• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Quicker Connections LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-01088 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), citing likely district court trial before the projected final written decision 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 December 25, 2026. DD Req. 32. The district court’s scheduled trial date is October 19, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in November 2026. Id. at 32–33; Ex. 2032. 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, the challenged patent has been in force for more than seventeen years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. DD Req. 4.” slip op. at 2

  • Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied

    “proceeding is December 25, 2026. DD Req. 32. The district court’s scheduled trial date is October 19, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in November 2026. Id. at 32–33; Ex. 2032. 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, the challenged patent has been in force for more than seventeen years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. DD Req. 4.” 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 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; FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,061,859
• Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. v. Longhorn Automotive Group LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-01089 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied institution of IPR on the challenged patent under § 314(a).

  RulingsDirector review decision

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

    “The projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is December 28, 2026. DD Req. 6. The district court’s scheduled trial date in the earliest parallel proceeding is June 1, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in September 2026. Ex. 1023. 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 proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Further, there has been meaningful investment in the district court proceeding. DD Req. 9–10. For example, Patent Owner has provided two sets of infringement contentions, and a Markman hearing is scheduled to occur before the due date for an institution decision. Id.” slip op. at 2

  • Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied

    “Furthermore, the challenged patent has been in force for sixteen years creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner, and Petitioner does not provide persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an appropriate use of Board resources. Dabico Airport Sols. Inc. v. AXA Power ApS, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025).” 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 Petitions is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,513,238
• United Microelectronics Corporation / Umc Group (USA) v. Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-01093 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a), citing trial timing, duplication, and Patent Owner’s settled expectations.

  RulingsDirector review decision

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

    “In particular, the projected final written decision due date in these Board proceedings is December, 2026. DD Req. 2. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 22, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin between July and September 2026. Id. at 25, 27. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions.” slip op. at 2

  • Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied

    “Furthermore, the challenged patents have been in force for eleven, sixteen, fourteen, ten, thirteen, thirteen, and twelve years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner, and Petitioner does not provide persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an appropriate use of Board resources. Dabico Airport Sols. Inc. v. AXA Power 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-01053. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-01076, IPR2025-01079, IPR2025-01090, IPR2025-01091, IPR2025-01092, and IPR2025-01093. ApS, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025). Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner does not have settled expectations because Patent Owner did not previously assert the challenged patents against Petitioner does not defeat Patent Owner’s settled expectations. DD Opp. 5. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient explanation, Patent Owner’s strong settled expectations further favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary 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 8,587,076
• United Microelectronics Corporation / Umc Group (USA) v. Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-01090 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a), citing trial timing, duplication, and Patent Owner’s settled expectations.

  RulingsDirector review decision

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

    “In particular, the projected final written decision due date in these Board proceedings is December, 2026. DD Req. 2. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 22, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin between July and September 2026. Id. at 25, 27. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions.” slip op. at 2

  • Settled expectationsDenied

    “Furthermore, the challenged patents have been in force for eleven, sixteen, fourteen, ten, thirteen, thirteen, and twelve years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner, and Petitioner does not provide persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an appropriate use of Board resources. Dabico Airport Sols. Inc. v. AXA Power” slip op. at 2

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

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

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,907,425
• United Microelectronics Corporation / Umc Group (USA) v. Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-01076 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director denied institution under § 314(a), citing the district court schedule, risk of duplicated effort and inconsistent decisions, and Patent Owner’s 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 these Board proceedings is December, 2026. DD Req. 2. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 22, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin between July and September 2026. Id. at 25, 27. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions.” slip op. at 2

  • Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied

    “Furthermore, the challenged patents have been in force for eleven, sixteen, fourteen, ten, thirteen, thirteen, and twelve years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner, and Petitioner does not provide persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an appropriate use of Board resources. Dabico Airport Sols. Inc. v. AXA Power 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-01053. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-01076, IPR2025-01079, IPR2025-01090, IPR2025-01091, IPR2025-01092, and IPR2025-01093. ApS, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025). Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner does not have settled expectations because Patent Owner did not previously assert the challenged patents against Petitioner does not defeat Patent Owner’s settled expectations. DD Opp. 5. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient explanation, Patent Owner’s strong settled expectations further favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,579,227
• United Microelectronics Corporation / Umc Group (USA) v. Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-01053 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), citing likely district court trial before the final written decision and strong 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 in these Board proceedings is December, 2026. DD Req. 2. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 22, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin between July and September 2026. Id. at 25, 27. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions.” slip op. at 2

  • Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied

    “Furthermore, the challenged patents have been in force for eleven, sixteen, fourteen, ten, thirteen, thirteen, and twelve years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner, and Petitioner does not provide persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an appropriate use of Board resources. Dabico Airport Sols. Inc. v. AXA Power 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-01053. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-01076, IPR2025-01079, IPR2025-01090, IPR2025-01091, IPR2025-01092, and IPR2025-01093. ApS, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025). Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner does not have settled expectations because Patent Owner did not previously assert the challenged patents against Petitioner does not defeat Patent Owner’s settled expectations. DD Opp. 5. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient explanation, Patent Owner’s strong settled expectations further favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “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 8,796,779
• Hisense USA Corporation v. Phenix Longhorn LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 3, 2025 · IPR2025-01004 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director denied institution of inter partes review under § 314(a), citing the district court’s earlier scheduled trial and a prior challenge to the patent.

  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 December 16, 2026. See Paper 3, 1. The district court’s scheduled trial date is January 20, 2026. DD Req. 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.” slip op. at 2

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “Additionally, the challenged patent was involved in a prior Board proceeding. See Innolux Corp. v. Phenix Longhorn LLC, IPR2025-00044, Paper 11, 23, 25 (PTAB June 9, 2025). In that prior proceeding, the Board denied institution, finding that the petition did not satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) and did not present a reasonable likelihood that a challenged claim was unpatentable. DD Req. 35; Innolux, IPR2025-00044, Paper 11, 23, 25. Even absent road mapping, prior challenges weigh against institution. 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

  • 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).” slip op. at 2

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,557,788
• Maplebear Inc. D/B/A Instacart v. Fall Line Patents, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00958 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request, denied the petition, and declined to institute IPR based on parallel litigation, settled expectations, and road mapping concerns.

  RulingsDirector review decision

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

    “The projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is December 12, 2026. Patent Owner has not asserted the challenged patent against Petitioner in district court, but Patent Owner has asserted the challenged patent against Petitioner’s customers.2 DD Req. 5–6; DD Opp. 2–3. For the district court proceeding involving Patent Owner and Petitioner’s customers, the scheduled trial date is July 27, 2026, and time-totrial statistics suggest trial would begin by October 2026. DD Req. 5. 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, and a risk of inconsistent decisions.” slip op. at 2

  • Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied

    “Additionally, the challenged patent has been in force for approximately nine years, creating settled expectations for Patent Owner, and Petitioner does not provide persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an appropriate use of Board resources. Dabico Airport Sols. Inc. v. AXA Power ApS, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied

    “Further, the challenged patent has been the subject of multiple proceedings before the Board, and this is the second petition challenging claim 7. DD Req. 2; DD Opp. 1–2, 9. In the prior proceeding involving claim 7, the Board entered a final written decision finding that the petitioner did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 7 of the challenged patent would have been obvious over Barbosa3 and Falls.4 DD Req. 3; Starbucks Corp. v. Fall Line Patents, LLC, IPR2019-00610, Paper 42 at 34 (PTAB May 17, 2022) (final decision on remand). In this proceeding, Petitioner relies on Barbosa and Falls, and states that its “challenges here address the precise elements that prevented invalidation of Claim 7 in earlier proceedings.” DD Opp. 9; see also id. at 3 (arguing that “the Petition squarely addresses the deficiency identified by the Board in the prior IPR challenging claim 7”). Petitioner’s admission raises concerns of road mapping and weighs in favor of discretionary denial. See Amazon Web Servs., Inc. v. Croga Innovations, Ltd., IPR2025-00884, Paper 9 at 2 (Director Sept. 3, 2025).” slip op. at 3

  • 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 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 3 U.S. Patent No. 6,961,586 B2, issued Nov. 1, 2005 (Ex. 1005). 4 U.S. Patent No. 5,991,771, issued Nov. 23, 1999 (Ex. 1006). FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,454,748
• Tesla, Inc. v. Granite Vehicle Ventures LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00943 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director denied institution of Tesla’s petitions under § 314(a), finding the district court trial likely to precede the Board’s final written decision and create duplication and risk of inconsistent decisions.

  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 December 2026. DD Req. 8. The district court’s scheduled trial date is August 3, 2026, and time-to-trial statistics suggest trial would begin in October or November 2026. Id. at 6, 16; DD Opp. 15; Reply 3. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Therefore, 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. Even though the challenged patents have not been in force for a significant period of time (issued in 2023), this fact alone does not tip the balance against discretionary denial. Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of 2 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00943. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00944. 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 11,597,402
• Tesla, Inc. v. Granite Vehicle Ventures LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00944 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director denied institution of the petitions under § 314(a), citing likely overlap with the district court trial and the risk of duplicated effort and inconsistent decisions.

  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 in December 2026. DD Req. 8. The district court’s scheduled trial date is August 3, 2026, and time-to-trial statistics suggest trial would begin in October or November 2026. Id. at 6, 16; DD Opp. 15; Reply 3. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Therefore, 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. Even though the challenged patents have not been in force for a significant period of time (issued in 2023), this fact alone does not tip the balance against discretionary denial. 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

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,738,765

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.