• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon.Com Services LLC et al. v. Freshub, Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 11, 2021 · IPR2020-01145 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under § 314(a), finding that the Fintiv factors, viewed holistically, favored denial because review would inefficiently duplicate parallel litigation.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “These factors are: 1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if this proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits.” slip op. at 9

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

    “unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” The Board, however, 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.”); NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential) (“NHK”). For the reasons that follow, we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,908,153

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.