- Intel Corp. / Dell Inc. et al. v. General Video, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-01039 · 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 a holistic assessment emphasizing settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“particular, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately seven, ten, and seventeen years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner, and Petitioner does not provide any 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); Intel Corp. v. Proxense LLC, IPR2025-00327, Paper 12, 2–3 (Director June 26, 2025). Additionally, Dell appears to have been notified of the challenged patents in 2016, 2017, and 2021. See, e.g., DD Req. 46–47; DD Reply 1–3. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient explanation by Petitioner, Patent Owner’s strong settled expectations tip the balance in favor of discretionary denial. 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 7,359,437 - Intel Corp. / Dell Inc. et al. v. General Video, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-01038 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a), declining to institute IPR based on the holistic record and strong settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsGranted
“Other considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately seven, ten, and seventeen years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner, and Petitioner does not provide any 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); Intel Corp. v. Proxense LLC, IPR2025-00327, Paper 12, 2–3 (Director June 26, 2025). Additionally, Dell appears to have been notified of the challenged patents in 2016, 2017, and 2021. See, e.g., DD Req. 46–47; DD Reply 1–3. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient explanation by Petitioner, Patent Owner’s strong settled expectations tip the balance in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 3
- Other 314aInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“particular, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately seven, ten, and seventeen years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner, and Petitioner does not provide any 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); Intel Corp. v. Proxense LLC, IPR2025-00327, Paper 12, 2–3 (Director June 26, 2025). Additionally, Dell appears to have been notified of the challenged patents in 2016, 2017, and 2021. See, e.g., DD Req. 46–47; DD Reply 1–3. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient explanation by Petitioner, Patent Owner’s strong settled expectations tip the balance in favor of discretionary denial. 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 7,359,437 - PTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-01096 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary denial requests and denied the petitions, declining to institute inter partes review under § 314(a).
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“Other considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. For example, the challenged patents have been in force for ten, eight, and ten 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). Additionally, Patent Owner presents evidence demonstrating Petitioner had knowledge of the challenged patent in IPR2025-01096 as early as 2018. DD Req. 14. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient explanation by Petitioner, Patent Owner’s strong settled expectations tip the balance in favor of discretionary denial.” 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).” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,031,259 - PTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-01080 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests and denied the petitions under § 314(a), declining to institute review based on a holistic assessment, including settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“Other considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. For example, the challenged patents have been in force for ten, eight, and ten 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). Additionally, Patent Owner presents evidence demonstrating Petitioner had knowledge of the challenged patent in IPR2025-01096 as early as 2018. DD Req. 14. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient explanation by Petitioner, Patent Owner’s strong settled expectations tip the balance in favor of discretionary denial.” 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 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 9,804,819 - PTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-01067 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution under § 314(a), finding Patent Owner’s strong settled expectations favored discretionary denial.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“Other considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. For example, the challenged patents have been in force for ten, eight, and ten 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). Additionally, Patent Owner presents evidence demonstrating Petitioner had knowledge of the challenged patent in IPR2025-01096 as early as 2018. DD Req. 14. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient explanation by Petitioner, Patent Owner’s strong settled expectations tip the balance in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
- Director reviewDirector review, deniedInstitution 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 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 9,070,374 - Hisense USA Corporation / Hisense Electronica Mexico S.A. De C.V. v. Videolabs, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00882 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a), declining to institute IPR based on a holistic assessment that included settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsGranted
“Other considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for twelve and eleven years, creating settled expectations for Patent Owner. DD Req. 1, 7–8. Patent Owner also provides evidence that the challenged patents have been licensed to over twenty companies. Id. at 4; Ex. 2002. In addition, Patent Owner provides evidence that it has been in contact with Petitioner since December 2022, when Patent Owner sent Petitioner a notice letter regarding Patent Owner’s patent portfolio. DD Req. 4–5, 9; Ex. 2004. Patent Owner 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00880. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00881, IPR2025-00882, and IPR2025-00883. specifically notified Petitioner about the challenged patents in June 2023, when Patent Owner provided Petitioner with a claim chart during licensing negotiations. DD Req. 9. Petitioner’s arguments regarding Patent Owner’s settled expectations are not persuasive, and Petitioner does not otherwise 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
- Other 314aInstitution 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; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,291,236 - Hisense USA Corporation / Hisense Electronica Mexico S.A. De C.V. v. Videolabs, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00881 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a), declining to institute IPR.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsDecided for patent owner
“Other considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for twelve and eleven years, creating settled expectations for Patent Owner. DD Req. 1, 7–8. Patent Owner also provides evidence that the challenged patents have been licensed to over twenty companies. Id. at 4; Ex. 2002. In addition, Patent Owner provides evidence that it has been in contact with Petitioner since December 2022, when Patent Owner sent Petitioner a notice letter regarding Patent Owner’s patent portfolio. DD Req. 4–5, 9; Ex. 2004. Patent Owner 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00880. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00881, IPR2025-00882, and IPR2025-00883. specifically notified Petitioner about the challenged patents in June 2023, when Patent Owner provided Petitioner with a claim chart during licensing negotiations. DD Req. 9. Petitioner’s arguments regarding Patent Owner’s settled expectations are not persuasive, and Petitioner does not otherwise 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
- Other 314aInstitution 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; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,291,236 - United Microelectronics Corporation / Umc Group (USA) v. Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-01092 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied the petitions under § 314(a); no trial was instituted.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“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. In particular, the projected final written decision due date in these Board proceedings is December, 2026. DD Req. 2. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 22, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin between July and September 2026. Id. at 25, 27. 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 expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“Furthermore, the challenged patents have been in force for eleven, sixteen, fourteen, ten, thirteen, thirteen, and twelve years, respectively, 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” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,253,180 - United Microelectronics Corporation / Umc Group (USA) v. Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-01091 · 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, including trial timing and settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“Furthermore, the challenged patents have been in force for eleven, sixteen, fourteen, ten, thirteen, thirteen, and twelve years, respectively, 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 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-01053. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-01076, IPR2025-01079, IPR2025-01090, IPR2025-01091, IPR2025-01092, and IPR2025-01093. ApS, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025). Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner does not have settled expectations because Patent Owner did not previously assert the challenged patents against Petitioner does not defeat Patent Owner’s settled expectations. DD Opp. 5. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient explanation, Patent Owner’s strong settled expectations further favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in these Board proceedings is December, 2026. DD Req. 2. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 22, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin between July and September 2026. Id. at 25, 27. 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 expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,198,686 - United Microelectronics Corporation / Umc Group (USA) v. Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-01090 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a), citing trial timing, duplication, and Patent Owner’s settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in these Board proceedings is December, 2026. DD Req. 2. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 22, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin between July and September 2026. Id. at 25, 27. 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 expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsDenied
“Furthermore, the challenged patents have been in force for eleven, sixteen, fourteen, ten, thirteen, thirteen, and twelve years, respectively, 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” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution 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 8,907,425
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.