- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Omni Medsci, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 14, 2026 · IPR2025-01253 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director vacated institution and denied the IPR petition because the patent was determined eligible for PGR and therefore not eligible for IPR.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewDirector review, grantedDecided for patent owner
“Given my determination in PGR2026-00003 as to the ’790 patent’s PGR eligibility, and because a patent cannot be both PGR eligible and IPR eligible at the same time, it is appropriate to vacate institution of this IPR. See, e.g., Philip Morris Prods., S.A. v. RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., IPR2020-01188, Paper 12 at 10–12 (PTAB Jan. 13, 2021); Paper 6, 3 n.2 (Samsung acknowledging that the ’790 patent is not eligible for simultaneous IPR and PGR). Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that the Notice granting institution of inter partes review (Paper 19) is vacated; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 12,193,790 - Freightcar America, Inc. v. National Steel Car LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-01048 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution in IPR2025-01048 because it was a second, lower-ranked petition challenging the ’515 patent while the higher-ranked petition was referred to the Board.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“The Petition in IPR2025-01048 is the second petition filed by Petitioner against the ’515 patent, and Petitioner ranks the Petition in IPR2025-01047 above the Petition in IPR2025-01048. See IPR2025-01047, Paper 2, 5. In view of this, and the determination to refer the Petition in IPR2025-01047 to the Board, discretionary denial of IPR2025-01048 is appropriate.” slip op. at 4
- Director reviewOther
“After considering the parties’ arguments and the record, and in view of all relevant considerations, discretionary denial of institution is not appropriate in IPR2025-01046 and IPR2025-01047 but is appropriate in IPR2025-01048. This determination is based on the totality of the evidence and arguments the parties have presented.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,132,515 - Mim Software Inc. v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00726 · APJ Annette R Reimers · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not adequately explain which of its three alternative constructions of “risk indices” applied to the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows 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). Upon consideration of the Petition and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least 1 claim of the ’141 patent is unpatentable. 1” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDenied
“risk index” differ in several “particular details,” but those details matter and can make a difference in our patentability analysis, especially given Petitioner’s acknowledgment that there is no well-established ordinary and customary meaning for the term. In taking this “choose-your-own-adventure” approach to claim construction, Petitioner fails to satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(4), which specify the content of the petition. In particular, Rule 42.104(b)(3) requires the petition to identify “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed,” while Rule 42.104(b)(4) requires the petition to identify “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable” under either 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103. Moreover, by proposing these “choose-your-own-adventure” constructions, Petitioner obfuscates which circumstances each proposed construction should be applied. The Board does not find that alternative claim constructions are per se improper. Nonetheless, there must be reasoning to explain the circumstances under which each alternative construction should be applied. For example, Petitioner may assert one construction on the basis that a claim term should be construed as a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), but also propose an alternative construction to be applied if the term is not found to be a means-plus-function term. However, Petitioner does not provide any rationale here for including three alternative constructions. Rather, Petitioner indicates there is no well-established ordinary and customary meaning for the term(s), and incorrectly contends that the three alternative constructions are not significantly different without explaining why three different constructions are being proposed or under what circumstances one construction should be applied over the other two constructions. slip op. at 7
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,894,141 - Mim Software Inc. v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 8, 2025 · IPR2025-00725 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition failed to explain how the challenged claims should be construed or how the prior art rendered them unpatentable under the proposed constructions.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“III.CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the Petition fails to satisfy the requirement of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) to set forth how the challenged claims are to be construed. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review. IV.ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, the Petition for an inter partes review is denied and no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 10
- BurdenDenied
“particular details,” but those details matter and can make a difference in our patentability analysis, especially given Petitioner’s acknowledgment that there is no well-established ordinary and customary meaning for the term. In taking this “choose-your-own-adventure” approach to claim construction, Petitioner fails to satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(4), which specify the content of the petition. In particular, Rule 42.104(b)(3) requires the petition to identify “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed,” while Rule 42.104(b)(4) requires the petition to identify “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable” under either 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103. Moreover, by proposing these “choose-your-own-adventure” constructions, Petitioner obfuscates which claim construction the Board is being asked to apply, and under what circumstances each proposed construction should be applied. To be sure, we do not find that alternative claim constructions are per se improper. Nonetheless, there must be reasoning to explain the circumstances under which each alternative construction should be applied or an explanation of how the prior art renders the claims unpatentable under alternative constructions. For instance, Petitioner may assert one construction on the basis that a claim term should be construed as a meansplus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), but also propose an alternative construction to be applied if the term is not found to be a means-plus- any rationale here for including three alternative constructions. Instead, Petitioner indicates there is no well-established ordinary and customary meaning for the term, and incorrectly contends that the three alternative constructions are not significantly different without explaining why three different constructions are being proposed or under what circumstances one construction should be applied over the other two constructions. slip op. at 7
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,424,035 - Mim Software Inc. v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 8, 2025 · IPR2025-00630 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition failed to explain which of three alternative constructions of “risk map” applied or how the prior art met the claims under those constructions.
RulingsInstitution decision- BurdenDenied
“particular details,” but those details matter and can make a difference in our patentability analysis, especially given that Petitioner acknowledges there is no well-established ordinary and customary meaning for the term. In taking this “choose-your-own-adventure” approach to claim construction, Petitioner fails to satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(4), which specify the content of the petition. In particular, Rule 42.104(b)(3) requires the petition to identify “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed,” while Rule 42.104(b)(4) requires the petition to identify “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable” under either 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103. Moreover, by proposing these “choose-your-own-adventure” constructions, Petitioner obfuscates which claim construction the Board is being asked to apply, and under what circumstances each proposed construction should be applied. To be sure, we do not find that alternative claim constructions are per se improper. Nonetheless, there must be reasoning to explain the circumstances under which each alternative construction should be applied or an explanation of how the prior art renders the claims unpatentable under alternative constructions. For instance, Petitioner may assert one construction on the basis that a claim term should be construed as a means- construction assuming the term is not found to be a means-plus-function term. Unlike this example, however, Petitioner does not provide any rationale here for including three alternative constructions. Instead, Petitioner indicates there is no well-established ordinary and customary meaning for the term, and summarily contends that the three alternative constructions are not significantly different without explaining why three different constructions are being proposed or under what circumstances one construction should be applied over the other two constructions. slip op. at 7
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,665,346 - Maplebear Inc. D/B/A Instacart v. Fall Line Patents, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · 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 denialPatents in suitUS 9,454,748 - Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v. Payrange LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 19, 2025 · IPR2025-00950 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), citing the third petition, prior merits denials, road-mapping concerns, and settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“Other considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. In particular, this is the third petition involving the challenged patent. Both of the prior petitions were denied based on the merits. See Kiosoft Techs., LLC v. PayRange Inc., PGR2021-00084, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 16, 2021) (“Kiosoft PGR”); CSC ServiceWorks, Inc. v. PayRange Inc., IPR2023-01188 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2024). Petitioner states that it “relies on the same reference, Breitenbach, as a primary reference for both of its grounds of invalidity” that was used in the Kiosoft PGR. DD Opp. 4. Petitioner further states that “the present Petition addresses and cures any purported deficiencies with Breitenbach by relying on additional references Brown and Kaspar.” DD Opp. 36. 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 2
- Settled expectationsDenied
“In addition, although the challenged patent has not been in force for a significant period of time (issued in 2021), Patent Owner presents evidence that it has licensed the challenged patent, which creates some settled expectations favoring Patent Owner. DD Req. 3. The considerations favoring discretionary denial outweigh those that counsel against it.” slip op. at 3
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“example, the co-pending district court litigation was stayed on September 10, 2025. See Ex. 1026. As such, it is likely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before district court trial occurs.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,891,608 - Amazon Web Services, Inc. v. Croga Innovations, Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 3, 2025 · IPR2025-00884 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial, denied the petition under § 314(a), and instituted no trial.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“However, this is the fourth petition for inter partes review involving the challenged patent. One petition was voluntarily dismissed prior to institution, and in the other two the Board denied institution on the merits. See Fortinet v. Croga Innovations Ltd., IPR2025-00086, Paper 9 at 20–21 (PTAB Mar. 27, 2025); Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Croga Innovations Ltd., IPR2024- 01196, Paper 7 at 17, 21 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2025). Here, Petitioner states that its Petition “addresses the precise deficiency identified by the Board in denying the earlier petitions.” DD Opp. 13. Petitioner’s admission raises concerns of roadmaping and weighs in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“Furthermore, an ex parte reexamination has been ordered on the challenged patent, and the Office has issued a final rejection on the challenged claims. DD Opp. 2; Ex. 2003. It is not an appropriate use of Office resources to review a patent in two separate, concurrent Office proceedings, especially when the reexamination is in an advanced stage. Accordingly, discretionary denial is appropriate. 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 denialPatents in suitUS 10,601,780 - Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 3, 2025 · IPR2025-00863 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR of the challenged patent under § 314(a), citing settled expectations, repeated prior challenges, and insufficiently tailored national-security arguments.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“Other considerations weigh in favor of discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patent has been in force for approximately six years, creating settled expectations for Patent Owner. Additionally, the” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied
“1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00862. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00863. 2 Petitioner filed motions for joinder to IPR2025-00794 and IPR2025-00795, respectively; however, those proceedings have been denied institution. As such, this decision will address the discretionary considerations for these Petitions on their own. challenged patent was involved in two prior Board proceedings. In those prior proceedings, the Board denied institution finding that the petitions did not present a reasonable likelihood that a challenged claim was unpatentable. Paper 12, 3; NVIDIA Corp. v. Advanced Cluster Sys., Inc., IPR2021-00019, Paper 9 (PTAB May 5, 2021) (decision denying institution); NVIDIA Corp. v. Advanced Cluster Sys., Inc., IPR2021-00020, Paper 9 (PTAB May 5, 2021) (decision denying institution). Even absent road mapping, repeated prior challenges weigh against institution.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Petitioner also argues that national security interests weigh against discretionary denial. DD Opp. 2–6. In particular, Petitioner states that its products “are at the heart of AI, supercomputers, and healthcare applications—all technologies recognized by the U.S. government as vital to the country.” Id. at 2. Petitioner, however, does not explain in sufficient detail why review of the challenged patents is in the interest of national security. That is, Petitioner’s arguments are not narrowly-tailored towards particular products, and Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how national security interests warrant review of the specific patents challenged in these proceedings. 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 denialPatents in suitUS 10,333,768 - Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 3, 2025 · IPR2025-00862 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution of the petitions under § 314(a), citing settled expectations, prior challenges, and insufficiently tailored national security arguments.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsDenied
“Other considerations weigh in favor of discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patent has been in force for approximately six years, creating settled expectations for Patent Owner. Additionally, the” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00862. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00863. 2 Petitioner filed motions for joinder to IPR2025-00794 and IPR2025-00795, respectively; however, those proceedings have been denied institution. As such, this decision will address the discretionary considerations for these Petitions on their own. challenged patent was involved in two prior Board proceedings. In those prior proceedings, the Board denied institution finding that the petitions did not present a reasonable likelihood that a challenged claim was unpatentable. Paper 12, 3; NVIDIA Corp. v. Advanced Cluster Sys., Inc., IPR2021-00019, Paper 9 (PTAB May 5, 2021) (decision denying institution); NVIDIA Corp. v. Advanced Cluster Sys., Inc., IPR2021-00020, Paper 9 (PTAB May 5, 2021) (decision denying institution). Even absent road mapping, repeated prior challenges weigh against institution.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aDenied
“Petitioner also argues that national security interests weigh against discretionary denial. DD Opp. 2–6. In particular, Petitioner states that its products “are at the heart of AI, supercomputers, and healthcare applications—all technologies recognized by the U.S. government as vital to the country.” Id. at 2. Petitioner, however, does not explain in sufficient detail why review of the challenged patents is in the interest of national security. That is, Petitioner’s arguments are not narrowly-tailored towards particular products, and Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how national security interests warrant review of the specific patents challenged in these proceedings. 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 denialPatents in suitUS 10,333,768
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.