- Linkplay Technology Inc. v. Sonos, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 31, 2025 · IPR2025-00510 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Sonos’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution of the IPR based on the district court’s scheduled trial and the risk of duplicated effort and inconsistent decisions.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is October 11, 2026. DD Req. 9. The district court’s scheduled trial date is August 10, 2026. Id. Although time-to-trial statistics suggest trial would begin in November 2026, the parties have agreed to the August trial date. Id. at 10. Furthermore, the district court judge has indicated an intention to maintain the current trial schedule and only delay the trial schedule under extraordinary circumstances. Id. (citing Ex. 2106, 5; Ex. 2107, 37:22—38:3). As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the district court trial occurs, resulting in duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,541,883 - Linkplay Technology Inc. v. Sonos, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 31, 2025 · IPR2025-00509 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions, declining to institute IPR because the scheduled district court trial is likely to precede the final written decisions.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is October 11, 2026. DD Req. 9. The district court’s scheduled trial date is August 10, 2026. Id. Although time-to-trial statistics suggest trial would begin in November 2026, the parties have agreed to the August trial date. Id. at 10. Furthermore, the district court judge has indicated an intention to maintain the current trial schedule and only delay the trial schedule under extraordinary circumstances. Id. (citing Ex. 2106, 5; Ex. 2107, 37:22—38:3). As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the district court trial occurs, resulting in duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. 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
- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“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 denialPatents in suitUS 10,853,023 - PTAB · Jul 31, 2025 · IPR2025-00778 · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution under § 314(a), citing the district court’s earlier expected trial and the similar grounds in a parent-patent IPR previously denied on the merits.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is in October 2026. See DD Req. 14. The district court’s scheduled trial date is March 30, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin May 2026. Id. at 13; DD Opp. 10. 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. Furthermore, the Board has already denied institution on the merits in an inter partes review proceeding addressing the parent of the challenged patent. Liberty Energy Inc. v. U.S. Well Services, LLC, IPR2025-00066, Paper 10 (PTAB Apr. 29, 2025) (denying institution of inter partes review of Patent 10,598,258 B2). DD Req. 18–24; DD Opp. 12–16. In this proceeding, Petitioner relies on grounds and issues similar to those raised in the earlier proceeding which the Board denied on the merits. This further weighs in favor discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“proceeding is in October 2026. See DD Req. 14. The district court’s scheduled trial date is March 30, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin May 2026. Id. at 13; DD Opp. 10. 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. Furthermore, the Board has already denied institution on the merits in an inter partes review proceeding addressing the parent of the challenged patent. Liberty Energy Inc. v. U.S. Well Services, LLC, IPR2025-00066, Paper 10 (PTAB Apr. 29, 2025) (denying institution of inter partes review of Patent 10,598,258 B2). DD Req. 18–24; DD Opp. 12–16. In this proceeding, Petitioner relies on grounds and issues similar to those raised in the earlier proceeding which the Board denied on the merits. This further weighs in favor discretionary denial.” 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 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 Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,959,533 - AT&T Services Inc. / Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless et al. v. Rightquestion, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00362 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a), so no IPR trial was instituted.
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 October 15, 2026. DD Req. 10. The district court’s scheduled trial date is October 20, 2025, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by April 2026. Id. at 10, 16. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expenses 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. Id. at 69. Furthermore, there has been meaningful investment in the district court proceeding. Id. at 18–22. For example, the district court has held a Markman hearing and issued a claim construction order, and fact discovery is complete. Id. at 19. Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00360. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00361 and IPR2025-00362. all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,005,989 - AT&T Services Inc. / Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless et al. v. Rightquestion, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00361 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied the Petitions; no trial was instituted under § 314(a).
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is October 15, 2026. DD Req. 10. The district court’s scheduled trial date is October 20, 2025, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by April 2026. Id. at 10, 16. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expenses 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. Id. at 69. Furthermore, there has been meaningful investment in the district court proceeding. Id. at 18–22. For example, the district court has held a Markman hearing and issued a claim construction order, and fact discovery is complete. Id. at 19. Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00360. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00361 and IPR2025-00362. all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,856,132 - T-Mobile USA, Inc. / AT&T Mobility LLC et al. v. Smart RF Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00727 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied institution under § 314(a), citing the parallel district court proceeding 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 in October 2026. DD Req. 17–18. The district court’s scheduled trial date is November 17, 2025, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial would begin between December 2025 and April 2026. Id. at 19–20; DD Opp. 9. 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. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. DD Req. 13–17. Furthermore, there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. Id. at 21–24. Also, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00612, IPR2025-00692, and IPR2025-00727 have been in force for approximately fourteen, eight, and nineteen years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsDenied
“these cases is in October 2026. DD Req. 17–18. The district court’s scheduled trial date is November 17, 2025, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial would begin between December 2025 and April 2026. Id. at 19–20; DD Opp. 9. 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. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. DD Req. 13–17. Furthermore, there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. Id. at 21–24. Also, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00612, IPR2025-00692, and IPR2025-00727 have been in force for approximately fourteen, eight, and nineteen years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” 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 denialPatents in suitUS 7,035,345 - T-Mobile USA, Inc. / AT&T Mobility LLC et al. v. Smart RF Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00692 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution under § 314(a), citing the parallel district court proceeding and Patent Owner’s settled expectations.
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 in October 2026. DD Req. 17–18. The district court’s scheduled trial date is November 17, 2025, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial would begin between December 2025 and April 2026. Id. at 19–20; DD Opp. 9. 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. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. DD Req. 13–17. Furthermore, there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. Id. at 21–24. Also, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00612, IPR2025-00692, and IPR2025-00727 have been in force for approximately fourteen, eight, and nineteen years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“these cases is in October 2026. DD Req. 17–18. The district court’s scheduled trial date is November 17, 2025, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial would begin between December 2025 and April 2026. Id. at 19–20; DD Opp. 9. 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. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. DD Req. 13–17. Furthermore, there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. Id. at 21–24. Also, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00612, IPR2025-00692, and IPR2025-00727 have been in force for approximately fourteen, eight, and nineteen years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution 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; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,641,204 - AT&T Services Inc. / Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless et al. v. Rightquestion, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00360 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions without instituting trial under § 314(a), citing 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 15, 2026. DD Req. 10. The district court’s scheduled trial date is October 20, 2025, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by April 2026. Id. at 10, 16. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expenses 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. Id. at 69. Furthermore, there has been meaningful investment in the district court proceeding. Id. at 18–22. For example, the district court has held a Markman hearing and issued a claim construction order, and fact discovery is complete. Id. at 19. Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00360. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00361 and IPR2025-00362. all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,674,009 - T-Mobile USA, Inc. / AT&T Mobility LLC et al. v. Smart RF Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00691 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of the petitions under § 314(a), citing parallel district court proceedings, duplicated effort, and Patent Owner’s settled expectations.
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 in October 2026. DD Req. 17–18. The district court’s scheduled trial date is November 17, 2025, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial would begin between December 2025 and April 2026. Id. at 19–20; DD Opp. 9. 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. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. DD Req. 13–17. Furthermore, there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. Id. at 21–24. Also, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00612, IPR2025-00692, and IPR2025-00727 have been in force for approximately fourteen, eight, and nineteen years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“these cases is in October 2026. DD Req. 17–18. The district court’s scheduled trial date is November 17, 2025, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial would begin between December 2025 and April 2026. Id. at 19–20; DD Opp. 9. 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. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. DD Req. 13–17. Furthermore, there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. Id. at 21–24. Also, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00612, IPR2025-00692, and IPR2025-00727 have been in force for approximately fourteen, eight, and nineteen years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,958,296 - T-Mobile USA, Inc. / AT&T Mobility LLC et al. v. Smart RF Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00612 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a); no trial was instituted.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is in October 2026. DD Req. 17–18. The district court’s scheduled trial date is November 17, 2025, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial would begin between December 2025 and April 2026. Id. at 19–20; DD Opp. 9. 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. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. DD Req. 13–17. Furthermore, there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. Id. at 21–24. Also, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00612, IPR2025-00692, and IPR2025-00727 have been in force for approximately fourteen, eight, and nineteen years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied
“these cases is in October 2026. DD Req. 17–18. The district court’s scheduled trial date is November 17, 2025, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial would begin between December 2025 and April 2026. Id. at 19–20; DD Opp. 9. 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. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. DD Req. 13–17. Furthermore, there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. Id. at 21–24. Also, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00612, IPR2025-00692, and IPR2025-00727 have been in force for approximately fourteen, eight, and nineteen years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” 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 denialPatents in suitUS 8,078,561
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.