- Microsoft Corporation v. Dialect, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00659 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution of the petitions under § 314(a), citing settled expectations, subsidiary ownership history, and parallel litigation.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“wholly owned subsidiary of Petitioner, owned and maintained the challenged patents from 2015 until 2021. DD Opp. 4, 6; Ex. 1034; Paper 10, 1. Nuance further retained a license upon selling the patent that extended to its customers. DD Opp. 4, 6. Absent exceptional circumstances, it is not an appropriate use of Office resources where a party’s wholly owned subsidiary owned, maintained, sold, and retained a license for a patent, but, as is the case here, the party now advocates for its unpatentability. See Analog Devices, Inc. v. Number 14 B.V., IPR2025-00550, Paper 10 at 2 (Director July 16, 2025). Additionally, the challenged patents have been in force for more than fifteen, twelve, nine, thirteen, and eight years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner, and Petitioner does not provide any persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00655. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00656, IPR2025-00657, IPR2025-00658, and IPR2025-00659. 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
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“Furthermore, one of Petitioner’s real-parties-in-interest, Bank of America, N.A., is a party to a parallel district court proceeding that involves the same challenged patents, the same challenged claims, and significantly overlapping invalidity contentions as these IPR proceedings. DD. Req. 15– 16; see Ex. 2003, 3, 60–76. The projected final written decision due date in these Board proceedings is in October 2026. DD Req. 6. The district court’s scheduled trial date is May 4, 2026. DD Opp. 15–16. 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 expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. This additionally weighs in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 3
- 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 9,495,957 - Microsoft Corporation v. Dialect, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00658 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied institution under § 314(a), citing settled expectations, the subsidiary’s patent history, and parallel litigation.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“wholly owned subsidiary of Petitioner, owned and maintained the challenged patents from 2015 until 2021. DD Opp. 4, 6; Ex. 1034; Paper 10, 1. Nuance further retained a license upon selling the patent that extended to its customers. DD Opp. 4, 6. Absent exceptional circumstances, it is not an appropriate use of Office resources where a party’s wholly owned subsidiary owned, maintained, sold, and retained a license for a patent, but, as is the case here, the party now advocates for its unpatentability. See Analog Devices, Inc. v. Number 14 B.V., IPR2025-00550, Paper 10 at 2 (Director July 16, 2025). Additionally, the challenged patents have been in force for more than fifteen, twelve, nine, thirteen, and eight years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner, and Petitioner does not provide any persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00655. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00656, IPR2025-00657, IPR2025-00658, and IPR2025-00659. 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
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“Furthermore, one of Petitioner’s real-parties-in-interest, Bank of America, N.A., is a party to a parallel district court proceeding that involves the same challenged patents, the same challenged claims, and significantly overlapping invalidity contentions as these IPR proceedings. DD. Req. 15– 16; see Ex. 2003, 3, 60–76. The projected final written decision due date in these Board proceedings is in October 2026. DD Req. 6. The district court’s scheduled trial date is May 4, 2026. DD Opp. 15–16. 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 expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. This additionally weighs in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 3
- 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 8,195,468 - Microsoft Corporation v. Dialect, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00655 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution of IPR on the challenged patent under § 314(a), based on the holistic assessment.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“wholly owned subsidiary of Petitioner, owned and maintained the challenged patents from 2015 until 2021. DD Opp. 4, 6; Ex. 1034; Paper 10, 1. Nuance further retained a license upon selling the patent that extended to its customers. DD Opp. 4, 6. Absent exceptional circumstances, it is not an appropriate use of Office resources where a party’s wholly owned subsidiary owned, maintained, sold, and retained a license for a patent, but, as is the case here, the party now advocates for its unpatentability. See Analog Devices, Inc. v. Number 14 B.V., IPR2025-00550, Paper 10 at 2 (Director July 16, 2025). Additionally, the challenged patents have been in force for more than fifteen, twelve, nine, thirteen, and eight years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner, and Petitioner does not provide any persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00655. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00656, IPR2025-00657, IPR2025-00658, and IPR2025-00659. 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
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“Furthermore, one of Petitioner’s real-parties-in-interest, Bank of America, N.A., is a party to a parallel district court proceeding that involves the same challenged patents, the same challenged claims, and significantly overlapping invalidity contentions as these IPR proceedings. DD. Req. 15– 16; see Ex. 2003, 3, 60–76. The projected final written decision due date in these Board proceedings is in October 2026. DD Req. 6. The district court’s scheduled trial date is May 4, 2026. DD Opp. 15–16. 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 expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. This additionally weighs in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 3
- 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
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,640,160 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Genghiscomm Holdings, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00781 · 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 district-court trial would likely precede the final written decisions and settled expectations favored denial.
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 18, 2026. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 20, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by January 2026. DD Req. 6. 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 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. Id. at 3–11.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“Further, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately eight and six 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).” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,200,227 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Genghiscomm Holdings, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00780 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions without instituting trial under § 314(a), based on parallel litigation 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 for each of these cases is October 18, 2026. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 20, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by January 2026. DD Req. 6. 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 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. Id. at 3–11.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“Further, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately eight and six 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).” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,768,842 - PTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00644 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution under § 314(a) because district court trial is expected first and settled expectations favor denial.
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 proceedings is October 16, 2026. DD Req. 4–5. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 6, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in May or June of 2026. Id. at 4; DD Opp. 8; Ex. 1050. 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. Additionally, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00639, IPR2025-00640, IPR2025-00642, IPR2025-00643, and IPR2025-00644 have been in force for over nine, eight, twelve, nine, and nine years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“proceedings is October 16, 2026. DD Req. 4–5. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 6, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in May or June of 2026. Id. at 4; DD Opp. 8; Ex. 1050. 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. Additionally, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00639, IPR2025-00640, IPR2025-00642, IPR2025-00643, and IPR2025-00644 have been in force for over nine, eight, twelve, nine, and nine 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 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 9,208,423 - PTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00642 · 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.
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 proceedings is October 16, 2026. DD Req. 4–5. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 6, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in May or June of 2026. Id. at 4; DD Opp. 8; Ex. 1050. 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. Additionally, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00639, IPR2025-00640, IPR2025-00642, IPR2025-00643, and IPR2025-00644 have been in force for over nine, eight, twelve, nine, and nine years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“proceedings is October 16, 2026. DD Req. 4–5. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 6, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in May or June of 2026. Id. at 4; DD Opp. 8; Ex. 1050. 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. Additionally, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00639, IPR2025-00640, IPR2025-00642, IPR2025-00643, and IPR2025-00644 have been in force for over nine, eight, twelve, nine, and nine years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,403,219 - PTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00640 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR challenging the patent under § 314(a), citing the district court schedule, risk of 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 the Board proceedings is October 16, 2026. DD Req. 4–5. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 6, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in May or June of 2026. Id. at 4; DD Opp. 8; Ex. 1050. 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. Additionally, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00639, IPR2025-00640, IPR2025-00642, IPR2025-00643, and IPR2025-00644 have been in force for over nine, eight, twelve, nine, and nine years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsDenied
“proceedings is October 16, 2026. DD Req. 4–5. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 6, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in May or June of 2026. Id. at 4; DD Opp. 8; Ex. 1050. 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. Additionally, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00639, IPR2025-00640, IPR2025-00642, IPR2025-00643, and IPR2025-00644 have been in force for over nine, eight, twelve, nine, and nine years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,483,722 - PTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00639 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Petitions were denied under § 314(a) because district court trial is expected before a final written decision, creating duplication and inconsistent-decision risks, and settled expectations favor denial.
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 proceedings is October 16, 2026. DD Req. 4–5. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 6, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in May or June of 2026. Id. at 4; DD Opp. 8; Ex. 1050. 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. Additionally, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00639, IPR2025-00640, IPR2025-00642, IPR2025-00643, and IPR2025-00644 have been in force for over nine, eight, twelve, nine, and nine years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“proceedings is October 16, 2026. DD Req. 4–5. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 6, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in May or June of 2026. Id. at 4; DD Opp. 8; Ex. 1050. 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. Additionally, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00639, IPR2025-00640, IPR2025-00642, IPR2025-00643, and IPR2025-00644 have been in force for over nine, eight, twelve, nine, and nine years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“The patents challenged in IPR2025-00641 and IPR2025-00645 have not been in force as long as the other patents challenged. While ordinarily such circumstances might counsel against discretionary denial, the district court will be considering the validity of the patents challenged in IPR2025- 00639, IPR2025-00640, IPR2025-00642, IPR2025-00643, and IPR2025- 00644, along with the validity of the patents challenged in IPR2025-00641 and IPR2025-00645, and referring IPR2025-00641 and IPR2025-00645 to the Board would be an inefficient use of Board resources and tips the balance to discretionary denial as to those patent too. 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 9,122,965 - Walmart Inc. / Walmart Stores Texas, LLC v. Security Technology LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00809 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of Walmart’s petition because Walmart was time-barred and did not show exceptional circumstances justifying joinder.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barDenied
“infringement of the challenged patent on September 15, 2023. DD Req. 14. Petitioner waited until March 28, 2025 to file this Petition, more than eighteen months later. Thus, Petitioner is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) from filing a petition. Petitioner seeks to join a recently instituted inter partes review filed by Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. Paper 3 (motion to join to IPR2024-01420). However, petitions filed by time-barred parties should proceed only in exceptional circumstances. Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc., IPR2025-00324, Paper 11 at 3 (Director June 25, 2025). Petitioner does not persuasively demonstrate exceptional circumstances here. For example, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner requested consolidation of its district court proceedings against Petitioner and Home Depot; that an initial district court proceeding was dismissed for standing, causing delays; and that the parallel district court proceeding is stayed. Paper 19, 3. However, Petitioner fails to persuasively demonstrate that these circumstances are exceptional and justify the joinder of a time-barred party. Accordingly, discretionary denial is appropriate under these circumstances.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingDenied
“infringement of the challenged patent on September 15, 2023. DD Req. 14. Petitioner waited until March 28, 2025 to file this Petition, more than eighteen months later. Thus, Petitioner is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) from filing a petition. Petitioner seeks to join a recently instituted inter partes review filed by Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. Paper 3 (motion to join to IPR2024-01420). However, petitions filed by time-barred parties should proceed only in exceptional circumstances. Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc., IPR2025-00324, Paper 11 at 3 (Director June 25, 2025). Petitioner does not persuasively demonstrate exceptional circumstances here. For example, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner requested consolidation of its district court proceedings against Petitioner and Home Depot; that an initial district court proceeding was dismissed for standing, causing delays; and that the parallel district court proceeding is stayed. Paper 19, 3. However, Petitioner fails to persuasively demonstrate that these circumstances are exceptional and justify the joinder of a time-barred party. Accordingly, discretionary denial is appropriate under these circumstances.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“infringement of the challenged patent on September 15, 2023. DD Req. 14. Petitioner waited until March 28, 2025 to file this Petition, more than eighteen months later. Thus, Petitioner is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) from filing a petition. Petitioner seeks to join a recently instituted inter partes review filed by Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. Paper 3 (motion to join to IPR2024-01420). However, petitions filed by time-barred parties should proceed only in exceptional circumstances. Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc., IPR2025-00324, Paper 11 at 3 (Director June 25, 2025). Petitioner does not persuasively demonstrate exceptional circumstances here. For example, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner requested consolidation of its district court proceedings against Petitioner and Home Depot; that an initial district court proceeding was dismissed for standing, causing delays; and that the parallel district court proceeding is stayed. Paper 19, 3. However, Petitioner fails to persuasively demonstrate that these circumstances are exceptional and justify the joinder of a time-barred party. Accordingly, discretionary denial is appropriate under these circumstances. Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petition is denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,562,402
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.