• Micron Technology, Inc. / Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. v. Palisade Technologies, LLPInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-01009 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests and denied the petitions; no trial was instituted under § 314(a).

  RulingsDirector review decision

  • Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied

    “Some considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately twelve and nine 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” 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 requests for discretionary denial are granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,281,314
• Micron Technology, Inc. / Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. v. Palisade Technologies, LLPInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-01008 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review

  The Director denied institution of IPR on the challenged patents under § 314(a), citing settled expectations and the holistic assessment of the parties’ arguments and evidence.

  RulingsDirector review decision

  • Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied

    “Some considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately twelve and nine 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 2 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-01008. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-01009. during prosecution are not persuasive. Under these circumstances, discretionary denial is appropriate.” 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 requests for discretionary denial are granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,327,051
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Telcom Ventures LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00978 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · 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

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied

    “In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is December 10, 2026.3 DD Req. 13. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 1, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by October 2026. Id.; DD. Opp. 17. 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. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Further, Petitioner’s argument that the patent examiner committed “multiple errors” during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 7–12.” slip op. at 2

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “After considering the parties’ arguments and the record, and in view of all relevant considerations, discretionary denial of institution is appropriate in these proceedings. This determination is based on the totality of the evidence and arguments the parties have presented.” slip op. at 2

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 12,028,793
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Telcom Ventures LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00977 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a); no trial was instituted.

  RulingsDirector review decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied

    “In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is December 10, 2026.3 DD Req. 13. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 1, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by October 2026. Id.; DD. Opp. 17. 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. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Further, Petitioner’s argument that the patent examiner committed “multiple errors” during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 7–12.” slip op. at 2

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “After considering the parties’ arguments and the record, and in view of all relevant considerations, discretionary denial of institution is appropriate in these proceedings. This determination is based on the totality of the evidence and arguments the parties have presented. In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is December 10, 2026.3 DD Req. 13. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 1, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by October 2026. Id.; DD. Opp. 17. 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. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Further, Petitioner’s argument that the patent examiner committed “multiple errors” during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 7–12.” slip op. at 2

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,770,756
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Telcom Ventures LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00975 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a), citing likely district-court trial before the final written decision and other considerations.

  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 10, 2026.3 DD Req. 13. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 1, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by October 2026. Id.; DD. Opp. 17. 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. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Further, Petitioner’s argument that the patent examiner committed “multiple errors” during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 7–12.” 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

  • Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied

    “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 denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,832,708
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Telcom Ventures LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00974 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied the Petitions without instituting trial under § 314(a), citing likely district court trial and insufficient examiner-error arguments.

  RulingsDirector review decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is December 10, 2026.3 DD Req. 13. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 1, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by October 2026. Id.; DD. Opp. 17. 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. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Further, Petitioner’s argument that the patent examiner committed “multiple errors” during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 7–12.” 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). 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

  • Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied

    “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 denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,674,432
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Telcom Ventures LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00972 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · 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

  • 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 10, 2026.3 DD Req. 13. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 1, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by October 2026. Id.; DD. Opp. 17. 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. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Further, Petitioner’s argument that the patent examiner committed “multiple errors” during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 7–12.” slip op. at 2

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied

    “of all relevant considerations, discretionary denial of institution is appropriate in these proceedings. This determination is based on the totality of the evidence and arguments the parties have presented.” slip op. at 2

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,219,199
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Telcom Ventures LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00976 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the Petitions under § 314(a), instituting no trial based on the holistic assessment of the record.

  RulingsDirector review decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied

    “In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is December 10, 2026.3 DD Req. 13. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 1, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by October 2026. Id.; DD. Opp. 17. 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. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Further, Petitioner’s argument that the patent examiner committed “multiple errors” during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 7–12.” 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).” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,924,743
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Telcom Ventures LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00957 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a), declining to institute review.

  RulingsDirector review decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is December 10, 2026.3 DD Req. 13. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 1, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by October 2026. Id.; DD. Opp. 17. 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. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Further, Petitioner’s argument that the patent examiner committed “multiple errors” during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 7–12.” 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). 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 denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,937,172
• Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. VB Assets, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00870 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests and denied the petitions under § 314(a), declining to institute IPR.

  RulingsDirector review decision

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is December 10, 2026. DD Req. 19. The district court’s scheduled trial date is July 6, 2026, and the parties offer different time-to-trial statistics that suggest trial will begin between June 2026 and December 2026. DD Req. 19–20; DD Opp. 20. 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. Although the time-to-trial statistics suggest that it is possible that a trial might occur before the projected final written decision due date, the difference in timing is not significant. Thus, even though a district court trial date that occurs after a projected final written decision date reduces the possibility of conflicting decisions, that benefit does not outweigh the efficiencies gained by avoiding parallel proceedings under these circumstances. Additionally, there are six patents at issue in the parallel district court proceeding, the two patents challenged in these proceedings and four patents 2 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00870. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00871. challenged in other petitions filed by Petitioner, in which institution was denied. See IPR2025-00866, Paper 13; IPR2025-00867, Paper 13; IPR2025- 00868, Paper 13; IPR2025-00869, Paper 13. In view of this, Patent Owner persuasively argues that addressing all of the challenged patents in the district court proceeding would be “the fastest and most efficient resolution of the Parties’ many disputes.” DD Req. 17. 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 2

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,755,699

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.