• Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 16, 2025 · IPR2025-00373 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests, denied the petitions, and instituted no trial based on the totality of the circumstances.

  RulingsDirector review decision

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

    “In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceedings is in August of 2026. DD Req. 12. The ITC hearing is scheduled to begin July 9, 2025, and the final determination is scheduled for March 23, 2026. Id.; Ex. 2001, 3; Ex. 2002, 7. As such, it is unlikely that final written decisions in these proceedings will issue before the final determination. Additionally, the challenged patents have been in force for more than 7 and 14 years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations, and Petitioner does not provide any persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an appropriate use of Board resources under these circumstances. Dabico Airport Sols. Inc. v. AXA Power ApS, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025).” slip op. at 2

  • Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied

    “proceedings is in August of 2026. DD Req. 12. The ITC hearing is scheduled to begin July 9, 2025, and the final determination is scheduled for March 23, 2026. Id.; Ex. 2001, 3; Ex. 2002, 7. As such, it is unlikely that final written decisions in these proceedings will issue before the final determination. Additionally, the challenged patents have been in force for more than 7 and 14 years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations, and Petitioner does not provide any persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an appropriate use of Board resources under these circumstances. 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 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 denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,717,101
• Sportradar AG v. Sportscastr Inc. (D/B/A Panda Interactive)Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 16, 2025 · IPR2025-00316 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director denied institution of IPR2025-00316 under § 314(a), finding the parallel district court schedule and investment, among other factors, favored discretionary denial.

  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 August 20, 2026. See DD Req. 6. The district court’s scheduled trial date is January 23, 2026. Id. at 5. As such, it is unlikely that final written decisions in these proceedings will issue before the district court trial occurs. Furthermore, the parties have made meaningful investment in the district court proceeding. For example, a Markman hearing was held on May 9, 2025, and fact discovery is scheduled to close in August 2025. Id. at 6–7. There is also insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. See DD Opp. 7–8. Additionally, for IPR2025-00313 and IPR2025- 00314, the challenged claims are no longer asserted in the parallel litigation. Id. at 3–4. Under these circumstances, it is an inefficient use of Board resources to review claims of a patent that are no longer being asserted in district court. These considerations 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 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 no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,805,687
• Sportradar AG v. Sportscastr Inc. (D/B/A Panda Interactive)Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 16, 2025 · IPR2025-00315 · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution of IPR under § 314(a), citing the parallel litigation schedule, investment, and resource considerations.

  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 August 20, 2026. See DD Req. 6. The district court’s scheduled trial date is January 23, 2026. Id. at 5. As such, it is unlikely that final written decisions in these proceedings will issue before the district court trial occurs. Furthermore, the parties have made meaningful investment in the district court proceeding. For example, a Markman hearing was held on May 9, 2025, and fact discovery is scheduled to close in August 2025. Id. at 6–7. There is also insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. See DD Opp. 7–8. Additionally, for IPR2025-00313 and IPR2025- 00314, the challenged claims are no longer asserted in the parallel litigation. Id. at 3–4. Under these circumstances, it is an inefficient use of Board resources to review claims of a patent that are no longer being asserted in district court. These considerations 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 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 no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3

  • 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 no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,805,687
• Sportradar AG v. Sportscastr Inc. (D/B/A Panda Interactive)Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 16, 2025 · IPR2025-00313 · 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 litigation schedule, investment, and claims no longer asserted.

  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 August 20, 2026. See DD Req. 6. The district court’s scheduled trial date is January 23, 2026. Id. at 5. As such, it is unlikely that final written decisions in these proceedings will issue before the district court trial occurs. Furthermore, the parties have made meaningful investment in the district court proceeding. For example, a Markman hearing was held on May 9, 2025, and fact discovery is scheduled to close in August 2025. Id. at 6–7. There is also insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. See DD Opp. 7–8. Additionally, for IPR2025-00313 and IPR2025- 00314, the challenged claims are no longer asserted in the parallel litigation. Id. at 3–4. Under these circumstances, it is an inefficient use of Board resources to review claims of a patent that are no longer being asserted in district court. These considerations 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 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 no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,425,697
• Caihong Display Devices Co. Ltd. v. Corning, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00439 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), based on the parallel ITC proceeding, 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 for this proceeding is September 10, 2026. DD Req. 10. The hearing in the parallel U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) investigation is set for January 6, 2026, the scheduled final initial determination date is April 7, 2026, and the target date for completion is August 7, 2026. Id. at 10–11. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before the final determination in the ITC investigation. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the ITC is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Id. at 10. Furthermore, there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. Id. at 11– 12. For example, the parties have exchanged expert reports and a Markman hearing has been held, and the parties will complete fact discovery before a decision on institution is due. Id.” slip op. at 2

  • Settled expectationsDenied

    “In addition, the challenged patent has been in force for more than 14 years, creating strong settled expectations, 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

  • 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).” slip op. at 2

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,851,394
• Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Vasu Holdings, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00448 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests and denied the petitions under § 314(a), so no trial 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 in August or September of 2026. DD Req. 10. The district court’s scheduled trial date is November 3, 2025, and the time-to-trial statistics accord with this date. Id. at 10–11. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the district court trial occurs. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court 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. Id. at 6–10, 12–14. For example, the parties have completed claim construction briefing, a Markman hearing has occurred, a claim construction order has issued, and fact discovery has closed. Id. at 12–14; DD Opp. 10.” 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 10,368,281
• Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Vasu Holdings, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00447 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review

  The Director denied institution under § 314(a), finding discretionary denial appropriate based on the totality of the evidence and arguments concerning the parallel district court proceeding.

  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 August or September of 2026. DD Req. 10. The district court’s scheduled trial date is November 3, 2025, and the time-to-trial statistics accord with this date. Id. at 10–11. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the district court trial occurs. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court 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. Id. at 6–10, 12–14. For example, the parties have completed claim construction briefing, a Markman hearing has occurred, a claim construction order has issued, and fact discovery has closed. Id. at 12–14; DD Opp. 10.” slip op. at 2

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,206,154
• SAP America, Inc. v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00420 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

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

  RulingsDirector review decision

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

    “In particular, the projected final written decision due dates in IPR2025-00415 and IPR2025-00416 are in August 2026, and the projected final written decision due date in IPR2025-00420 is in September 2026. See, e.g., DD Req. 9. The district court’s scheduled trial date in the co-pending litigation is September 22, 2025, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin between September and December 2025. Id. at 11–12; DD Opp. 10–11. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before the district court trial occurs. Additionally, the challenged patents have been in force for over 17 years, creating strong settled expectations. Under these circumstances, discretionary denial is appropriate.” slip op. at 2

  • Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied

    “IPR2025-00415 and IPR2025-00416 are in August 2026, and the projected final written decision due date in IPR2025-00420 is in September 2026. See, e.g., DD Req. 9. The district court’s scheduled trial date in the co-pending litigation is September 22, 2025, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin between September and December 2025. Id. at 11–12; DD Opp. 10–11. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before the district court trial occurs. Additionally, the challenged patents have been in force for over 17 years, creating strong settled expectations. Under these circumstances, discretionary denial is appropriate.” 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 6,889,244
• Coretronic Corporation / Optoma Corporation v. Maxell, Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00477 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

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

  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 September 10, 2026. DD Req. 6. The district court’s scheduled trial date is March 23, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in May 2026. Id. at 5–6. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the district court trial occurs. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court 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. Id. at 4–5, 9–14. For example, the parties have participated in a Markman hearing and fact discovery will close soon. Id. at 7–8. Furthermore, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately eight, twelve, and fifteen years, creating strong settled expectations, 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

  • Settled expectationsDenied

    “these cases is September 10, 2026. DD Req. 6. The district court’s scheduled trial date is March 23, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in May 2026. Id. at 5–6. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the district court trial occurs. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court 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. Id. at 4–5, 9–14. For example, the parties have participated in a Markman hearing and fact discovery will close soon. Id. at 7–8. Furthermore, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately eight, twelve, and fifteen years, creating strong settled expectations, 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

  • 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 Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,850,313
• Coretronic Corporation / Optoma Corporation v. Maxell, Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00476 · 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 case, settled expectations, and the totality of the circumstances.

  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 September 10, 2026. DD Req. 6. The district court’s scheduled trial date is March 23, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in May 2026. Id. at 5–6. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the district court trial occurs. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court 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. Id. at 4–5, 9–14. For example, the parties have participated in a Markman hearing and fact discovery will close soon. Id. at 7–8. Furthermore, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately eight, twelve, and fifteen years, creating strong settled expectations, 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

  • Settled expectationsDenied

    “these cases is September 10, 2026. DD Req. 6. The district court’s scheduled trial date is March 23, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in May 2026. Id. at 5–6. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the district court trial occurs. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court 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. Id. at 4–5, 9–14. For example, the parties have participated in a Markman hearing and fact discovery will close soon. Id. at 7–8. Furthermore, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately eight, twelve, and fifteen years, creating strong settled expectations, 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

  • 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 9,547,226

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.