• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Evolved Wireless LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2021 · IPR2021-00949 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of inter partes review of claims 1–3 and 6–8, exercising § 314(a) discretion under Fintiv because most factors favored denial.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “The merits of this case thus present the “closer call” that favors exercising discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review under Fintiv. 7. Conclusion As noted in Fintiv, we consider the above factors as part of “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Fintiv at 6. In this instance, most of the factors we consider weigh in favor of exercising discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review, with Fintiv factor 4 weighing only somewhat against. We accordingly exercise that discretion and deny the Petition.” slip op. at 20

  Discretionary denial
• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Ramot At Tel Aviv University Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 15, 2020 · IPR2020-00122 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of review of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored denial despite the petition’s merits.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “To institute an inter partes review, we must determine “that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). But the Board has discretion to deny a petition even when a petitioner meets that threshold. Id.; see, e.g., Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016) (“[T]he agency’s decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion.”); Gen. Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential as to § II.B.4.i); NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 64 (Nov. 20, 2019), http://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated (identifying considerations that may warrant exercise of this discretion).” slip op. at 2

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

    “Because the trial date is substantially earlier than the projected statutory deadline for the Board’s final decision, this factor weighs in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 8

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,033,465

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.