• Klein Tools, Inc. v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation And Keter Home And Garden Products, Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-01018 · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial, denied the Petition, and instituted no trial under § 314(a), citing the parallel ITC proceeding.

  RulingsDirector review decision

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

    “Other considerations favor discretionary denial. In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is December 20, 2026. DD Req. 7. The target date for completion in the parallel International Trade Commission (“ITC”) investigation involving the parties is December 1, 2025. Id. at 11–12; Ex. 2007; DD Opp. 2. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before the ITC investigation completes, 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 substantial investment in the parallel ITC proceeding by the parties. Id. at 11–12. For example, the ITC already held a Markman hearing, completed fact and expert discovery, conducted a full evidentiary hearing, and issued an initial determination. Id.; Ex. 2009, 10– 12. On balance, these circumstances 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

  • 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 denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,952,167
• Google LLC v. Advanced Coding Technologies LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-01000 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review

  The Director denied institution under § 314(a), citing likely district court trial before the projected final written decision, settled expectations, and the holistic record.

  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 11, 2026. DD Req. 6 n.1. The district court’s scheduled trial date is March 2, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin between July 2026 and October 2026. Id. at 6–7; DD Opp. 45–48. 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

  • Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied

    “In addition, the challenged patents have been in force for thirteen, seven, and six 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). Additionally, Petitioner’s arguments that the Office made a material error during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 29–38.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for patent owner

    “seven, and six 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). Additionally, Petitioner’s arguments that the Office made a material error during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 29–38.” 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 denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,218,995
• Google LLC v. Advanced Coding Technologies LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00999 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review

  The Director denied institution under § 314(a), finding that district court trial would likely precede the final written decision, settled expectations favored denial, and prosecution-error arguments were unpersuasive.

  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 11, 2026. DD Req. 6 n.1. The district court’s scheduled trial date is March 2, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin between July 2026 and October 2026. Id. at 6–7; DD Opp. 45–48. 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

  • Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied

    “In addition, the challenged patents have been in force for thirteen, seven, and six 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). Additionally, Petitioner’s arguments that the Office made a material error during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 29–38.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “seven, and six 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). Additionally, Petitioner’s arguments that the Office made a material error during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 29–38.” 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).” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,986,303
• Google LLC v. Advanced Coding Technologies LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00998 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), citing trial timing, settled expectations, and unpersuasive prosecution-error 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 December 11, 2026. DD Req. 6 n.1. The district court’s scheduled trial date is March 2, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin between July 2026 and October 2026. Id. at 6–7; DD Opp. 45–48. 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

  • Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied

    “In addition, the challenged patents have been in force for thirteen, seven, and six 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). Additionally, Petitioner’s arguments that the Office made a material error during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 29–38.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “seven, and six 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). Additionally, Petitioner’s arguments that the Office made a material error during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 29–38.” slip op. at 2

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

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

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,090,025
• 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
• Coretronic Corporation / Optoma Corporation v. Maxell, Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00942 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director denied institution of IPR2025-00942 under § 314(a), citing settled expectations, parallel district court proceedings, and the holistic assessment of the record.

  RulingsDirector review decision

  • Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied

    “In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately seven and eighteen years, creating settled expectations for Patent Owner, and Petitioner does not provide any 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 › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied

    “Board proceedings is in December 2026. The patent challenged in IPR2025- 00942 is part of a parallel district court proceeding involving the parties. Although there is currently no trial date set for the district court trial, Patent Owner presents time-to-trial statistics that suggest trial would begin in August 2026, which Petitioner does not contest. DD Req. 6–8; DD Opp. 4– 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 for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court 2 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00941. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00942. is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial, and there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. DD Req. 4–5, 9–14. For example, the parties have participated in a Markman hearing, fact discovery was scheduled to close on August 21, 2025, and expert discovery will close soon. Id. at 7–8.” 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). 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 denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,900,569
• Be Smarter, LLC / James Guerra v. Yonder, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00970 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director denied institution of inter partes review under § 314(a), citing parallel district court proceedings, settled expectations, and the totality of the circumstances.

  RulingsDirector review decision

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

    “is December 10, 2026. DD Req. 7–8. The district court’s scheduled trial date is September 21, 2026 (DD Req. 7–8; Ex. 2008), but Petitioner offers conflicting time-to-trial statistics that suggest trial could begin as late as 2027 (DD. Opp. 17–18). As such, it is not clear whether a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before the district court trial occurs. The parties, however, have made meaningful investments in the district court proceeding. DD Req. 8–10. For example, the parties have exchanged infringement and invalidity 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 expectationsInstitution denied

    “Additionally, the challenged patent has been in force for approximately eight 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

  • 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 Petition is denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 2

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,819,788

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.