efficient use of Board resources to further consider petitions challenging patents that have already been subject to challenges before the Office or patents that already have had validity adjudicated either at the Board or in another tribunal. Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,818,176 - Walmart Inc. / Walmart Stores Texas, LLC v. Ravenwhite Security, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00810 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petition, finding Walmart time-barred and no exceptional circumstances justifying joinder.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barDecided for patent owner
“In particular, Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the challenged patent on September 15, 2023. DD Req. 12. Petitioner waited until March 28, 2025 to file this Petition, more than eighteen months later. Thus, Petitioner is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) from filing a petition. Petitioner seeks to join a recently instituted inter partes review filed by Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. Paper 3 (motion to join to IPR2024-01316). However, petitions filed by time-barred parties should proceed only in exceptional circumstances. Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc., IPR2025-00324, Paper 11 at 3 (Director June 25, 2025). Petitioner does not persuasively demonstrate exceptional circumstances here. For example, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner requested consolidation of its district court proceedings against Petitioner and Home Depot; that an initial district court proceeding was dismissed for standing, causing delays; and that the parallel district court proceeding is stayed. Paper 18, 3. However, Petitioner fails to persuasively demonstrate that these circumstances are exceptional and justify the joinder of a time-barred party. Accordingly, discretionary denial is appropriate under these circumstances.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“infringement of the challenged patent on September 15, 2023. DD Req. 12. Petitioner waited until March 28, 2025 to file this Petition, more than eighteen months later. Thus, Petitioner is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) from filing a petition. Petitioner seeks to join a recently instituted inter partes review filed by Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. Paper 3 (motion to join to IPR2024-01316). However, petitions filed by time-barred parties should proceed only in exceptional circumstances. Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc., IPR2025-00324, Paper 11 at 3 (Director June 25, 2025). Petitioner does not persuasively demonstrate exceptional circumstances here. For example, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner requested consolidation of its district court proceedings against Petitioner and Home Depot; that an initial district court proceeding was dismissed for standing, causing delays; and that the parallel district court proceeding is stayed. Paper 18, 3. However, Petitioner fails to persuasively demonstrate that these circumstances are exceptional and justify the joinder of a time-barred party. Accordingly, discretionary denial is appropriate under these circumstances.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petition is denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,594,823 - Regenx Science, Inc. v. Nextgen Biologics, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 31, 2025 · IPR2025-00621 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied the petitions under § 314(a); no trial was instituted.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“In particular, Petitioner obtained a field-of-use license to the challenged patents (or applications leading thereto) in 2017. DD Req. 40– 41; Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 6, 8. Petitioner also appears to have had the right to monitor and provide optional input in the prosecution of the challenged patents. DD Req. 41–42; Ex. 1087 ¶ 33.2 Petitioner filed the Petitions in these proceedings shortly after Patent Owner terminated the license. DD Req. 43; DD Opp. 3–4. Absent compelling circumstances, it is not an efficient use of Board resources where a party had the right to monitor and provide optional input in the prosecution of the challenged patents, and further licensed the patents, and then, as is the case here, now advocates for the unpatentability of those same patents. Additionally, Petitioner’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) are not persuasive, particularly considering Petitioner acknowledges that it’s “role” during prosecution of the challenged patent included “monitoring and occasional, optional input.” Ex. 1087 ¶ 33.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for patent owner
“challenged patents (or applications leading thereto) in 2017. DD Req. 40– 41; Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 6, 8. Petitioner also appears to have had the right to monitor and provide optional input in the prosecution of the challenged patents. DD Req. 41–42; Ex. 1087 ¶ 33.2 Petitioner filed the Petitions in these proceedings shortly after Patent Owner terminated the license. DD Req. 43; DD Opp. 3–4. Absent compelling circumstances, it is not an efficient use of Board resources where a party had the right to monitor and provide optional input in the prosecution of the challenged patents, and further licensed the patents, and then, as is the case here, now advocates for the unpatentability of those same patents. Additionally, Petitioner’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) are not persuasive, particularly considering Petitioner acknowledges that it’s “role” during prosecution of the challenged patent included “monitoring and occasional, optional input.” Ex. 1087 ¶ 33.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,660,376
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.