- Oracle Corporation v. Virtamove, Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00982 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), based on a holistic assessment of the evidence and arguments.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“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
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingNot reached
“Petitioner requests joinder of the above-captioned cases to other proceedings previously subject to discretionary denial of institution. For example, Petitioner requests joinder of IPR2025-00964, IPR2025-00965, IPR2025-00981, and IPR2025-00982 to proceedings denied institution in Google, LLC v. Virtamove, Corp., IPR2025-00487, Paper 11 (Director July 11, 2025). See IPR2025-00964, Paper 4. Similarly, Petitioner requests joinder of IPR2025-00966, IPR2025-01001, and IPR2025-01002 to proceedings denied institution in Amazon.com, Inc. v. Virtamove, Corp., IPR2025-00561, Paper 9 (Director July 11, 2025). See IPR2025-00966, Paper 4.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,784,058 - Oracle Corporation v. Virtamove, Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00981 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests and denied the Petitions under § 314(a), instituting no trial.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“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
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingNot reached
“Petitioner requests joinder of the above-captioned cases to other proceedings previously subject to discretionary denial of institution. For example, Petitioner requests joinder of IPR2025-00964, IPR2025-00965, IPR2025-00981, and IPR2025-00982 to proceedings denied institution in Google, LLC v. Virtamove, Corp., IPR2025-00487, Paper 11 (Director July 11, 2025). See IPR2025-00964, Paper 4. Similarly, Petitioner requests joinder of IPR2025-00966, IPR2025-01001, and IPR2025-01002 to proceedings denied institution in Amazon.com, Inc. v. Virtamove, Corp., IPR2025-00561, Paper 9 (Director July 11, 2025). See IPR2025-00966, Paper 4. The above-captioned cases presents the same discretionary considerations at those presented in IPR2025-00487 and IPR2025- 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00964. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00965, IPR2025-00966, IPR2025-00981, IPR2025-00982, IPR2025-01001, and IPR2025-01002. 00561. See, e.g., IPR2025-00487, Paper 9; IPR2025-00561, Paper 9. Accordingly, that analysis is incorporated here.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,784,058 - Oracle Corporation v. Virtamove, Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00966 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests and denied the petitions, so no inter partes review was instituted.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aDenied
“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
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingNot reached
“Petitioner requests joinder of the above-captioned cases to other proceedings previously subject to discretionary denial of institution. For example, Petitioner requests joinder of IPR2025-00964, IPR2025-00965, IPR2025-00981, and IPR2025-00982 to proceedings denied institution in Google, LLC v. Virtamove, Corp., IPR2025-00487, Paper 11 (Director July 11, 2025). See IPR2025-00964, Paper 4. Similarly, Petitioner requests joinder of IPR2025-00966, IPR2025-01001, and IPR2025-01002 to proceedings denied institution in Amazon.com, Inc. v. Virtamove, Corp., IPR2025-00561, Paper 9 (Director July 11, 2025). See IPR2025-00966, Paper 4. The above-captioned cases presents the same discretionary considerations at those presented in IPR2025-00487 and IPR2025-” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,784,058 - Rec Solar Holdings As v. Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00595 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), citing the district-court trial schedule and little efficiency from joinder.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“First, the projected final written decision due date for each of these proceedings is October 17, 2026. DD Req. 6. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 1, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in June 2026. Id. at 6–7. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00592. Patent Owner filed similar papers in IPR2025-00593, IPR2025-00594, and IPR2025-00595. 2 In IPR2025-00593, Petitioner filed a motion for joinder to IPR2024-01040. In IPR2025-00594, Petitioner filed a motion for joinder to IPR2024-01038. In IPR2025-00595, Petitioner filed a motion for joinder to IPR2024-01194. parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. This weighs strongly in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingNot reached
“Petitioner filed the Petition and an accompanying motion for joinder to IPR2024-01039, a proceeding that the Board instituted on January 14, 2025. Canadian Solar Inc. v. Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., IPR2024-01039, Paper 13 (PTAB Jan. 14, 2025).2 The Board first determines whether to institute a proceeding before considering a motion for joinder. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). Accordingly, discretionary considerations are first reviewed for the Petition on its own, and then reviewed if joinder were to be granted.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,251,315 - Rec Solar Holdings As v. Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00592 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · 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 fintivDenied
“First, the projected final written decision due date for each of these proceedings is October 17, 2026. DD Req. 6. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 1, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in June 2026. Id. at 6–7. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00592. Patent Owner filed similar papers in IPR2025-00593, IPR2025-00594, and IPR2025-00595. 2 In IPR2025-00593, Petitioner filed a motion for joinder to IPR2024-01040. In IPR2025-00594, Petitioner filed a motion for joinder to IPR2024-01038. In IPR2025-00595, Petitioner filed a motion for joinder to IPR2024-01194. parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. This weighs strongly in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“01039, the proceeding that Petitioner seeks to join, is January 14, 2026. As such, it is likely that a final written decision will issue before the district court trial occurs. This is true for all of the proceedings Petitioner seeks to join, and generally counsels against discretionary denial. However, given that the present proceedings would not be instituted in the absence of the proceedings Petitioner seeks to join, there are little to no efficiencies to be gained by joining Petitioner to the proceedings already in progress. 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
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingNot reached
“Petitioner filed the Petition and an accompanying motion for joinder to IPR2024-01039, a proceeding that the Board instituted on January 14, 2025. Canadian Solar Inc. v. Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., IPR2024-01039, Paper 13 (PTAB Jan. 14, 2025).2 The Board first determines whether to institute a proceeding before considering a motion for joinder. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). Accordingly, discretionary considerations are first reviewed for the Petition on its own, and then reviewed if joinder were to be granted.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,222,516 - Ultrahuman Healthcare PVT. Ltd / Ultrahuman Healthcare SP LLC et al. v. Ouraring, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00411 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied institution under § 314(a), citing the ITC’s progress and the parties’ investment.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“is July 29, 2026. See Paper 6. The International Trade Commission (“ITC”) has conducted a full evidentiary hearing, issued an initial determination, and set a target date for August 18, 2025. Ex. 2005, 3. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before the conclusion of the ITC investigation. Furthermore, there has been substantial investment by the parties in the ITC proceeding. DD Req. 7–10. These considerations favor discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingNot reached
“to, or consolidation with, PGR2024-00030, a proceeding that the Board instituted on December 6, 2024. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd. v. Ouraring, Inc., PGR2024-00030, Paper 9 at 29 (PTAB Dec. 6, 2024). The Board first determines whether to institute a proceeding before considering a motion for joinder or whether to consolidate proceedings. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). Accordingly, discretionary considerations are first reviewed for the Petition on its own, and then reviewed if joined or consolidated.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,868,178 - Sportradar AG v. Sportscastr Inc. (D/B/A Panda Interactive)Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00268 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied institution under § 314(a), citing the district court’s earlier trial date and investment in that proceeding.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“trial date is January 23, 2026. Id. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision will issue before the district court trial occurs. Furthermore, the parties have made meaningful investment in the district court proceeding. For example, a Markman hearing was held on May 9, 2025, and fact discovery is scheduled to close in August 2025. Id. at 13; DD Req. 6. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. DD Opp. 6– 7. These considerations favor discretionary denial.” slip op. at 3
- 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 Petition is denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingNot reached
“Petitioner filed the Petition and an accompanying motion for joinder to IPR2024-01308, a proceeding that the Board instituted on March 6, 2025. Genius Sports Ltd. v. SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive), IPR2024-01308, Paper 9 at 61 (PTAB Mar. 6, 2025). 2 The Board first determines whether to institute a proceeding before considering a motion for joinder. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). Accordingly, discretionary considerations are first reviewed for the Petition on its own, and then reviewed if joinder were to be granted.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,805,687 - Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. Parkervision, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00324 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted ParkerVision’s request for discretionary denial and denied institution of IPR because Realtek was time-barred and presented no exceptional circumstance for joinder.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“above. Although § 315(b) permits time-barred parties to file a petition when seeking joinder under § 315(c) (see DD Opp. 18–19), the Office may consider whether it is fair to permit a time-barred party to join an ongoing proceeding when determining whether to exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Petitions filed by time-barred parties should proceed only in exceptional circumstances. Realtek does not present an exceptional circumstance here. ParkerVision’s persuasive fairness arguments due to Realtek being a time-barred party favor exercising discretion to deny institution. DD Req. 17–20. 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
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barDecided for patent owner
“Req. 17–20. ParkerVision served a patent infringement complaint asserting U.S. Patent No. 7,865,177 B2 (“the ʼ177 patent”) against Realtek on September 28, 2023. Id. at 3–4. ParkerVision also filed infringement actions against Texas Instruments, Incorporated (“TI”) and NXP Semiconductors N.V. (“NXP”). Id. On May 18, 2024, TI filed a petition for inter partes review of the ʼ177 patent. Id. at 4. On June 20, 2024, NXP filed a copycat petition and a request to join the TI proceeding. Id. On November 26, 2024, the Board issued a decision granting institution of TI’s petition, and on December 19, 2024, the Board granted NXP’s petition and request to join the TI proceeding. DD Req. 5. On December 24, 2024, Realtek filed a copycat petition and motion to join the TI proceeding. Id. Realtek’s statutory deadline to file a petition, however, expired on September 28, 2024, i.e., one year after service of the complaint. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Accordingly, Realtek is time-barred from filing a petition under § 315(b).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingNot reached
“above. Although § 315(b) permits time-barred parties to file a petition when seeking joinder under § 315(c) (see DD Opp. 18–19), the Office may consider whether it is fair to permit a time-barred party to join an ongoing proceeding when determining whether to exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Petitions filed by time-barred parties should proceed only in exceptional circumstances. Realtek does not present an exceptional circumstance here. ParkerVision’s persuasive fairness arguments due to Realtek being a time-barred party favor exercising discretion to deny institution. DD Req. 17–20.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,865,177
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.