- Microsoft Corporation v. Sandpiper CDN, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 15, 2026 · IPR2026-00190 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of Microsoft’s IPR petition based on settled expectations and § 325(d), finding no material Office error in its consideration of the prior art.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“challenged patent has been in “force for over nine years.” DD Req. 10. Patent Owner argues that, over that time period, it developed settled expectations that the patent is valid and enforceable. See Dabico Airport Sols. Inc. v. Axa Power Aps, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025). Patent Owner’s settled expectations favor discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“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.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 9; see Ecto World, LLC v. RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., IPR2024-01280, Paper 13 at 6 (Director May 19, 2025) (precedential) (“Ecto World”). Petitioner’s argument is a general disagreement with the patent examiner’s position and does not set forth an error material to the patentability of the challenged claims. slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,456,053 - 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 - Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v. Solmetex, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-01059 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests and denied the petitions, declining to institute IPR under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“Other considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. In particular, Patent Owner persuasively demonstrates that Petitioner relies on references that were considered extensively by the patent examiner during prosecution of the challenged patent, cited by the Patent Owner during the prosecution, or cumulative thereto. DD Req. 6–29. Petitioner does not 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-01020. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-01057 and IPR2025-01059. persuasively rebut Patent Owner’s arguments that the same prior art was previously presented to the Office. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Nor has Petitioner persuasively 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). Rather, Petitioner merely disagrees with the Examiner’s treatment of the art without showing clear error. DD Opp. 11–17. “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. Petitioner’s assertion is insufficient to demonstrate material error by the Office. Under these circumstances, discretionary denial is appropriate.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aDenied
“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) and 325(d). 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
- 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) and 325(d). 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 11,744,686 - Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v. Solmetex, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-01057 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR, finding discretionary denial appropriate under §§ 314(a) and 325(d) because the petition relied on previously considered or cumulative art and did not show material Office error.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“particular, Patent Owner persuasively demonstrates that Petitioner relies on references that were considered extensively by the patent examiner during prosecution of the challenged patent, cited by the Patent Owner during the prosecution, or cumulative thereto. DD Req. 6–29. Petitioner does not 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-01020. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-01057 and IPR2025-01059. persuasively rebut Patent Owner’s arguments that the same prior art was previously presented to the Office. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Nor has Petitioner persuasively 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). Rather, Petitioner merely disagrees with the Examiner’s treatment of the art without showing clear error. DD Opp. 11–17. “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. Petitioner’s assertion is insufficient to demonstrate material error by the Office. Under these circumstances, discretionary denial is appropriate.” 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) and 325(d). 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 11,589,970 - Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v. Solmetex, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-01020 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR on the challenged petitions under §§ 314(a) and 325(d), finding the prior art was previously considered and no material Office error was shown.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“particular, Patent Owner persuasively demonstrates that Petitioner relies on references that were considered extensively by the patent examiner during prosecution of the challenged patent, cited by the Patent Owner during the prosecution, or cumulative thereto. DD Req. 6–29. Petitioner does not 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-01020. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-01057 and IPR2025-01059. persuasively rebut Patent Owner’s arguments that the same prior art was previously presented to the Office. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Nor has Petitioner persuasively 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). Rather, Petitioner merely disagrees with the Examiner’s treatment of the art without showing clear error. DD Opp. 11–17. “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. Petitioner’s assertion is insufficient to demonstrate material error by the Office. Under these circumstances, discretionary denial is appropriate.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“the challenged patents, it is unclear whether a final written decision in this proceeding will issue after the district court trial occurs. In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceedings is December 18, 2026. DD Opp. 22. The district court does not have a scheduled trial date, but time-to-trial statistics suggest that the trial could begin before the projected final written decision due date. DD Req. 35. As such, these considerations neither favor nor counsel against discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
- 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) and 325(d). 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 11,589,969 - Google LLC v. Advanced Coding Technologies LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00999 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution under § 314(a), finding that district court trial would likely precede the final written decision, settled expectations favored denial, and prosecution-error arguments were unpersuasive.
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 / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“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 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 Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,986,303 - Google LLC v. Advanced Coding Technologies LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00998 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), citing trial timing, settled expectations, and unpersuasive prosecution-error arguments.
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 / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“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 › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution 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; FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,090,025 - Mim Software Inc. v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00726 · APJ Annette R Reimers · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not adequately explain which of its three alternative constructions of “risk indices” applied to the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . 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). Upon consideration of the Petition and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least 1 claim of the ’141 patent is unpatentable. 1” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDenied
“risk index” differ in several “particular details,” but those details matter and can make a difference in our patentability analysis, especially given Petitioner’s acknowledgment that there is no well-established ordinary and customary meaning for the term. In taking this “choose-your-own-adventure” approach to claim construction, Petitioner fails to satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(4), which specify the content of the petition. In particular, Rule 42.104(b)(3) requires the petition to identify “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed,” while Rule 42.104(b)(4) requires the petition to identify “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable” under either 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103. Moreover, by proposing these “choose-your-own-adventure” constructions, Petitioner obfuscates which circumstances each proposed construction should be applied. The Board does not find that alternative claim constructions are per se improper. Nonetheless, there must be reasoning to explain the circumstances under which each alternative construction should be applied. For example, Petitioner may assert one construction on the basis that a claim term should be construed as a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), but also propose an alternative construction to be applied if the term is not found to be a means-plus-function term. However, Petitioner does not provide any rationale here for including three alternative constructions. Rather, Petitioner indicates there is no well-established ordinary and customary meaning for the term(s), and incorrectly contends that the three alternative constructions are not significantly different without explaining why three different constructions are being proposed or under what circumstances one construction should be applied over the other two constructions. slip op. at 7
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,894,141 - Mim Software Inc. v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 8, 2025 · IPR2025-00725 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition failed to explain how the challenged claims should be construed or how the prior art rendered them unpatentable under the proposed constructions.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“III.CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the Petition fails to satisfy the requirement of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) to set forth how the challenged claims are to be construed. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review. IV.ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, the Petition for an inter partes review is denied and no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 10
- BurdenDenied
“particular details,” but those details matter and can make a difference in our patentability analysis, especially given Petitioner’s acknowledgment that there is no well-established ordinary and customary meaning for the term. In taking this “choose-your-own-adventure” approach to claim construction, Petitioner fails to satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(4), which specify the content of the petition. In particular, Rule 42.104(b)(3) requires the petition to identify “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed,” while Rule 42.104(b)(4) requires the petition to identify “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable” under either 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103. Moreover, by proposing these “choose-your-own-adventure” constructions, Petitioner obfuscates which claim construction the Board is being asked to apply, and under what circumstances each proposed construction should be applied. To be sure, we do not find that alternative claim constructions are per se improper. Nonetheless, there must be reasoning to explain the circumstances under which each alternative construction should be applied or an explanation of how the prior art renders the claims unpatentable under alternative constructions. For instance, Petitioner may assert one construction on the basis that a claim term should be construed as a meansplus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), but also propose an alternative construction to be applied if the term is not found to be a means-plus- any rationale here for including three alternative constructions. Instead, Petitioner indicates there is no well-established ordinary and customary meaning for the term, and incorrectly contends that the three alternative constructions are not significantly different without explaining why three different constructions are being proposed or under what circumstances one construction should be applied over the other two constructions. slip op. at 7
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,424,035 - Mim Software Inc. v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 8, 2025 · IPR2025-00630 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition failed to explain which of three alternative constructions of “risk map” applied or how the prior art met the claims under those constructions.
RulingsInstitution decision- BurdenDenied
“particular details,” but those details matter and can make a difference in our patentability analysis, especially given that Petitioner acknowledges there is no well-established ordinary and customary meaning for the term. In taking this “choose-your-own-adventure” approach to claim construction, Petitioner fails to satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(4), which specify the content of the petition. In particular, Rule 42.104(b)(3) requires the petition to identify “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed,” while Rule 42.104(b)(4) requires the petition to identify “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable” under either 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103. Moreover, by proposing these “choose-your-own-adventure” constructions, Petitioner obfuscates which claim construction the Board is being asked to apply, and under what circumstances each proposed construction should be applied. To be sure, we do not find that alternative claim constructions are per se improper. Nonetheless, there must be reasoning to explain the circumstances under which each alternative construction should be applied or an explanation of how the prior art renders the claims unpatentable under alternative constructions. For instance, Petitioner may assert one construction on the basis that a claim term should be construed as a means- construction assuming the term is not found to be a means-plus-function term. Unlike this example, however, Petitioner does not provide any rationale here for including three alternative constructions. Instead, Petitioner indicates there is no well-established ordinary and customary meaning for the term, and summarily contends that the three alternative constructions are not significantly different without explaining why three different constructions are being proposed or under what circumstances one construction should be applied over the other two constructions. slip op. at 7
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,665,346
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.