- Intel Corporation / Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 28, 2025 · IPR2025-00301 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of review for claims 1–11, 16, and 21 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial, and denied joinder.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“2026. This date is nearly five months prior to the date on which the final written decision would be due if trial were instituted in this proceeding. And, even if we assume Petitioner’s alleged February–March 2026 trial date, this date too is several months prior to the projected final written decision deadline. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding would issue before trial in the district court, unless the trial was delayed or rescheduled for a later time. Thus, we find this factor weighs in favor of exercising our discretion to deny institution. See ARM Ltd. v. Daedalus Prime LLC, IPR2025-00207, Paper 10 at 2 (May 16, 2025) (Before the Office of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office) (exercising discretion to deny institution with the same relative timing between district court trial and final written decision deadline).” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsNot reached
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Institution of inter partes review, however, is discretionary. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). For the reasons discussed below, we exercise discretion pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) not to institute inter partes review. Additionally, for the same reasons and because institution was denied in IPR2024-01248, we deny Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (“[T]he Director . . . may join as a party . . . any person who properly files a petition under section 311 that the Director . . . determines warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314.”).” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,814,071 - Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. F’Real Food, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 25, 2018 · IPR2017-00765 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Hamilton Beach’s rehearing request and maintained its denial of institution, citing follow-on petition concerns and its discretion under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“STANDARD OF REVIEW When reconsidering a decision on institution, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R § 42.71(c). “The burden of showing that a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). In its request for rehearing, the dissatisfied party must, in relevant part, “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768. We address Petitioner’s arguments with those principles in mind.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for patent owner
“The Board has discretion not to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech, Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“the PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board may authorize the review to proceed on all or some of the challenged claims and on all or some of the grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”). When exercising that discretion, the Board may take into account whether “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d); see Conopco, Inc. v. The Proctor & Gamble Co., Case IPR2014-00628, slip op. 5– 10 (PTAB October 20, 2014) (Paper 21) (declining to institute because substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Board). The issue of whether substantially the same arguments were raised previously in IPR2016-01105 arises in the present case. In addition, when determining whether to exercise our discretion not to institute a trial proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we seek to balance the equities between the parties, i.e., Petitioner’s desire to be heard against Patent Owner’s interest in avoiding harassment through repeated challenges. 5 Exhibit 1002 in IPR2016-01105. 6 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0189460 A1, filed April 11, 2002, published December 19, 2002, to Brown et al. (“Brown”). Exhibit 1003 in IPR2016-01105. See H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt.1, at 48 (2011) (post-grant proceedings conducted under the AIA “are not to be used as tools for harassment or a means to prevent market entry through repeated litigation and administrative attacks on the validity of a patent. Doing so would frustrate the purpose of the section as providing quick and cost effective alternatives to litigation.”). In circumstances such as the present case, the Board considers the potential inequity of a petitioner filing serial attacks against the same claims of a patent, while benefiting from patent owner’s arguments and/or the Board’s decision in prior cases. See, e.g., Nautilus Hyosung Inc. v. Diebold, Inc., Case IPR2017-00426 slip op. at 12–16 (PTAB June 22, 2017) (Paper 17) (citing Xactware Sols., Inc. v. Eagle View Techs., Inc., Case IPR2017-00034, slip op. at 6–11 (PTAB April 13, 2017) (Paper 9); Baker Hughes Inc. v. LiquidPower Specialty Prods., Inc., Case IPR2016-01896, slip op. at 9–11 (PTAB March 31, 2017) (Paper 10); Duk San Neolux Co., Ltd. v. Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd., Case IPR2017-00197, slip op. at 4–11 (PTAB March 31, 2017) (Paper 10); NVIDIA Corp. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Case IPR2016-00134, slip op. at 8 (PTAB May 4, 2016) (Paper 9); Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Sys., Inc., Case IPR2015- 01423, slip op. at 8 (PTAB Oct. 28, 2015) (Paper 7)); see also Conopco, Case IPR2014-00628, slip op. at 11–12. Therefore, we must balance the parties’ competing interests when determining whether to exercise our discretion and decline to institute. Id.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDecided for patent owner
“An important reason for denying institution in the instant proceeding was that Petitioner had the advantage of Patent Owner’s preliminary response in IPR2016-01105, as well as the claim construction and analysis set forth in the decision denying institution in that proceeding. That is, Petitioner had the benefit of that information in crafting the challenges set forth in the instant proceeding, and, thus, was able to address Patent Owner’s arguments made in its preliminary response in IPR2016-01105, as well as address the concerns of the Board set forth in the decision denying institution in IPR2016-01105. Consideration of these factors is consistent with the principles set forth in General Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, Case IPR2016-01357, 15−19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (Paper 19) (“General Plastics”) (designated precedential Oct. 18, 2017) (setting forth a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered in determining whether to institute a follow-on petition, including whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent, and whether, at the time of filing of the second petition, the petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary response to the first petition or received the Board’s decision on whether to institute review in the first petition). We noted further that Sato “was published nearly 30 years ago,” and Karkos issued on December 26, 2000. Dec. 11. We determined that Petitioner had not established that those references were not available to Petitioner when it filed the petition in IPR2016-01105. Id. We declined to provide a second chance merely because Petitioner’s “highly experienced searchers” did not find those references before the filing of the petition in IPR2015-01105. Id. (citing Pet. 6). That determination was another factor that informed our decision to exercise our discretion and decline to institute inter partes review in the instant proceeding. See, e.g., General Plastics at 16 (noting that other factors to be considered in granting a follow-on petition are whether at the time of filing of the first petition petitioner knew of the prior art asserted in the second petition or should have known of it, and whether the petitioner provides adequate explanation for the time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions directed to the same claims of the same patent). Finally, we noted that we were “troubled by the implications of Petitioner’s overarching premise – that it is cost-effective and appropriate to wait for a claim construction and institution decision by the Board, and then launch a follow-on patent challenge in reliance on additional references that challenge the same patent claims already addressed by the Board.” Dec. 13 (citing Pet. 7‒8). As noted in the Decision denying institution, however, “[s]uch tactics increase the costs to Patent Owner and impose unnecessary demands on the finite resources of the Board.” Id.; see, e.g., General Plastics at 16 (noting another factor to be considered is the finite resources of the Board).” slip op. at 7
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDecided for patent owner
“The Board has discretion not to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech, Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“the PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board may authorize the review to proceed on all or some of the challenged claims and on all or some of the grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”). When exercising that discretion, the Board may take into account whether “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d); see Conopco, Inc. v. The Proctor & Gamble Co., Case IPR2014-00628, slip op. 5– 10 (PTAB October 20, 2014) (Paper 21) (declining to institute because substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Board). The issue of whether substantially the same arguments were raised previously in IPR2016-01105 arises in the present case. In addition, when determining whether to exercise our discretion not to institute a trial proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we seek to balance the equities between the parties, i.e., Petitioner’s desire to be heard against Patent Owner’s interest in avoiding harassment through repeated challenges. 5 Exhibit 1002 in IPR2016-01105. 6 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0189460 A1, filed April 11, 2002, published December 19, 2002, to Brown et al. (“Brown”). Exhibit 1003 in IPR2016-01105. See H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt.1, at 48 (2011) (post-grant proceedings conducted under the AIA “are not to be used as tools for harassment or a means to prevent market entry through repeated litigation and administrative attacks on the validity of a patent. Doing so would frustrate the purpose of the section as providing quick and cost effective alternatives to litigation.”). In circumstances such as the present case, the Board considers the potential inequity of a petitioner filing serial attacks against the same claims of a patent, while benefiting from patent owner’s arguments and/or the Board’s decision in prior cases. See, e.g., Nautilus Hyosung Inc. v. Diebold, Inc., Case IPR2017-00426 slip op. at 12–16 (PTAB June 22, 2017) (Paper 17) (citing Xactware Sols., Inc. v. Eagle View Techs., Inc., Case IPR2017-00034, slip op. at 6–11 (PTAB April 13, 2017) (Paper 9); Baker Hughes Inc. v. LiquidPower Specialty Prods., Inc., Case IPR2016-01896, slip op. at 9–11 (PTAB March 31, 2017) (Paper 10); Duk San Neolux Co., Ltd. v. Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd., Case IPR2017-00197, slip op. at 4–11 (PTAB March 31, 2017) (Paper 10); NVIDIA Corp. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Case IPR2016-00134, slip op. at 8 (PTAB May 4, 2016) (Paper 9); Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Sys., Inc., Case IPR2015- 01423, slip op. at 8 (PTAB Oct. 28, 2015) (Paper 7)); see also Conopco, Case IPR2014-00628, slip op. at 11–12. Therefore, we must balance the parties’ competing interests when determining whether to exercise our discretion and decline to institute. Id.” slip op. at 5
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,520,658 - Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Smith International, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · IPR2016-01451 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution: it exercised discretion as to claims 43–46, 49, 50, 62–69, and 72, and found no reasonable likelihood of obviousness for claims 55–58.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under this chapter . . . the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” In light of § 325(d), we consider whether the reexamination contains the same or substantially the same art or arguments as presented in the Petition. Patent Owner argues that we should decline to institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because the Petition raises the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments that were presented previously to the Office. Prelim. Resp. 19–26. In particular, Patent Owner contends that each of the claims in the reexamination was rejected based on Eddison, under either 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and/or in combination with Jewkes under § 103(a), and that Petitioner relies upon Jewkes again under § 102(b) in its Petition. Id. at 23–26. Petitioner makes no attempt to explain why the references that form the bases for Petitioner’s challenge here are not the same or substantially similar prior art to that presented during the reexamination or why the arguments are not the same or substantially similar to those presented previously to the Office. Eddison and Jewkes were relied upon in the reexamination. See id. at 141–60 (Office Action (mailed Aug. 25, 2014)). Additionally, Tandberg was presented to the Office in conjunction with the original prosecution of the ’817 patent. See Ex. 2003; Prelim. Resp. 28.” slip op. at 9
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Patent Owner makes a valid point. Section 1.530(k) of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides: “Amendments not effective until certificate. Although the Office actions will treat proposed amendments as though they have been entered, the proposed amendments will not be effective until the reexamination certificate is issued and published.” This places us in a difficult position. If Patent Owner ultimately succeeds in the appeal of the reexamination, a certificate will issue and the amendments to claim 43 and its dependents will be “effective.” See id.; see Ex. 1007, 166 (showing the amendments to claim 43). Yet Petitioner provides no analysis of the amended limitations of claim 43. See, e.g., Pet. 16. Alternatively, if Patent Owner is unsuccessful in its appeal to the Federal Circuit, claim 43 and its dependents, as challenged in the reexamination, will be declared unpatentable. In either circumstance, any review we undertake of the unamended version of claim 43, and the claims depending therefrom, will be for naught. Accordingly, in light of the above circumstances, reviewing these claims on the record presented would waste judicial resources as well as the resources of the parties.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not articulated a clear reason as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Jewkes’s drilling assembly to include the additional structures taught by Tandberg and Eddison. We recognize that Petitioner points to Tandberg’s teaching that employing the same fundamental structure as an underreamer and as a stabilizer has an advantage, but Petitioner never explains what that advantage is or why it would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jewkes.5 Accordingly, on the record before us, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the combination of Jewkes, Tandberg, and Eddison would have rendered the subject matter of claims 55–58 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not found
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not articulated a clear reason as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Jewkes’s drilling assembly to include the additional structures taught by Tandberg and Eddison. We recognize that Petitioner points to Tandberg’s teaching that employing the same fundamental structure as an underreamer and as a stabilizer has an advantage, but Petitioner never explains what that advantage is or why it would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jewkes.5 Accordingly, on the record before us, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the combination of Jewkes, Tandberg, and Eddison would have rendered the subject matter of claims 55–58 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 12
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,732,817 - Daicel Corporation v. Celanese International CorporationRehearing grantedPTAB · Jun 26, 2015 · IPR2015-00171 · APJ Linda M Gaudette · IPR · Rehearing
Rehearing was granted in part, instituting review of claims 42–44, 47–51, 53, 55, and 56 for anticipation and claim 57 for obviousness.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted in part
“the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing that the decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Because Petitioner has shown Mr. Cooper’s testimony is supported by underlying factual evidence, and is not based solely on an unsupported assumption and the Miura Declaration, we determine Mr. Cooper’s testimony provides persuasive support for Petitioner’s contention that DME is inherently present in an overhead distillation stream of the ’095 patent process, and that claim 42 is anticipated by the ’095 patent. We have also reviewed the Petition’s analysis of dependent claims 43, 44, 47–51, 53, 55, and 56, and conclude Petitioner has provided sufficient explanation and evidence to support a reasonable likelihood that the additional limitations of these claims are described in the ’095 patent. See Pet. 27–35. In sum, at this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on the merits in showing claims 42–44, 47–51, 53, 55, and 56 are anticipated by the ’095 patent. Therefore, the Request for Rehearing is granted and trial is instituted as to this challenge.” slip op. at 5
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureReference is prior artInherency foundInstituted
“the Petition, and overlooked the fact that Mr. Cooper’s opinion is also based on his own calculations and data in two published articles. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 99. Specifically, Mr. Cooper approximates reactor DME equilibrium concentrations in the ’095 patent examples and explains how these approximations were obtained using readily available data, specifically identifying data in two published articles. Ex. 1003 ¶ 99 (citing Exs. 1029, 1030). Mr. Cooper goes on to explain why, based on the reactor contents and distillation conditions in the ’095 patent examples, DME and acetaldehyde would be present in the overhead distillation streams. Id. ¶¶ 101–102. Because Petitioner has shown Mr. Cooper’s testimony is supported by underlying factual evidence, and is not based solely on an unsupported assumption and the Miura Declaration, we determine Mr. Cooper’s testimony provides persuasive support for Petitioner’s contention that DME is inherently present in an overhead distillation stream of the ’095 patent process, and that claim 42 is anticipated by the ’095 patent. We have also reviewed the Petition’s analysis of dependent claims 43, 44, 47–51, 53, 55, and 56, and conclude Petitioner has provided sufficient explanation and evidence to support a reasonable likelihood that the additional limitations of these claims are described in the ’095 patent. See Pet. 27–35. In sum, at this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on the merits in showing claims 42–44, 47–51, 53, 55, and 56 are anticipated by the ’095 patent. Therefore, the Request for Rehearing is granted and trial is instituted as to this challenge.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not found
“terms, and we agree, for purposes of this decision, that claim 42 does not require a specific quantity of DME in the distillation overhead. We do not agree with Petitioner, however, that the Singh and ’507 patent disclosures are identical with respect to the addition of water to distillation column 22. As indicated in our Decision, both Singh and the ’507 patent describe adding small amounts of water to column 22 for the purpose of inhibiting impurity formation. See Dec. 5–6. The ’507 patent, however, includes additional description of adding water to column 22 for the purpose of producing DME in the distillation overhead. See id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1002, col. 11). This additional description of adding water to produce DME in the distillation overhead does not refer back to the description of adding water as an inhibitor (see Ex. 1002, 10:9–32), or otherwise indicate that the small amounts of water used to inhibit impurity formation in the ’507 patent and Singh processes would produce DME in a distillation overhead. In addition, for the reasons explained in our Decision (Dec. 25–26), Petitioner has not persuaded us that the prosecution history of the ’507 patent includes an admission by Patent Owner that the addition of any amount of water to the distillation step would result in DME in an overhead stream. See Req. Reh’g 10. In sum, Petitioner has not convinced us that our Decision was based on an erroneous claim interpretation or that we overlooked evidence that the addition of any amount of water in the steps common to the Singh and the ’507 patent processes would necessarily result in the presence of DME in a distillation overhead. With respect to Petitioner’s assertions regarding Akinori, we note the Petition relied on Akinori as evidence that DME was necessarily produced in the ’095 patent process. See Pet. 43. Petitioner did not explain how Akinori was relevant to show the presence of DME in the distillation overhead of Singh. For the above reasons, the Request for Rehearing is denied as to the challenge based on Singh in view of the ’095 patent and Akinori.” slip op. at 7
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,076,507
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.