• Boe Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. Optronic Sciences LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00239 · 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 schedule and Patent Owner’s settled expectations.

  RulingsDirector review decision

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

    “particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is in October 2026. DD Req. 5. The district court’s scheduled trial date is May 4, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest that the trial would begin in July 2026. Id. 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 expenses for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Further, the challenged patents 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00238. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00239. have been in force for approximately twelve years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. These considerations favor discretionary denial, and outweigh the considerations that counsel against it.” slip op. at 2

  • Settled expectationsGranted

    “Petitioner argues it has settled expectations that the challenged patents would not be asserted against it because the challenged patents are directed to technology that is fundamentally different from what Petitioner uses in its products. DD Opp. 9–13. Therefore, Petitioner contends it had no reason to challenge the claims of the patents in these proceedings until Patent Owner asserted the challenged patents in district court. Id. at 12.” 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 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 8,502,757
• Amazon.Com, Inc. v. Kaifi LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00627 · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a), so no inter partes review was instituted.

  RulingsDirector review decision

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

    “In particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is October 11, 2026. DD Req. 3. The district court’s scheduled trial date is March 16, 2026. Id. The time-to-trial statistics suggest that the trial would begin in September 2026. Id.; DD Opp. 35 (citing Ex. 1063). Although the court has granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement, the stay is limited to 45 days from the grant of the order. Ex. 1058. Thus, even if the district court trial date is delayed by 45 days, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before the scheduled district court trial, and the close proximity of a final written decision to the projected trial date (accounting for a 45 day delay) would result in the significant duplication of effort, additional expenses for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Furthermore, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00624, IPR2025-00625, and IPR2025-00627 have been in force for approximately fourteen, ten, and fifteen years, respectively, creating strong settled” slip op. at 2

  • Settled expectationsDenied

    “these cases is October 11, 2026. DD Req. 3. The district court’s scheduled trial date is March 16, 2026. Id. The time-to-trial statistics suggest that the trial would begin in September 2026. Id.; DD Opp. 35 (citing Ex. 1063). Although the court has granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement, the stay is limited to 45 days from the grant of the order. Ex. 1058. Thus, even if the district court trial date is delayed by 45 days, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before the scheduled district court trial, and the close proximity of a final written decision to the projected trial date (accounting for a 45 day delay) would result in the significant duplication of effort, additional expenses for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Furthermore, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00624, IPR2025-00625, and IPR2025-00627 have been in force for approximately fourteen, ten, and fifteen years, respectively, creating strong settled” 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). 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 7,689,001
• Amazon.Com, Inc. v. Kaifi LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00626 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a), instituting no trial based on the holistic assessment of the record.

  RulingsDirector review decision

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

    “In particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is October 11, 2026. DD Req. 3. The district court’s scheduled trial date is March 16, 2026. Id. The time-to-trial statistics suggest that the trial would begin in September 2026. Id.; DD Opp. 35 (citing Ex. 1063). Although the court has granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement, the stay is limited to 45 days from the grant of the order. Ex. 1058. Thus, even if the district court trial date is delayed by 45 days, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before the scheduled district court trial, and the close proximity of a final written decision to the projected trial date (accounting for a 45 day delay) would result in the significant duplication of effort, additional expenses for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Furthermore, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00624, IPR2025-00625, and IPR2025-00627 have been in force for approximately fourteen, ten, and fifteen years, respectively, creating strong settled 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00624. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00625, IPR2025-00626, and IPR2025-00627. expectations for Patent Owner. These considerations weigh in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2

  • Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied

    “these cases is October 11, 2026. DD Req. 3. The district court’s scheduled trial date is March 16, 2026. Id. The time-to-trial statistics suggest that the trial would begin in September 2026. Id.; DD Opp. 35 (citing Ex. 1063). Although the court has granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement, the stay is limited to 45 days from the grant of the order. Ex. 1058. Thus, even if the district court trial date is delayed by 45 days, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before the scheduled district court trial, and the close proximity of a final written decision to the projected trial date (accounting for a 45 day delay) would result in the significant duplication of effort, additional expenses for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Furthermore, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00624, IPR2025-00625, and IPR2025-00627 have been in force for approximately fourteen, ten, and fifteen years, respectively, creating strong settled” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialInstitution 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).” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,082,518
• Amazon.Com, Inc. v. Kaifi LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00625 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a), instituting no trial.

  RulingsDirector review decision

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

    “In particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is October 11, 2026. DD Req. 3. The district court’s scheduled trial date is March 16, 2026. Id. The time-to-trial statistics suggest that the trial would begin in September 2026. Id.; DD Opp. 35 (citing Ex. 1063). Although the court has granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement, the stay is limited to 45 days from the grant of the order. Ex. 1058. Thus, even if the district court trial date is delayed by 45 days, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before the scheduled district court trial, and the close proximity of a final written decision to the projected trial date (accounting for a 45 day delay) would result in the significant duplication of effort, additional expenses for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Furthermore, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00624, IPR2025-00625, and IPR2025-00627 have been in force for approximately fourteen, ten, and fifteen years, respectively, creating strong settled” slip op. at 2

  • Settled expectationsDenied

    “these cases is October 11, 2026. DD Req. 3. The district court’s scheduled trial date is March 16, 2026. Id. The time-to-trial statistics suggest that the trial would begin in September 2026. Id.; DD Opp. 35 (citing Ex. 1063). Although the court has granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement, the stay is limited to 45 days from the grant of the order. Ex. 1058. Thus, even if the district court trial date is delayed by 45 days, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before the scheduled district court trial, and the close proximity of a final written decision to the projected trial date (accounting for a 45 day delay) would result in the significant duplication of effort, additional expenses for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Furthermore, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00624, IPR2025-00625, and IPR2025-00627 have been in force for approximately fourteen, ten, and fifteen years, respectively, creating strong settled” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialDenied

    “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 8,930,196
• Amazon.Com, Inc. v. Kaifi LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00624 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied institution of the petitions under § 314(a), citing parallel-litigation timing and settled expectations.

  RulingsDirector review decision

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

    “In particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is October 11, 2026. DD Req. 3. The district court’s scheduled trial date is March 16, 2026. Id. The time-to-trial statistics suggest that the trial would begin in September 2026. Id.; DD Opp. 35 (citing Ex. 1063). Although the court has granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement, the stay is limited to 45 days from the grant of the order. Ex. 1058. Thus, even if the district court trial date is delayed by 45 days, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before the scheduled district court trial, and the close proximity of a final written decision to the projected trial date (accounting for a 45 day delay) would result in the significant duplication of effort, additional expenses for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Furthermore, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00624, IPR2025-00625, and IPR2025-00627 have been in force for approximately fourteen, ten, and fifteen years, respectively, creating strong settled” slip op. at 2

  • Settled expectationsDenied

    “these cases is October 11, 2026. DD Req. 3. The district court’s scheduled trial date is March 16, 2026. Id. The time-to-trial statistics suggest that the trial would begin in September 2026. Id.; DD Opp. 35 (citing Ex. 1063). Although the court has granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement, the stay is limited to 45 days from the grant of the order. Ex. 1058. Thus, even if the district court trial date is delayed by 45 days, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before the scheduled district court trial, and the close proximity of a final written decision to the projected trial date (accounting for a 45 day delay) would result in the significant duplication of effort, additional expenses for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Furthermore, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00624, IPR2025-00625, and IPR2025-00627 have been in force for approximately fourteen, ten, and fifteen years, respectively, creating strong settled” 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 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 8,040,232
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Keyless Licensing LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 17, 2025 · IPR2025-00529 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review

  The Director denied institution of IPR on all challenged claims under § 314(a), based on the totality of considerations in the parallel district court proceeding.

  RulingsDirector review decision

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

    “In particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is October 9, 2026. DD Req. 6. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 20, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in May 2026. DD Req. 3–4. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before district court trial occurs. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial, and there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. Id. at 2–3, 5–6. For example, the parties are engaged in the Markman process and fact discovery is nearly closed. Id. at 5–6. 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 2

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,503,144
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Keyless Licensing LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 17, 2025 · IPR2025-00528 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review

  The Director denied institution of inter partes review under § 314(a), granting Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial based on the parallel district court proceeding.

  RulingsDirector review decision

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

    “In particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is October 9, 2026. DD Req. 6. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 20, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in May 2026. DD Req. 3–4. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before district court trial occurs. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial, and there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. Id. at 2–3, 5–6. For example, the parties are engaged in the Markman process and fact discovery is nearly closed. Id. at 5–6. 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 2

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,503,144
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Keyless Licensing LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 17, 2025 · IPR2025-00526 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review

  The Director denied institution under § 314(a), finding discretionary denial appropriate based on the parallel district court proceeding.

  RulingsDirector review decision

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

    “In particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is October 9, 2026. DD Req. 6. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 20, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in May 2026. DD Req. 3–4. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before district court trial occurs. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial, and there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. Id. at 2–3, 5–6. For example, the parties are engaged in the Markman process and fact discovery is nearly closed. Id. at 5–6. 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 2

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,304,602
• Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Four Batons Wireless, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 17, 2025 · IPR2025-00493 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a), with no trial instituted, based on a holistic assessment.

  RulingsDirector review decision

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

    “In particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is September 23, 2026. DD Req. 5–6. The district court’s scheduled trial date is February 9, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in March 2026. DD Req. 5–7. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the district court trial occurs. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial, and there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. Id. at 4–5, 9–14. Further, the challenged patents have been in force for over ten years, creating strong settled expectations, and Petitioner does not provide any persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an” slip op. at 2

  • Settled expectationsDenied

    “these cases is September 23, 2026. DD Req. 5–6. The district court’s scheduled trial date is February 9, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in March 2026. DD Req. 5–7. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the district court trial occurs. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial, and there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. Id. at 4–5, 9–14. Further, the challenged patents have been in force for over ten years, creating strong settled expectations, and Petitioner does not provide any persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an” slip op. at 2

  • Other 314aDenied

    “appropriate use of Board resources. Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. v. AXA Power ApS, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025).3 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 denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,502,348
• Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Four Batons Wireless, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 17, 2025 · IPR2025-00494 · 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 based on a holistic assessment.

  RulingsDirector review decision

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

    “In particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is September 23, 2026. DD Req. 5–6. The district court’s scheduled trial date is February 9, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in March 2026. DD Req. 5–7. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the district court trial occurs. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial, and there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. Id. at 4–5, 9–14. Further, the challenged patents have been in force for over ten years, creating strong settled expectations, and Petitioner does not provide any persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an” slip op. at 2

  • Settled expectationsInstitution denied

    “these cases is September 23, 2026. DD Req. 5–6. The district court’s scheduled trial date is February 9, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in March 2026. DD Req. 5–7. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the district court trial occurs. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial, and there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. Id. at 4–5, 9–14. Further, the challenged patents have been in force for over ten years, creating strong settled expectations, and Petitioner does not provide any persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an” slip op. at 2

  • Other 314aInstitution 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).” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,073,436

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.