- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Cerence Operating CompanyInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2025-00457 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution under § 314(a) because the district court trial is scheduled before the projected final written decision.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewDirector review, deniedOther
“After considering the parties’ arguments and the record, and in view of all relevant considerations, discretionary denial of institution is appropriate in this proceeding. 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 the Board proceeding is October 8, 2026. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 20, 2026. DD Req. 6. 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. DD Opp. 1–2. These considerations 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 Petition is denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 2
- 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 October 8, 2026. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 20, 2026. DD Req. 6. 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. DD Opp. 1–2. These considerations 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 Petition is 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
“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 7,680,334 - Vertiv Corporation v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 31, 2025 · IPR2025-00669 · 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 parallel proceedings 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 proceedings is in October 2026. DD Req. 20. There are two parallel proceedings involving the challenged patent, one involving Petitioner and one involving Petitioner’s customers. DD Opp. 16. The scheduled trial dates are April 6, 2026 and June 22, 2026, respectively, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest the trials will begin between February 2026 and August 2026. Id. at 20–23. 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. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceedings even if the Board were to institute trial. Furthermore, each of the challenged patents has been in force for approximately twenty years, creating strong settled expectations.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“proceedings is in October 2026. DD Req. 20. There are two parallel proceedings involving the challenged patent, one involving Petitioner and one involving Petitioner’s customers. DD Opp. 16. The scheduled trial dates are April 6, 2026 and June 22, 2026, respectively, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest the trials will begin between February 2026 and August 2026. Id. at 20–23. 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. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceedings even if the Board were to institute trial. Furthermore, each of the challenged patents has been in force for approximately twenty years, creating strong settled expectations.” slip op. at 2
- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“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 Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,862,179 - Vertiv Corporation v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 31, 2025 · IPR2025-00668 · 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 review because of parallel proceedings 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 proceedings is in October 2026. DD Req. 20. There are two parallel proceedings involving the challenged patent, one involving Petitioner and one involving Petitioner’s customers. DD Opp. 16. The scheduled trial dates are April 6, 2026 and June 22, 2026, respectively, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest the trials will begin between February 2026 and August 2026. Id. at 20–23. 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. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceedings even if the Board were to institute trial. Furthermore, each of the challenged patents has been in force for approximately twenty years, creating strong settled expectations. 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 IPR2025-00667. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00668 and IPR2025-00669. all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petition is denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“proceedings is in October 2026. DD Req. 20. There are two parallel proceedings involving the challenged patent, one involving Petitioner and one involving Petitioner’s customers. DD Opp. 16. The scheduled trial dates are April 6, 2026 and June 22, 2026, respectively, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest the trials will begin between February 2026 and August 2026. Id. at 20–23. 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. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceedings even if the Board were to institute trial. Furthermore, each of the challenged patents has been in force for approximately twenty years, creating strong settled expectations. Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of” slip op. at 2
- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“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 Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,718,277 - Vertiv Corporation v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 31, 2025 · IPR2025-00667 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR2025-00667 under § 314(a), citing parallel district court trials, likely duplication and inconsistent decisions, and strong 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 in October 2026. DD Req. 20. There are two parallel proceedings involving the challenged patent, one involving Petitioner and one involving Petitioner’s customers. DD Opp. 16. The scheduled trial dates are April 6, 2026 and June 22, 2026, respectively, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest the trials will begin between February 2026 and August 2026. Id. at 20–23. 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. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceedings even if the Board were to institute trial. Furthermore, each of the challenged patents has been in force for approximately twenty years, creating strong settled expectations.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsDenied
“proceedings is in October 2026. DD Req. 20. There are two parallel proceedings involving the challenged patent, one involving Petitioner and one involving Petitioner’s customers. DD Opp. 16. The scheduled trial dates are April 6, 2026 and June 22, 2026, respectively, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest the trials will begin between February 2026 and August 2026. Id. at 20–23. 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. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceedings even if the Board were to institute trial. Furthermore, each of the challenged patents has been in force for approximately twenty years, creating strong settled expectations.” slip op. at 2
- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“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 Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,854,287 - NVIDIA Corporation v. Neural Ai, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 31, 2025 · IPR2025-00608 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a), citing the district court schedule, settled expectations, and Board efficiency.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is October 14, 2026. DD Req. 31.2 The district court’s scheduled trial date is September 8, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest that the latest trial would begin is in September 2026. Id. at 31–32. 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.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsDenied
“Additionally, the challenged patent in IPR2025-00606 has been in force for over 11 years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. The patent challenged in IPR2025-00608, however, has not been in force for a significant period of time. Although the patent originally issued in 2015, the patent reissued in 2023 with different claims from the original patent. While ordinarily such circumstances would counsel against discretionary denial, Petitioner and the original patent owner, Neurala, Inc., 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00606. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00608. 2 The projected final written decision due date in IPR2025-00608 is October 15, 2026. IPR2025-00608, Paper 13 at 33. had a commercial relationship and, in 2017, Neurala sent Petitioner a presentation that included a discussion of Neurala’s patent portfolio, including the patent challenged in IPR2025-00606 and the original patent that the patent challenged in IPR2025-00608 issued from. DD Req. 21–27. Accordingly, Petitioner had actual notice of the challenged patents and Petitioner’s failure to seek early review of the patents favors denial. Furthermore, in view of the fact that the district court will be considering the validity of the patent challenged in IPR2025-00608 along with the validity of the patent challenged in IPR2025-00606 before a final written decision is due in these proceedings, referring IPR2025-00608 to the Board would be an inefficient use of Board resources and tips the balance to discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determinations in this Decision are based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In consideration of the foregoing, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial is granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denial - NVIDIA Corporation v. Neural Ai, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 31, 2025 · IPR2025-00606 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied the petitions under § 314(a), without instituting trial.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is October 14, 2026. DD Req. 31.2 The district court’s scheduled trial date is September 8, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest that the latest trial would begin is in September 2026. Id. at 31–32. 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.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsDenied
“Additionally, the challenged patent in IPR2025-00606 has been in force for over 11 years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. The patent challenged in IPR2025-00608, however, has not been in force for a significant period of time. Although the patent originally issued in 2015, the patent reissued in 2023 with different claims from the original patent. While ordinarily such circumstances would counsel against discretionary denial, Petitioner and the original patent owner, Neurala, Inc., 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00606. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00608. 2 The projected final written decision due date in IPR2025-00608 is October 15, 2026. IPR2025-00608, Paper 13 at 33. had a commercial relationship and, in 2017, Neurala sent Petitioner a presentation that included a discussion of Neurala’s patent portfolio, including the patent challenged in IPR2025-00606 and the original patent that the patent challenged in IPR2025-00608 issued from. DD Req. 21–27. Accordingly, Petitioner had actual notice of the challenged patents and Petitioner’s failure to seek early review of the patents favors denial. Furthermore, in view of the fact that the district court will be considering the validity of the patent challenged in IPR2025-00608 along with the validity of the patent challenged in IPR2025-00606 before a final written decision is due in these proceedings, referring IPR2025-00608 to the Board would be an inefficient use of Board resources and tips the balance to discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,648,867 - 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
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.