- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Headwater Research LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00963 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution of the IPR under § 314(a), citing parallel litigation and 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 dates in the Board proceedings are in November and December 2026. DD Req. 13. The district court’s scheduled trial date is May 4, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in September 2026. DD Opp. 50. 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 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 expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“In addition, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately seven 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
- 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” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,028,144 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Headwater Research LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00932 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions without instituting IPR under § 314(a), citing the parallel litigation and settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due dates in the Board proceedings are in November and December 2026. DD Req. 13. The district court’s scheduled trial date is May 4, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in September 2026. DD Opp. 50. 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 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
“In addition, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately seven 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 denialInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“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 IPR2025-00932. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00963. 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
“Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE,1 Acting Chief Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 1 Coke Morgan Stewart, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, is recused and took no part in this decision. The Director has delegated his discretionary authority for this decision. See https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/dsco-delegation.pdf.” slip op. at 1
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,080,250 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Genghiscomm Holdings, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00899 · 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 likely to precede the final written decision.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date for this case is November 27, 2026. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 15, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by August 2026. DD Req. 5–6. 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. Id. at 4–5. Although the challenged patent has not been in force for a significant period of time (issued in 2022), 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 all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petition is denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,431,386 - Lenovo (United States) Inc. / Motorola Mobility LLC v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 19, 2025 · IPR2025-00927 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), citing the parallel district court schedule, settled expectations, and a prior denied IPR.
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 November 23, 2026. DD Req. 12. The district court’s scheduled trial date is January 5, 2026, and time-to-trial statistics show trial would begin in April 2026. Id. at 2. 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.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“Additionally, the challenged patent has been in force for approximately 16 years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. Further, the challenged patent in this proceeding was the subject of a previous inter partes review, and the Board denied institution on the merits. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Collision Comm’s, Inc., IPR2024- 01247, Paper 14 (PTAB Feb. 7, 2025). Repeat challenges raise concerns of road mapping and weigh against institution.” 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 Petition is denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,593,492 - Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v. Longhorn Automotive Group LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 19, 2025 · IPR2025-00955 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), citing parallel proceedings, settled expectations, and the holistic record.
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 December 2, 2026. DD Req. 6. Although Patent Owner has not asserted the challenged patent against Petitioner in district court, the challenged patent is part of several district court proceedings involving other parties. Of these parallel proceedings, the earliest district court scheduled trial date is June 1, 2026. Id. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before a district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense, and a risk of inconsistent decisions.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsDenied
“Additionally, the challenged patent has been in force for more than eleven 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 Solutions Inc. v. Axa Power Aps, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025). Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner does not have strong settled expectations because the challenged patent was not previously commercialized or asserted in the technology space of vehicle headlamps or headlights is unpersuasive. DD Opp. 4–5. Furthermore, Petitioner’s argument that it did not expect a patent claiming a “system for projecting a pattern of light” to be asserted in the technology space of vehicle headlamps is not persuasive. See Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 52–65 (claim 1).” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aDenied
“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 8,810,803 - Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v. Klein Tools, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00892 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s requests for discretionary denial and denied the petitions without instituting trial under § 314(a), based on the totality of the circumstances.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Other considerations favor discretionary denial. In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceedings is November 21, 2026. DD Req. 6; DD Opp. 20. The hearing in the parallel U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) investigation is set for 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00724. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00892 and PGR2025-00048. November 17, 2025, the scheduled final initial determination date is February 18, 2026, and the target date for completion is June 18, 2026. DD Req. 10–12; Ex. 2007, 3. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the ITC investigation is completed, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the ITC is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. DD Req. 9. Furthermore, there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. Id. at 11– 12. For example, the ITC held a Markman hearing, fact discovery is complete, and expert discovery will have completed before a decision on institution is due. Id.; Ex. 2007, 2. On balance, the circumstances in these cases favor 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 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 11,713,209 - Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v. Klein Tools, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00724 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests and denied the petitions under § 314(a), instituting no trial because the parallel ITC proceeding favored denial.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Other considerations favor discretionary denial. In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceedings is November 21, 2026. DD Req. 6; DD Opp. 20. The hearing in the parallel U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) investigation is set for 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00724. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00892 and PGR2025-00048. November 17, 2025, the scheduled final initial determination date is February 18, 2026, and the target date for completion is June 18, 2026. DD Req. 10–12; Ex. 2007, 3. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the ITC investigation is completed, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the ITC is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. DD Req. 9. Furthermore, there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. Id. at 11– 12. For example, the ITC held a Markman hearing, fact discovery is complete, and expert discovery will have completed before a decision on institution is due. Id.; Ex. 2007, 2. On balance, the circumstances in these cases favor 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).” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,452,327 - Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 3, 2025 · IPR2025-00731 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR2025-00731 because the district court had addressed substantially similar preliminary validity issues, making Board review an inefficient use of Office resources.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“the challenged patents have not been in force for a significant period of time (issued in 2023 and 2024). Furthermore, no trial date has been set in the related district court proceeding, and Petitioner persuasively argues that a trial is unlikely to take place before the projected final written decision date. DD Opp. 6–9.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“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 11,925,661 - Jinkosolar Co., Ltd. v. Longi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 3, 2025 · IPR2025-00859 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial, denied the Petition under § 314(a), and instituted no trial based on the holistic assessment of the evidence and arguments.
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 November 21, 2026. DD Req. 6. The district court’s scheduled trial date is August 31, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin on November 7, 2026. Id. at 6–8; Ex. 2003; Ex. 2004. 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 if the Board were to institute trial. DD Req. 4–5.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“Moreover, the challenged patent has been in force for approximately ten 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). Petitioner’s unsupported argument that Patent Owner does not have strong settled expectations because the patent was not previously “asserted, licensed, or otherwise applied” by Patent Owner or the prior owner of the patent does not defeat Patent Owner’s strong settled expectations. DD Opp. 6–7 (quoting Intel Corp. v. Proxense LLC, IPR2025-00327, Paper 12, 2–3 (Director June 26, 2025)). Additionally, Petitioner has been aware of the published application for the challenged patent since at least 2016, when the application was listed on a search report during prosecution of one of Petitioner’s Chinese patent applications. See DD Req. 21.” 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 9,515,214 - Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. Marlin Semiconductor Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 3, 2025 · IPR2025-00879 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution in IPR2025-00879 under § 314(a), citing the parallel ITC trial, settled expectations, and insufficiently tailored public-interest arguments.
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 November 15, 2026. The hearing in the parallel U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) investigation is set for February 2, 2026. DD Req. 14. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the ITC trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. In addition, the patents challenged in IPR2025- 00848, IPR2025-00864, IPR2025-00865, and IPR2025-00879 have been in force for seven, nine, nine, and ten 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 ApS, IPR2025- 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00847. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00848, IPR2025-00864, IPR2025-00865, and IPR2025-00879. 00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025). These factors favor discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“these cases is November 15, 2026. The hearing in the parallel U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) investigation is set for February 2, 2026. DD Req. 14. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the ITC trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. In addition, the patents challenged in IPR2025- 00848, IPR2025-00864, IPR2025-00865, and IPR2025-00879 have been in force for seven, nine, nine, and ten 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 ApS, IPR2025- 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00847. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00848, IPR2025-00864, IPR2025-00865, and IPR2025-00879. 00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025). These factors favor discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“Petitioner argues that national security, economic, and public interest considerations counsel against discretionary denial because “[t]he semiconductor chips manufactured by TSMC are vital to leading U.S. companies (from Apple and NVIDIA to Amazon and Tesla) . . . and national security and defense through TSMC’s CyberShuttle program.” DD Opp. 31. Petitioner, however, does not explain in sufficient detail why review of the challenged patents is in the interest of national security, the economy, or the public. That is, Petitioner’s arguments are not narrowly-tailored towards particular products or manufacturing methods, and Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how national security, economic, or public interests warrant review of the specific patents challenged in these proceedings.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,093,473
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.