• Geotab Inc. / Geotab USA, Inc. v. Fractus, S.A.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 3, 2025 · PGR2025-00056 · APJ Steven M Amundson · PGR · Institution

  Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that claims 1–20 were unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “to institute a post-grant review. We may not institute a post-grant review unless we determine that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (2024). After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Preliminary Reply, the Preliminary Sur-reply, and the evidence of record, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it is “more likely than not” that at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable. Hence, we deny the Petition and do not institute a post-grant review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “effective filing date would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar degree and at least four years of experience in applied electromagnetics with an emphasis on antennas.” Pet. 10 (quoting Ex. 1018 ¶ 32). Petitioner also asserts that “[a]lternatively, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have a master’s degree in electrical engineering (or similar discipline) and at least two years of similar experience.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1018 ¶ 32). Dr. van der Weide’s testimony supports Petitioner’s assertions. See Ex. 1007 ¶ 39. For purposes of the Preliminary Response only, Patent Owner employs Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan. Prelim. Resp. 22. Based on the current record and for purposes of this decision, we accept Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan because it comports with the technology and claims of the ’149 patent as well as the asserted references. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 1:35–6:56, 42:44–46:28, code (57); infra §§ III.E.1–III.E.2, III.G.1–III.G.2, III.H.1.” slip op. at 25

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “4. DISCUSSION “[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Based on the current record, we determine that no claim term requires an explicit construction to decide whether Petitioner satisfies the “more likely than not” standard for instituting a post-grant review. As Petitioner recognizes, the ’149 patent defines many of the claim terms Petitioner discusses in the “Claim Interpretation” section of the Petition. See Pet. 14–16. For instance, the patent defines “antenna rectangle” as “the orthogonal projection of the antenna box along the normal to the face with largest area of the antenna box.” Ex. 1005, 14:21–24. Further, the patent defines “complexity factor F21” and “complexity factor F32” consistent with the independent claims. See id. at 17:16–21, 17:49–61, 18:8–18, 19:12–25, 20:5–17, 42:62–43:25, 44:5–30, 45:8–46:3. E. Alleged Obviousness over Dou and Ciais-Multiband: Claims 7–9, 11–14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 Petitioner contends that claims 7–9, 11–14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are” slip op. at 28

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner does not explain why an ordinarily skilled artisan who used Ciais-Quadband’s antenna for Dou’s two antennas 206 and 208 would have departed from the commonly accepted rule of thumb and Dou’s preference for at least a quarter-wavelength spacing between antennas at the lowest frequency to the extent needed to implement the proposed combination, i.e., with only about 55% of the preferred spacing between antennas. See Pet. 60–69; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 172–187. Hence, based on the current record, Petitioner does not establish sufficiently for purposes of institution that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Ciais-Quadband’s teachings with Dou’s teachings in the way Petitioner proposes. Further, the addition of two Nakano InvFL antennas extending from the ground plane both above and below the PCB does not remedy the insufficient spacing between “the swapped-in Ciais-Quadband antennas.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 67.” slip op. at 69

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 12,095,149
• American Airlines, Inc. / Southwest Airlines Co. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 4, 2025 · IPR2025-00785 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–14 were unpatentable over either asserted § 103 combination.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . 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). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenDenied

    “Petitioner’s single-reference allegations do not align with its two “combination” challenges identified above. As for its “combination” allegations, Petitioner does not identify, for example: (1) which limitations in claim 1 are missing in any of Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski; (2) which aspects of any of these references requires modification to achieve the invention of claim 1; (3) which specific reference Petitioner posits to teach any such missing limitation in another reference or as the basis to modify a specific feature in a given reference; or (4) a rational reason as to why the skilled artisan would have combined particular teachings from one of Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski with particular teachings of another such reference to achieve the invention of claim 1 as a whole.5 Instead, Petitioner improperly punts its burden to define its obviousness challenges to the Board (and Patent Owner). See, e.g., Pet. 38 (“To the extent the Board disagrees that [any particular] limitation is disclosed by the Chow/Reiffin combination 4 See, e.g., Pet. 16, 19 (“Thus, Chow and Reiffin both disclose or suggest claim [1b].” “Therefore, claim 1 was obvious over Chow and Reiffin separately and over their combination.”); see also id. at 12–19, 37–42. 5 Petitioner argues that the skilled artisan would have combined Reiffin with Chow for “increased computational power and the ability to solve larger problems.” Pet. 11. These generic “reasons” to combine the alleged teachings of Chow and Reiffin (and Kurowski) lack rational underpinning, particularly because Petitioner does not even identify which teachings of which references are being combined to achieve any particular limitation in claim 1. See Prelim. Resp. 40 (“[Petitioner’s] ‘spaghetti on the wall’ approach fails [to] explain how Petitioners’ purported motivation for combining Chow and Reiffin fits with each of the at least 64 different possibilities for combining Chow and Reiffin.”).” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “and quotes various passages in Chow. Pet. 13–14. For example, Petitioner identifies that, under “Description of the Related Art,” Chow states: “Typically, workload is apportioned by somehow logically dividing the data to be processed. For example, a block of data might be divided evenly into a number of parts equal to the number of available threads, so that each thread can independently process a separate portion of the data. This is called ‘static’ or ‘a priori’ partitioning.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:38–42; Ex. 1022 ¶ 144). Petitioner also identifies that Chow describes “aggregate tasks” divisible into “multiple sub-tasks,” and “multiple task execution units are independently operated on-demand to sequentially self-allocate and execute sub-tasks of the aggregate task.” Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:66–2:15). After presenting such quoted passages from Chow, Petitioner proffers the conclusion that Chow discloses the Partitioning Limitation, but does so without sufficiently explaining why such passages allegedly teach or suggest the features of the Partitioning Limitation not only within the context of claim 1 as a whole, but given that Chow itself disparages such “static” or “a priori” partitioning as posing “a significant problem” (Ex. 1003, 1:52–58). Patent Owner persuasively responds (and we agree for the same” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “combination” challenges identified above. As for its “combination” allegations, Petitioner does not identify, for example: (1) which limitations in claim 1 are missing in any of Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski; (2) which aspects of any of these references requires modification to achieve the invention of claim 1; (3) which specific reference Petitioner posits to teach any such missing limitation in another reference or as the basis to modify a specific feature in a given reference; or (4) a rational reason as to why the skilled artisan would have combined particular teachings from one of Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski with particular teachings of another such reference to achieve the invention of claim 1 as a whole.5 Instead, Petitioner improperly punts its burden to define its obviousness challenges to the Board (and Patent Owner). See, e.g., Pet. 38 (“To the extent the Board disagrees that [any particular] limitation is disclosed by the Chow/Reiffin combination 4 See, e.g., Pet. 16, 19 (“Thus, Chow and Reiffin both disclose or suggest claim [1b].” “Therefore, claim 1 was obvious over Chow and Reiffin separately and over their combination.”); see also id. at 12–19, 37–42. 5 Petitioner argues that the skilled artisan would have combined Reiffin with Chow for “increased computational power and the ability to solve larger problems.” Pet. 11. These generic “reasons” to combine the alleged teachings of Chow and Reiffin (and Kurowski) lack rational underpinning, particularly because Petitioner does not even identify which teachings of which references are being combined to achieve any particular limitation in claim 1. See Prelim. Resp. 40 (“[Petitioner’s] ‘spaghetti on the wall’ approach fails [to] explain how Petitioners’ purported motivation for combining Chow and Reiffin fits with each of the at least 64 different possibilities for combining Chow and Reiffin.”). slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,257,582
• Clearcorrect Operating, LLC v. Align Technology Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 23, 2025 · IPR2025-00814 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim over the asserted obviousness combination.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied

    “if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved based on underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) any objective indicia of nonobviousness.7 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). An obviousness determination requires finding a reason to combine accompanied by a reasonable expectation of achieving what is claimed in the challenged patent. See Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[A]ny need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 419–20.” slip op. at 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away foundMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “tripping” as “any motion of a tooth in any direction other than directly toward the desired final position.” Ex. 1004, 4:12–13. Chishti-511 teaches minimizing round-tripping (“teeth are moved in the quickest fashion with the least amount of round-tripping”), but acknowledges that “[r]ound-tripping is sometimes necessary to allow teeth to move past each other.” Id. at 4:9–15. In an attempt to counter Patent Owner’s teaching away arguments, Petitioner relies heavily on Chishti-511’s statement that “[r]ound[-]tripping is sometimes necessary.” See Pet. 29–30; see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 83 (Dr. Yadav relying on Chishti-511). This reliance is unavailing, because as noted above, Chishti-511 defines “round-tripping” more broadly than is claimed here. Indeed, in the ’444 IPR, the Board stated that “the ‘round tripping’ described in Chishti ’511 is something different than the ‘round tripping’ required by the ’444 patent.”10 Ex. 1008, 16. Despite being aware of this prior finding 10 In the ’444 IPR, the Board employed the same construction of “round-tripping” that we use here. Compare Ex. 1008, 6, with Section II.C supra. (see Pet. 6), Petitioner here fails to address the difference between Chishti- 511’s round-tripping and the claimed round-tripping. That is, Petitioner places great weight on Chishti-511’s statement that “round-tripping is sometimes necessary,” but has not established that Chishti-511 contemplates round-tripping as claimed, as opposed to some other, different movement pattern encompassed by Chishti-511’s broader statement about round-tripping.” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “discussion of “need[ing] collision-free treatment paths,” skilled artisans would have turned to Becker. Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:15–22). But on this record, and especially in view of the teachings away from round-tripping, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that a skilled artisan would have combined Becker’s movement pattern with the Chishti systems and Sachdeva. In particular, the Petition and supporting materials lack sufficient argument and evidence for us to conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to apply Becker’s movement pattern in the context of an aligner treatment. Becker is a textbook relating to the orthodontic treatment of impacted teeth. Ex. 1006, 1 (Title). Patent Owner correctly states that “Becker is a different orthodontic treatment modality compared to the Chishti references,” using “braces and numerous brackets, wires, and rubber bands, with the wire-and-bracket systems being attached directly and permanently to the teeth.” Prelim. Resp. 21–22; see also supra Section II.D.4. “Becker involves traditional orthodontic practice: manual, by-eye adjustment of its archwires, elastic thread, and palatal wires by a treating orthodontist in repeated office visits.” Prelim. Resp. 22. Chishti-511, in contrast, uses “treatment planning software” to “pre-stag[e] a series of tooth positions from which a sequence of appliances can be manufactured.” Id. On this record, we agree with Patent Owner that “Becker at best shows that round-tripping was an option in limited circumstances involving wire-and-bracket treatment.” See Prelim. Resp. 3. Petitioner does not direct us to any persuasive evidence that using aligners to effect Becker’s tooth transposition “would be appropriate or even possible.” Id. at 22. As Patent Owner correctly notes, Petitioner does not point to any teaching in Becker regarding aligner treatment or corresponding treatment planning software. Id. at 23. Nor are we directed to any portions of Chishti-511, Chishti-876, or Sachdeva that mention using aligners to transpose teeth. These omissions are important because “[i]n contrast to treatment with braces, in which wires are manually adjusted by the orthodontist to move teeth reactively, aligner treatment involves treatment planning in which a detailed path of teeth is calculated in advance.” Id. at 4. Given these differences, Petitioner has not persuasively explained why Becker’s tooth movement pattern and mechanism would have been of interest to a skilled artisan who was” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “as of the August 30, 2006 claimed priority date would have been part of an interdisciplinary team. This team would have included a member with an advanced degree related to dentistry (e.g., BDS, MDS, DDS, DMD) with experience in orthodontics, including 1–3 years of orthodontic training or equivalent experience, and experience using clear aligners. The team may have also included members with a degree in a technical area related to software, graphics, computers, or a related discipline. This technical team member would have had 1–3 years of software development experience. For all team members, more education could substitute for experience and vice versa. Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23–24; Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 23–25; Ex. 1029; Ex. 1030). At this stage, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative proposal. See generally Prelim. Resp. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level).” slip op. at 8

  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,456,217
• Clearcorrect Operating, LLC v. Align Technology Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 23, 2025 · IPR2025-00815 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because ClearCorrect did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–24 would have been obvious over Chishti-511, Chishti-876, Sachdeva, and Becker.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied

    “3. Analysis In view of the arguments and cited evidence, we find on this record that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Becker’s round-tripping with the teachings of the Chishti patents and Sachdeva.” slip op. at 20

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “At this stage, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative proposal. See generally Prelim. Resp. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “Neither party indicates that any other claim term requires express construction. Only claim terms in controversy need be construed. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”). For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no other claim term requires construction.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITA

    “Court for the Western District of Texas (see supra Section I.B), they jointly adopted the definition of “round-tripping” set forth in the ’879 patent Specification. Pet. 9; Prelim. Resp. 8; Ex. 1013, 8. The ’879 patent Specification defines “round-tripping” as moving a first tooth out of the path of a second tooth, and once the second tooth has moved sufficiently, moving the first tooth back to its previous position before proceeding to a desired final position of that first tooth. See Ex. 1001, 13:9–13. We adopt this agreed-upon construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,524,879
• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Quicker Connections LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-01088 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), citing likely district court trial before the projected final written decision and settled expectations.

  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 25, 2026. DD Req. 32. The district court’s scheduled trial date is October 19, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in November 2026. Id. at 32–33; Ex. 2032. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, the challenged patent has been in force for more than seventeen years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. DD Req. 4.” slip op. at 2

  • Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied

    “proceeding is December 25, 2026. DD Req. 32. The district court’s scheduled trial date is October 19, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in November 2026. Id. at 32–33; Ex. 2032. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, the challenged patent has been in force for more than seventeen years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. DD Req. 4.” 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 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; FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,061,859
• Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. v. Longhorn Automotive Group LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-01089 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied institution of IPR on the challenged patent under § 314(a).

  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 28, 2026. DD Req. 6. The district court’s scheduled trial date in the earliest parallel proceeding is June 1, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in September 2026. Ex. 1023. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Further, there has been meaningful investment in the district court proceeding. DD Req. 9–10. For example, Patent Owner has provided two sets of infringement contentions, and a Markman hearing is scheduled to occur before the due date for an institution decision. Id.” slip op. at 2

  • Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied

    “Furthermore, the challenged patent has been in force for sixteen years creating strong 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

  • Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied

    “Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the 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 FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,513,238
• MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. / MSN Laboratories Private Limited v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-01107 · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial, denied the Petition, and instituted no trial under § 314(a) because parallel litigation was likely to reach trial first.

  RulingsDirector review decision

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

    “parallel proceeding in the District of Delaware. DD Req. 10. The projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is December 25, 2026. Id. The district court’s scheduled trial date is October 6, 2026. Id. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before district court trial occurs. Although Petitioner is not a party to the parallel district court proceeding, the same general invalidity arguments that are presented in the Petition are also presented in the district court proceeding. DD Req. 14–17; Paper 1, 6, 34–37, 51–54; Ex. 2005, 27–31. As a result, the validity of the challenged patent is already being adjudicated in another forum that will issue an earlier decision, and the issues presented in the Petition are similar to those about to be litigated, raising concerns of inconsistent outcomes and duplication of efforts. Petitioner does not provide persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an appropriate use of Board resources under these circumstances. See Dabico Airport Sols. Inc. v. AXA Power ApS, IPR2025- 00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025).” slip op. at 2

  • Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied

    “In consideration of the foregoing, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial is granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,013,729
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Telcom Ventures LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00975 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review

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

  RulingsDirector review decision

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

    “In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is December 10, 2026.3 DD Req. 13. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 1, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by October 2026. Id.; DD. Opp. 17. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before district court trial occurs resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Further, Petitioner’s argument that the patent examiner committed “multiple errors” during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 7–12.” slip op. at 2

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied

    “Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 3

  • Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied

    “to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 3

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

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

  RulingsDirector review decision

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

    “In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is December 10, 2026.3 DD Req. 13. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 1, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by October 2026. Id.; DD. Opp. 17. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before district court trial occurs resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Further, Petitioner’s argument that the patent examiner committed “multiple errors” during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 7–12.” slip op. at 2

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied

    “Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In consideration of the foregoing, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial is granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3

  • Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied

    “Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In consideration of the foregoing, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial is granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,674,432
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Telcom Ventures LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00973 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a), instituting no trial because the district court case was likely to reach trial first.

  RulingsDirector review decision

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

    “In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is December 10, 2026.3 DD Req. 13. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 1, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by October 2026. Id.; DD. Opp. 17. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before district court trial occurs resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Further, Petitioner’s argument that the patent examiner committed “multiple errors” during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 7–12.” slip op. at 2

  • Director reviewOther

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

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,462,411

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.