- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Mobile Data Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00541 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR, finding discretionary denial appropriate under § 314(a) based on the district court schedule 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 for each of these cases is in October 2026. DD Req. 30. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 20, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest that trial would begin by August 2026. Id. at 30–31; DD Opp. 47; Ex. 1052, 35. 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.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsDenied
“Further, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately ten, ten, eight, and eight years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,922,348 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Mobile Data Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00540 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests and denied the petitions under § 314(a), declining to institute IPR.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution 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 for each of these cases is in October 2026. DD Req. 30. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 20, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest that trial would begin by August 2026. Id. at 30–31; DD Opp. 47; Ex. 1052, 35. 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.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“Further, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately ten, ten, eight, and eight years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. 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 8,793,336 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Mobile Data Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00539 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR2025-00539 under § 314(a), citing likely district-court trial before the final written decision 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. 30. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 20, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest that trial would begin by August 2026. Id. at 30–31; DD Opp. 47; Ex. 1052, 35. 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.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“Further, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately ten, ten, eight, and eight years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 3
- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“After considering the parties’ arguments and the record, and in view of all relevant considerations, discretionary denial of institution is appropriate in these proceedings. This determination is based on the totality of the evidence and arguments the parties have presented.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,793,336 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Mobile Data Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00538 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution under § 314(a), finding that the district court schedule, likely duplication, and settled expectations favor discretionary denial.
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. 30. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 20, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest that trial would begin by August 2026. Id. at 30–31; DD Opp. 47; Ex. 1052, 35. 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.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsDenied
“Further, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately ten, ten, eight, and eight years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 3
- 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 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 8,825,801 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Mobile Data Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00537 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests and denied institution under § 314(a), citing the parallel district-court schedule 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. 30. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 20, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest that trial would begin by August 2026. Id. at 30–31; DD Opp. 47; Ex. 1052, 35. 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.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsDenied
“Further, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately ten, ten, eight, and eight years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 3
- 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). 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 8,825,801 - Rec Solar Holdings As v. Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00592 · 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 fintivDenied
“First, the projected final written decision due date for each of these proceedings is October 17, 2026. DD Req. 6. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 1, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in June 2026. Id. at 6–7. 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 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00592. Patent Owner filed similar papers in IPR2025-00593, IPR2025-00594, and IPR2025-00595. 2 In IPR2025-00593, Petitioner filed a motion for joinder to IPR2024-01040. In IPR2025-00594, Petitioner filed a motion for joinder to IPR2024-01038. In IPR2025-00595, Petitioner filed a motion for joinder to IPR2024-01194. parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. This weighs strongly in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“01039, the proceeding that Petitioner seeks to join, is January 14, 2026. As such, it is likely that a final written decision will issue before the district court trial occurs. This is true for all of the proceedings Petitioner seeks to join, and generally counsels against discretionary denial. However, given that the present proceedings would not be instituted in the absence of the proceedings Petitioner seeks to join, there are little to no efficiencies to be gained by joining Petitioner to the proceedings already in progress. 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
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingNot reached
“Petitioner filed the Petition and an accompanying motion for joinder to IPR2024-01039, a proceeding that the Board instituted on January 14, 2025. Canadian Solar Inc. v. Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., IPR2024-01039, Paper 13 (PTAB Jan. 14, 2025).2 The Board first determines whether to institute a proceeding before considering a motion for joinder. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). Accordingly, discretionary considerations are first reviewed for the Petition on its own, and then reviewed if joinder were to be granted.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,222,516 - Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. / Azurity Pharma India LLP et al. v. Heron Therapeutics, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · PGR2025-00035 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · PGR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied the petitions under § 314(a), instituting no trial because the district court trial would precede the final written decision.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“particular, the projected final written decision due date in these proceedings is October 14, 2026. See DD Req. 16. The district court’s scheduled trial date is November 17, 2025. Id.; Ex. 2002, 2–3. Additionally, both parties agree that the district court is unlikely to stay its proceeding. DD Req. 15– 16; DD Opp. 12. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the trial in the district court, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk 1 Citations are to papers in PGR2025-00035. The parties filed similar papers in PGR2025-00036. of inconsistent decisions.2 Furthermore, there has been substantial investment by the parties in the district court proceeding. DD Req. 18. For example, the parties have exchanged invalidity and infringement contentions, conducted all fact depositions, completed all document production, and expert discovery will close prior to the due date for an institution decision in these proceedings. Id.; Ex. 2002, 2–3. On balance, the circumstances in these cases favor 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 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 12,115,254 - Transcend Information Inc. v. Truesight Communications LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2025-00723 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), citing the earlier district court trial, duplication risk, and settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is October 16, 2026. DD Req. 5. The district court’s scheduled trial date is January 5, 2026. Id.; DD Opp. 3. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding 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, and there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. DD Req. 7–8. Finally, the patent has been in force for ten years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“proceeding is October 16, 2026. DD Req. 5. The district court’s scheduled trial date is January 5, 2026. Id.; DD Opp. 3. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding 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, and there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. DD Req. 7–8. Finally, the patent has been in force for ten years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. Petitioner argues it has its own settled expectations because it “had no reason to believe that it was infringing a patent that requires a kiosk, which [Petitioner] is not even alleged to make or use.” DD Opp. 11. Although this weighs against discretionary denial, it does not overcome both Patent Owner’s settled expectations and the significantly earlier district court trial date. See BOE Tech. Grp. Co. v. Optronic Scis. LLC, IPR2025-00238, Paper 11 at 2–3 (Director July 29, 2025).” slip op. at 2
- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petition is denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In consideration of the foregoing, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial is granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,977,783 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Headwater Research LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2025-00483 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution under § 314(a), finding the projected Board decision would follow district court trial and create duplication, expense, and risk of inconsistent decisions.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceedings is October 16, 2026. See DD Req. 15. The district court’s scheduled trial date is February 9, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in June 2026. Id. at 13; DD Opp. 15–16; Ex. 2002; Ex. 2003. 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, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. 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 denialPatents in suitUS 9,609,510 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Headwater Research LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2025-00481 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Petitions were denied under § 314(a), and no trial was instituted, because the holistic assessment favored discretionary denial amid likely parallel district court proceedings.
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. See DD Req. 15. The district court’s scheduled trial date is February 9, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in June 2026. Id. at 13; DD Opp. 15–16; Ex. 2002; Ex. 2003. 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, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. 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 denialPatents in suitUS 11,096,055
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.