• AT&T Services Inc. / Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless et al. v. Rightquestion, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00361 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied the Petitions; no trial was instituted under § 314(a).

  RulingsDirector review decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied

    “In particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is October 15, 2026. DD Req. 10. The district court’s scheduled trial date is October 20, 2025, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by April 2026. Id. at 10, 16. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expenses for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Id. at 69. Furthermore, there has been meaningful investment in the district court proceeding. Id. at 18–22. For example, the district court has held a Markman hearing and issued a claim construction order, and fact discovery is complete. Id. at 19. Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00360. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00361 and IPR2025-00362. all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 2

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,856,132
• T-Mobile USA, Inc. / AT&T Mobility LLC et al. v. Smart RF Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00727 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied institution under § 314(a), citing the parallel district court proceeding and settled expectations.

  RulingsDirector review decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “In particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is in October 2026. DD Req. 17–18. The district court’s scheduled trial date is November 17, 2025, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial would begin between December 2025 and April 2026. Id. at 19–20; DD Opp. 9. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expenses for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. DD Req. 13–17. Furthermore, there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. Id. at 21–24. Also, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00612, IPR2025-00692, and IPR2025-00727 have been in force for approximately fourteen, eight, and nineteen years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2

  • Settled expectationsDenied

    “these cases is in October 2026. DD Req. 17–18. The district court’s scheduled trial date is November 17, 2025, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial would begin between December 2025 and April 2026. Id. at 19–20; DD Opp. 9. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expenses for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. DD Req. 13–17. Furthermore, there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. Id. at 21–24. Also, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00612, IPR2025-00692, and IPR2025-00727 have been in force for approximately fourteen, eight, and nineteen years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2

  • Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied

    “Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In consideration of the foregoing, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial is granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,035,345
• T-Mobile USA, Inc. / AT&T Mobility LLC et al. v. Smart RF Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00692 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director denied institution under § 314(a), citing the parallel district court proceeding and Patent Owner’s settled expectations.

  RulingsDirector review decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied

    “In particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is in October 2026. DD Req. 17–18. The district court’s scheduled trial date is November 17, 2025, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial would begin between December 2025 and April 2026. Id. at 19–20; DD Opp. 9. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expenses for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. DD Req. 13–17. Furthermore, there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. Id. at 21–24. Also, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00612, IPR2025-00692, and IPR2025-00727 have been in force for approximately fourteen, eight, and nineteen years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2

  • Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied

    “these cases is in October 2026. DD Req. 17–18. The district court’s scheduled trial date is November 17, 2025, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial would begin between December 2025 and April 2026. Id. at 19–20; DD Opp. 9. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expenses for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. DD Req. 13–17. Furthermore, there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. Id. at 21–24. Also, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00612, IPR2025-00692, and IPR2025-00727 have been in force for approximately fourteen, eight, and nineteen years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied

    “Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In consideration of the foregoing, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial is granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,641,204
• AT&T Services Inc. / Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless et al. v. Rightquestion, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00360 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions without instituting trial under § 314(a), citing the parallel district court proceeding.

  RulingsDirector review decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied

    “In particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is October 15, 2026. DD Req. 10. The district court’s scheduled trial date is October 20, 2025, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by April 2026. Id. at 10, 16. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expenses for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Id. at 69. Furthermore, there has been meaningful investment in the district court proceeding. Id. at 18–22. For example, the district court has held a Markman hearing and issued a claim construction order, and fact discovery is complete. Id. at 19. Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00360. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00361 and IPR2025-00362. all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 2

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,674,009
• T-Mobile USA, Inc. / AT&T Mobility LLC et al. v. Smart RF Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00691 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director denied institution of the petitions under § 314(a), citing parallel district court proceedings, duplicated effort, and Patent Owner’s settled expectations.

  RulingsDirector review decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied

    “In particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is in October 2026. DD Req. 17–18. The district court’s scheduled trial date is November 17, 2025, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial would begin between December 2025 and April 2026. Id. at 19–20; DD Opp. 9. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expenses for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. DD Req. 13–17. Furthermore, there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. Id. at 21–24. Also, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00612, IPR2025-00692, and IPR2025-00727 have been in force for approximately fourteen, eight, and nineteen years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2

  • Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied

    “these cases is in October 2026. DD Req. 17–18. The district court’s scheduled trial date is November 17, 2025, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial would begin between December 2025 and April 2026. Id. at 19–20; DD Opp. 9. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expenses for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. DD Req. 13–17. Furthermore, there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. Id. at 21–24. Also, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00612, IPR2025-00692, and IPR2025-00727 have been in force for approximately fourteen, eight, and nineteen years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,958,296
• T-Mobile USA, Inc. / AT&T Mobility LLC et al. v. Smart RF Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00612 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a); no trial was instituted.

  RulingsDirector review decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied

    “In particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is in October 2026. DD Req. 17–18. The district court’s scheduled trial date is November 17, 2025, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial would begin between December 2025 and April 2026. Id. at 19–20; DD Opp. 9. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expenses for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. DD Req. 13–17. Furthermore, there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. Id. at 21–24. Also, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00612, IPR2025-00692, and IPR2025-00727 have been in force for approximately fourteen, eight, and nineteen years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2

  • Settled expectationsInstitution denied

    “these cases is in October 2026. DD Req. 17–18. The district court’s scheduled trial date is November 17, 2025, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial would begin between December 2025 and April 2026. Id. at 19–20; DD Opp. 9. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expenses for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. DD Req. 13–17. Furthermore, there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. Id. at 21–24. Also, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00612, IPR2025-00692, and IPR2025-00727 have been in force for approximately fourteen, eight, and nineteen years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,078,561
• Boe Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. Optronic Sciences LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00239 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), citing the district court schedule and Patent Owner’s settled expectations.

  RulingsDirector review decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Granted

    “particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is in October 2026. DD Req. 5. The district court’s scheduled trial date is May 4, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest that the trial would begin in July 2026. Id. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expenses for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Further, the challenged patents 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00238. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00239. have been in force for approximately twelve years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. These considerations favor discretionary denial, and outweigh the considerations that counsel against it.” slip op. at 2

  • Settled expectationsGranted

    “Petitioner argues it has settled expectations that the challenged patents would not be asserted against it because the challenged patents are directed to technology that is fundamentally different from what Petitioner uses in its products. DD Opp. 9–13. Therefore, Petitioner contends it had no reason to challenge the claims of the patents in these proceedings until Patent Owner asserted the challenged patents in district court. Id. at 12.” slip op. at 2

  • Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied

    “Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In consideration of the foregoing, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial is granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,502,757
• Amazon.Com, Inc. v. Kaifi LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00627 · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a), so no inter partes review was instituted.

  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 October 11, 2026. DD Req. 3. The district court’s scheduled trial date is March 16, 2026. Id. The time-to-trial statistics suggest that the trial would begin in September 2026. Id.; DD Opp. 35 (citing Ex. 1063). Although the court has granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement, the stay is limited to 45 days from the grant of the order. Ex. 1058. Thus, even if the district court trial date is delayed by 45 days, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before the scheduled district court trial, and the close proximity of a final written decision to the projected trial date (accounting for a 45 day delay) would result in the significant duplication of effort, additional expenses for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Furthermore, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00624, IPR2025-00625, and IPR2025-00627 have been in force for approximately fourteen, ten, and fifteen years, respectively, creating strong settled” slip op. at 2

  • Settled expectationsDenied

    “these cases is October 11, 2026. DD Req. 3. The district court’s scheduled trial date is March 16, 2026. Id. The time-to-trial statistics suggest that the trial would begin in September 2026. Id.; DD Opp. 35 (citing Ex. 1063). Although the court has granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement, the stay is limited to 45 days from the grant of the order. Ex. 1058. Thus, even if the district court trial date is delayed by 45 days, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before the scheduled district court trial, and the close proximity of a final written decision to the projected trial date (accounting for a 45 day delay) would result in the significant duplication of effort, additional expenses for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Furthermore, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00624, IPR2025-00625, and IPR2025-00627 have been in force for approximately fourteen, ten, and fifteen years, respectively, creating strong settled” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialInstitution 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 denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,689,001
• Amazon.Com, Inc. v. Kaifi LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00626 · 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 of the record.

  RulingsDirector review decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied

    “In particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is October 11, 2026. DD Req. 3. The district court’s scheduled trial date is March 16, 2026. Id. The time-to-trial statistics suggest that the trial would begin in September 2026. Id.; DD Opp. 35 (citing Ex. 1063). Although the court has granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement, the stay is limited to 45 days from the grant of the order. Ex. 1058. Thus, even if the district court trial date is delayed by 45 days, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before the scheduled district court trial, and the close proximity of a final written decision to the projected trial date (accounting for a 45 day delay) would result in the significant duplication of effort, additional expenses for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Furthermore, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00624, IPR2025-00625, and IPR2025-00627 have been in force for approximately fourteen, ten, and fifteen years, respectively, creating strong settled 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00624. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00625, IPR2025-00626, and IPR2025-00627. expectations for Patent Owner. These considerations weigh in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2

  • Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied

    “these cases is October 11, 2026. DD Req. 3. The district court’s scheduled trial date is March 16, 2026. Id. The time-to-trial statistics suggest that the trial would begin in September 2026. Id.; DD Opp. 35 (citing Ex. 1063). Although the court has granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement, the stay is limited to 45 days from the grant of the order. Ex. 1058. Thus, even if the district court trial date is delayed by 45 days, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before the scheduled district court trial, and the close proximity of a final written decision to the projected trial date (accounting for a 45 day delay) would result in the significant duplication of effort, additional expenses for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Furthermore, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00624, IPR2025-00625, and IPR2025-00627 have been in force for approximately fourteen, ten, and fifteen years, respectively, creating strong settled” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,082,518
• Amazon.Com, Inc. v. Kaifi LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00625 · 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.

  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 October 11, 2026. DD Req. 3. The district court’s scheduled trial date is March 16, 2026. Id. The time-to-trial statistics suggest that the trial would begin in September 2026. Id.; DD Opp. 35 (citing Ex. 1063). Although the court has granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement, the stay is limited to 45 days from the grant of the order. Ex. 1058. Thus, even if the district court trial date is delayed by 45 days, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before the scheduled district court trial, and the close proximity of a final written decision to the projected trial date (accounting for a 45 day delay) would result in the significant duplication of effort, additional expenses for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Furthermore, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00624, IPR2025-00625, and IPR2025-00627 have been in force for approximately fourteen, ten, and fifteen years, respectively, creating strong settled” slip op. at 2

  • Settled expectationsDenied

    “these cases is October 11, 2026. DD Req. 3. The district court’s scheduled trial date is March 16, 2026. Id. The time-to-trial statistics suggest that the trial would begin in September 2026. Id.; DD Opp. 35 (citing Ex. 1063). Although the court has granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement, the stay is limited to 45 days from the grant of the order. Ex. 1058. Thus, even if the district court trial date is delayed by 45 days, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before the scheduled district court trial, and the close proximity of a final written decision to the projected trial date (accounting for a 45 day delay) would result in the significant duplication of effort, additional expenses for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Furthermore, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00624, IPR2025-00625, and IPR2025-00627 have been in force for approximately fourteen, ten, and fifteen years, respectively, creating strong settled” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialDenied

    “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 denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,930,196

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.