• Apple Inc. v. Optis Wireless Technology, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 15, 2020 · IPR2020-00466 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of review of claims 1–10 under § 314(a), finding that the Fintiv factors favored denial after the parallel district court trial.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “instituting an inter partes review would be an inefficient use of Board resources. As discussed above, the trial in the parallel proceeding recently concluded more than one year before we would reach a final decision in this proceeding if we instituted an inter partes review. Moreover, the district court and the parties expended considerable effort in preparing for and conducting the trial. These considerations strongly favor the exercise of discretionary denial, other considerations favor denial, and no considerations weigh against the exercise of discretionary denial in this case. On balance, after a holistic consideration of the relevant facts and the particular circumstances of this case, we conclude that efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying institution. Thus, we exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 15

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

    “instituting an inter partes review would be an inefficient use of Board resources. As discussed above, the trial in the parallel proceeding recently concluded more than one year before we would reach a final decision in this proceeding if we instituted an inter partes review. Moreover, the district court and the parties expended considerable effort in preparing for and conducting the trial. These considerations strongly favor the exercise of discretionary denial, other considerations favor denial, and no considerations weigh against the exercise of discretionary denial in this case. On balance, after a holistic consideration of the relevant facts and the particular circumstances of this case, we conclude that efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying institution. Thus, we exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 15

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,411,557

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.