- Treasure Garden, Inc. v. Atleisure, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 3, 2025 · IPR2025-01006 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution under § 314(a), granting Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests based on a holistic assessment that included settled expectations and prior challenges.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“Other considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patent has been in force for over thirteen years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. In addition, Patent Owner presents evidence that the challenged patent is known in the industry, as Patent Owner has sold “hundreds of thousands of patented umbrellas,” and has also licensed the challenged patent “nearly thirty times to industry participants.” DD Req. 14; Ex. 2002. Patent Owner has also asserted the challenged patent in four prior district court lawsuits. DD Req. 14–15. Further, the challenged patent was the subject of a previous inter partes review, and the Board denied institution after determining that the petition did not present a reasonable likelihood that a challenged claim was” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“particular, the challenged patent has been in force for over thirteen years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. In addition, Patent Owner presents evidence that the challenged patent is known in the industry, as Patent Owner has sold “hundreds of thousands of patented umbrellas,” and has also licensed the challenged patent “nearly thirty times to industry participants.” DD Req. 14; Ex. 2002. Patent Owner has also asserted the challenged patent in four prior district court lawsuits. DD Req. 14–15. Further, the challenged patent was the subject of a previous inter partes review, and the Board denied institution after determining that the petition did not present a reasonable likelihood that a challenged claim was 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-01005. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-01006. 00430, Paper 7 (PTAB July 12, 2021) (decision denying institution). In these proceedings, Petitioner relies on some of the same art raised in the earlier proceeding which the Board denied on the merits. DD Req. 9. Even absent road mapping, prior challenges weigh against institution.” 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. Some considerations counsel against discretionary denial. For example, there is no trial date set for the parallel district court proceeding involving Petitioner and Patent Owner. DD Opp. 2. There is also a pending motion to stay the district court proceeding, and Petitioner provides evidence that the district court is likely to grant the motion should these Board proceedings be instituted. Id. at 8–9.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,104,492 - Flsmidth Inc. v. Metso Finland OYInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 3, 2025 · IPR2025-00985 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of FLSmidth’s IPR petition under § 314(a), relying on settled expectations, unpersuasive prosecution-error arguments, and the totality of the circumstances.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“Other considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patent has been in force for over eight 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. 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 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“particular, the challenged patent has been in force for over eight 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.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“of all relevant considerations, discretionary denial of institution is appropriate in this proceeding. This determination is based on the totality of the evidence and arguments the parties have presented.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,518,604 - Maplebear Inc. D/B/A Instacart v. Fall Line Patents, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00958 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request, denied the petition, and declined to institute IPR based on parallel litigation, settled expectations, and road mapping concerns.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“The projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is December 12, 2026. Patent Owner has not asserted the challenged patent against Petitioner in district court, but Patent Owner has asserted the challenged patent against Petitioner’s customers.2 DD Req. 5–6; DD Opp. 2–3. For the district court proceeding involving Patent Owner and Petitioner’s customers, the scheduled trial date is July 27, 2026, and time-totrial statistics suggest trial would begin by October 2026. DD Req. 5. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before the district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense, and a risk of inconsistent decisions.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“Additionally, the challenged patent has been in force for approximately 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).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“Further, the challenged patent has been the subject of multiple proceedings before the Board, and this is the second petition challenging claim 7. DD Req. 2; DD Opp. 1–2, 9. In the prior proceeding involving claim 7, the Board entered a final written decision finding that the petitioner did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 7 of the challenged patent would have been obvious over Barbosa3 and Falls.4 DD Req. 3; Starbucks Corp. v. Fall Line Patents, LLC, IPR2019-00610, Paper 42 at 34 (PTAB May 17, 2022) (final decision on remand). In this proceeding, Petitioner relies on Barbosa and Falls, and states that its “challenges here address the precise elements that prevented invalidation of Claim 7 in earlier proceedings.” DD Opp. 9; see also id. at 3 (arguing that “the Petition squarely addresses the deficiency identified by the Board in the prior IPR challenging claim 7”). Petitioner’s admission raises concerns of road mapping and weighs in favor of discretionary denial. See Amazon Web Servs., Inc. v. Croga Innovations, Ltd., IPR2025-00884, Paper 9 at 2 (Director Sept. 3, 2025).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialInstitution 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). In consideration of the foregoing, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial is granted; and 3 U.S. Patent No. 6,961,586 B2, issued Nov. 1, 2005 (Ex. 1005). 4 U.S. Patent No. 5,991,771, issued Nov. 23, 1999 (Ex. 1006). FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,454,748 - Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v. Payrange LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 19, 2025 · IPR2025-00950 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), citing the third petition, prior merits denials, road-mapping concerns, and settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“Other considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. In particular, this is the third petition involving the challenged patent. Both of the prior petitions were denied based on the merits. See Kiosoft Techs., LLC v. PayRange Inc., PGR2021-00084, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 16, 2021) (“Kiosoft PGR”); CSC ServiceWorks, Inc. v. PayRange Inc., IPR2023-01188 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2024). Petitioner states that it “relies on the same reference, Breitenbach, as a primary reference for both of its grounds of invalidity” that was used in the Kiosoft PGR. DD Opp. 4. Petitioner further states that “the present Petition addresses and cures any purported deficiencies with Breitenbach by relying on additional references Brown and Kaspar.” DD Opp. 36. Petitioner’s admission raises concerns of road mapping and weighs in favor of discretionary denial. See Amazon Web Servs., Inc. v. Croga Innovations, Ltd., IPR2025-00884, Paper 9, at 2 (Director Sept. 3, 2025).” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsDenied
“In addition, although the challenged patent has not been in force for a significant period of time (issued in 2021), Patent Owner presents evidence that it has licensed the challenged patent, which creates some settled expectations favoring Patent Owner. DD Req. 3. The considerations favoring discretionary denial outweigh those that counsel against it.” slip op. at 3
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“example, the co-pending district court litigation was stayed on September 10, 2025. See Ex. 1026. As such, it is likely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before district court trial occurs.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,891,608 - Amazon Web Services, Inc. v. Croga Innovations, Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 3, 2025 · IPR2025-00884 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial, denied the petition under § 314(a), and instituted no trial.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“However, this is the fourth petition for inter partes review involving the challenged patent. One petition was voluntarily dismissed prior to institution, and in the other two the Board denied institution on the merits. See Fortinet v. Croga Innovations Ltd., IPR2025-00086, Paper 9 at 20–21 (PTAB Mar. 27, 2025); Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Croga Innovations Ltd., IPR2024- 01196, Paper 7 at 17, 21 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2025). Here, Petitioner states that its Petition “addresses the precise deficiency identified by the Board in denying the earlier petitions.” DD Opp. 13. Petitioner’s admission raises concerns of roadmaping and weighs in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“Furthermore, an ex parte reexamination has been ordered on the challenged patent, and the Office has issued a final rejection on the challenged claims. DD Opp. 2; Ex. 2003. It is not an appropriate use of Office resources to review a patent in two separate, concurrent Office proceedings, especially when the reexamination is in an advanced stage. Accordingly, discretionary denial is appropriate. 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 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,601,780 - Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 3, 2025 · IPR2025-00863 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR of the challenged patent under § 314(a), citing settled expectations, repeated prior challenges, and insufficiently tailored national-security arguments.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“Other considerations weigh in favor of discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patent has been in force for approximately six years, creating settled expectations for Patent Owner. Additionally, the” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied
“1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00862. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00863. 2 Petitioner filed motions for joinder to IPR2025-00794 and IPR2025-00795, respectively; however, those proceedings have been denied institution. As such, this decision will address the discretionary considerations for these Petitions on their own. challenged patent was involved in two prior Board proceedings. In those prior proceedings, the Board denied institution finding that the petitions did not present a reasonable likelihood that a challenged claim was unpatentable. Paper 12, 3; NVIDIA Corp. v. Advanced Cluster Sys., Inc., IPR2021-00019, Paper 9 (PTAB May 5, 2021) (decision denying institution); NVIDIA Corp. v. Advanced Cluster Sys., Inc., IPR2021-00020, Paper 9 (PTAB May 5, 2021) (decision denying institution). Even absent road mapping, repeated prior challenges weigh against institution.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Petitioner also argues that national security interests weigh against discretionary denial. DD Opp. 2–6. In particular, Petitioner states that its products “are at the heart of AI, supercomputers, and healthcare applications—all technologies recognized by the U.S. government as vital to the country.” Id. at 2. Petitioner, however, does not explain in sufficient detail why review of the challenged patents is in the interest of national security. That is, Petitioner’s arguments are not narrowly-tailored towards particular products, and Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how national security interests warrant review of the specific patents challenged in these proceedings. 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 10,333,768 - Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 3, 2025 · IPR2025-00862 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution of the petitions under § 314(a), citing settled expectations, prior challenges, and insufficiently tailored national security arguments.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsDenied
“Other considerations weigh in favor of discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patent has been in force for approximately six years, creating settled expectations for Patent Owner. Additionally, the” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00862. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00863. 2 Petitioner filed motions for joinder to IPR2025-00794 and IPR2025-00795, respectively; however, those proceedings have been denied institution. As such, this decision will address the discretionary considerations for these Petitions on their own. challenged patent was involved in two prior Board proceedings. In those prior proceedings, the Board denied institution finding that the petitions did not present a reasonable likelihood that a challenged claim was unpatentable. Paper 12, 3; NVIDIA Corp. v. Advanced Cluster Sys., Inc., IPR2021-00019, Paper 9 (PTAB May 5, 2021) (decision denying institution); NVIDIA Corp. v. Advanced Cluster Sys., Inc., IPR2021-00020, Paper 9 (PTAB May 5, 2021) (decision denying institution). Even absent road mapping, repeated prior challenges weigh against institution.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aDenied
“Petitioner also argues that national security interests weigh against discretionary denial. DD Opp. 2–6. In particular, Petitioner states that its products “are at the heart of AI, supercomputers, and healthcare applications—all technologies recognized by the U.S. government as vital to the country.” Id. at 2. Petitioner, however, does not explain in sufficient detail why review of the challenged patents is in the interest of national security. That is, Petitioner’s arguments are not narrowly-tailored towards particular products, and Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how national security interests warrant review of the specific patents challenged in these proceedings. 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 10,333,768 - Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 3, 2025 · IPR2025-00761 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution under § 314(a) because the same art was previously presented and Petitioner did not show Office error.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“particular, three of the four references relied on in the Petition were cited by the patent examiner during prosecution of the challenged patent, and the fourth reference was cited by the applicant. DD Req. 21–24. Thus, the same prior art was previously presented to the Office. DD Opp. 19; 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Petitioner, however, has not demonstrated that the Office erred in evaluating this art. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). Petitioner merely asserts that the Petition “details how the references disclose every element of every claim.” DD Opp. 19. This assertion alone is insufficient to demonstrate material error by the Office. Ecto World LLC v. Rai Strategic Holdings Inc., IPR2024-01280, Paper 13 at 5 (PTAB May 19, 2025) (precedential). Under these circumstances, discretionary denial is appropriate.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“Although the parties are engaged in a parallel proceeding involving the challenged patent, it is unclear whether a final written decision in this proceeding will issue after the district court trial occurs. The projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is November 19, 2026. See DD Req. 4. The district court’s scheduled trial date is October 26, 2026, but the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in September 2027. DD Opp. 1. As such, these considerations neither favor nor counsel against discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 12,019,461 - Zhuhai Cosmx Battery Co., Ltd. v. Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 3, 2025 · IPR2025-00722 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR2025-00722 under §314(a), citing the repeat challenge to the same patent and Petitioner’s lower ranking of this petition.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied
“IPR2025-00722 presents different circumstances. The Petition in IPR2025-00722 is the second petition filed by Petitioner against U.S. Patent No. 11,799,131, which is also the subject of IPR2025-00431. Repeat challenges weigh against institution. In addition, Petitioner ranks the 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00524. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00722. petition in IPR2025-00431 above the Petition in IPR2025-00722. See IPR2025-00722, Paper 3, 5. These considerations favor discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,799,131 - Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00141 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under §325(d), finding the petition relied on previously presented art and did not show material error by the Office.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“The Board uses a two-part framework in determining whether to exercise its discretion under § 325(d), specifically: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“single §102 rejection based solely on Nishida.” Pet. § 325(d) Reply 3 (emphasis omitted). Specifically, Petitioner argues that: The examiner seemingly failed to consider how it would have been obvious to combine Nishida (or any other reference of record, such as Orei) with knowledge in the art, including the fact that it was “well known to use double needle-bar raschel machines . . . to knit textile elements simultaneously with surrounding textile structures” (Pet., 37–38), and that simultaneous knitting would be obvious because it would “increase yield and reduce manufacturing steps,” as explained in the Petition and supporting evidence. See Pet., 42–44. Id. (alterations in original); see also id. at 4 (Petitioner arguing that the Examiner clearly erred for “failing to seemingly even consider if it would 10 We quote here, to give context to “otherwise,” both aspects that a petitioner must demonstrate in order to meet its burden. In order to determine whether Petitioner has met its overall burden, we need not and do not reach the issue of whether “the previously presented art [Nishida] teaches the limitations of the challenged claims.” Ecto World, Paper 13 at 6. have been obvious to combine Nishida with other prior art, or to implement Nishida using well-known techniques for simultaneously knitting textile elements and surrounding structures having differing textures.”). We do not find this argument persuasive. The cited portion of the Petition is the contention that Orei—not Nishida—would render obvious claim 1. See Pet. 37–38, 42–44 (Ground 1A). Thus, Petitioner has not shown persuasively that the Examiner erred in not making an obviousness rejection based on Nishida because the disputed limitation was purportedly well-known. Additionally, Petitioner’s support for the assertion that this limitation is well-known is not persuasive. The Petition parenthetically quotes from a source stating that plural “articles . . . can be simultaneously knitted side-by-side,” not that an article (a textile element) and surrounding textile structure are known to be simultaneously knitted. See Pet. 38 (quoting Ex. 1050, 201) (emphasis added); see also Pet. § 325(d) Reply 3 (Petitioner quoting its own argument and characterizing it as a “fact” (“The examiner seemingly failed to consider . . . the fact that it was ‘well known . . . “)).” slip op. at 21
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,266,749
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.