- 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 - 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 - Zhuhai Cosmx Battery Co., Ltd. v. Ningde Amperex Technology LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 3, 2025 · IPR2025-00722 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR2025-00722 under §314(a), citing the repeat challenge to the same patent and Petitioner’s lower ranking of this petition.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied
“IPR2025-00722 presents different circumstances. The Petition in IPR2025-00722 is the second petition filed by Petitioner against U.S. Patent No. 11,799,131, which is also the subject of IPR2025-00431. Repeat challenges weigh against institution. In addition, Petitioner ranks the 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00524. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00722. petition in IPR2025-00431 above the Petition in IPR2025-00722. See IPR2025-00722, Paper 3, 5. These considerations favor discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,799,131 - Resmed Corp. v. Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00157 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of ResMed’s challenge to claims 1–3, 6, and 12–20 under General Plastic because the follow-on petition followed an earlier petition challenging the same claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied
“We find that in view of Petitioner’s prior petition, this factor favors discretionary denial. Code200 is distinguishable. There, the Board exercised its discretion to deny institution of the earlier petitions under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) based on Fintiv. Code200, Paper 18, 2 n.3. Here, the Board did not discretionarily deny the previous petition, but rather denied it because Petitioner failed to carry its burden of demonstrating a threshold requirement for post-grant review, namely that the patent is eligible for postgrant review. See PGR Dec. 9–10, 24. In evaluating the eligibility issue, the Board thoroughly addressed the merits of Petitioner’s arguments that the ’284 patent claims lack adequate written description and enablement support in the priority applications such that the claims are not entitled to any of the pre-2013 priority dates listed on the face of the patent. See PGR Dec. 10–24. This issue extensively overlapped with Petitioner’s grounds of unpatentability based on lack of written description and enablement in the post-grant petition, which Petitioner included together with prior art challenges. See PGR Dec. 6–7. As such, contrary to Petitioner’s argument, it did have “the opportunity to pursue a decision on the merits,” but failed to carry its burden to secure postgrant review. Prelim. Reply 1 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied
“institute review. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response shows “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). For the reasons explained below, we exercise our discretion to deny institution of this follow-on petition because Petitioner previously filed a post-grant review petition challenging the same claims of the same patent.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenNot reached
“III. REMAINING ISSUES Because we deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and General Plastic, we need not reach the parties’ additional arguments regarding discretionary denial or the merits of Petitioner’s unpatentability challenges.” slip op. at 15
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,602,284 - Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Orckit CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00895 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied for claims 32–54 because the General Plastic factors favored discretionary denial of Juniper’s follow-on petition.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied
“Thus, under the first General Plastic factor, we determine that the same petitioner previously filed a petition directed to materially3 the same claims of the ’111 patent, as all claims include language that is either identical to previously challenged claims or is not materially different from the previously challenged claims.” slip op. at 7
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,652,111 - Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation v. 3shape A/SInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 29, 2024 · IPR2024-00849 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of review for claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 12–17 under General Plastic discretion and denied joinder; it did not reach the merits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied
“g. Summary and Conclusion In summary, we determine that factors 1, 3, and 6 weigh in favor of discretionary denial, factors 2, and 4 weigh against discretionary denial, and factors 5 and 7 are neutral. Considering these factors as a whole, and on this record, we determine that the facts here weigh in favor of exercising discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution. Significant to our analysis is that the similarities in the facts in the instant proceeding and Uniloc outweigh the differences. Specifically, the primary difference between the facts here and the facts in Uniloc is that Petitioner explained its knowledge of the prior art and, as to Lehmann II, Petitioner demonstrated that it was not aware of Lehmann II prior to filing the first petition. In Uniloc, Apple made no such showing. As we discuss above, however, the significance of Lehmann II in this proceeding may be limited, given our initial determination of the merits of Patent Owner’s arguments against Lehmann II in the Medit IPR. As such, the lack of knowledge of Lehmann II is insufficient to counter the similarities between this proceeding and Uniloc.” slip op. at 24
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“2. Merits Analysis Having decided to exercise discretion to deny institution, we need not turn to the merits of the Petition and Motion. III. CONCLUSION We determine that exercising our discretion to not institute this proceeding is warranted based on our precedential decisions in General Plastic and Uniloc. Accordingly, the Petition and Motion are denied.” slip op. at 24
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“(c) JOINDER.—If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes review any person who properly files a petition under section 311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary response under section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a response, determines warrants the institution of an inter parties review under section 314. “To join a party to an instituted [inter partes review (IPR)], the plain language of § 315(c) requires two different decisions.” Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, 973 F.3d 1321, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “First, the statute requires that the Director (or the Board acting through a delegation of authority) . . . determine whether the joinder applicant’s petition for IPR ‘warrants’ institution under § 314.” Id. “Second, to effect joinder, § 315(c) requires the Director to exercise h[er] discretion to decide whether to ‘join as a party’ the joinder applicant.” Id. As the moving party, Petitioner bears the burden of proving that it is entitled to joinder. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). A motion for joinder should: (1) set forth the reasons joinder is appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition; and (3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule for the existing review. See Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013).” slip op. at 14
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,695,151
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.