• Freightcar America, Inc. v. National Steel Car LimitedInstitution denied
  PTAB · 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 denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,132,515
• Maplebear Inc. D/B/A Instacart v. Fall Line Patents, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · 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 denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,454,748
• Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v. Payrange LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · 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 denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,891,608
• Amazon Web Services, Inc. v. Croga Innovations, Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · 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 denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,601,780
• Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · 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 denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,333,768
• Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation v. 3shape A/SInstitution denied
  PTAB · 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 denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,695,151
• Aylo Freesites Ltd. v. DISH Technologies L.L.C.Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 13, 2024 · IPR2024-00513 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of review of claims 1–18, finding the General Plastic factors favored or were neutral to discretionary denial under § 314(a).

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied

    “claims, including all of the independent claims of the ’156 patent. Only one of the 18 claims challenged in the instant Petition is not included in the earlier petition, and Petitioner’s treatment of this claim comprises about one page of analysis. Given that the two petitions challenge nearly all of the same claims of the ’156 patent, we find that this factor weighs in favor of exercising discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 11

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

    “35 U.S.C. § 314(a) provides that the Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 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. Section 314(a) does not require the Director to institute a review. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). Rather, a decision whether to institute is within the” slip op. at 9

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,757,156
• Micron Technology, Inc. / Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00370 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of review of claims 1–5 under § 314(a), finding that the General Plastic factors as a whole favored discretionary denial.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons described below we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims and we deny Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied

    “We disagree. In our earlier decision in the Micron IPR, institution was denied because petitioner did not demonstrate sufficient support that the asserted anticipatory reference disclosed that write and read leveling circuitry were included in the data paths, as the independent claim recited. Ex. 2002, 19–20. In the Samsung IPR, the petitioner there asserts an obviousness challenge rather than an anticipation challenge to the independent claim, and a secondary reference, Butt, was added to address the deficiencies of the petition of the previous Micron IPR petition. The challenge in the Samsung IPR was modified in a manner that was directed to the deficiencies of the Micron IPR, and therefore appears to be an attempt to use the information gained in the Micron IPR to improve the possible success of the later petition. In other words, the Samsung IPR appears to use our prior decision as a roadmap. See General Plastic, 17–18. By moving for joinder to the Samsung IPR, Petitioner is also therefore seeking to capitalize on the benefits of this road mapping. As Uniloc states, “the copied petition is Petitioner’s second challenge to the patent” and “[i]n effect, it would be as if [petitioner] brought the second challenge to the patent,” wherein “[t]his is the kind of serial attack that General Plastic was intended to address.” Uniloc, 4 (citing General Plastic at 17).” slip op. at 15

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied

    “III. MOTION FOR JOINDER The Director may join a party to an ongoing inter partes review only if the filed petition warrants institution under § 314. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). Because we are exercising discretion to deny institution under § 314, we deny Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder. IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review is denied; and FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), Petitioner’s motion for joinder is denied.” slip op. at 19

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,268,608
• Videndum Production Solutions, Inc. v. Rotolight LimitedInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 25, 2024 · IPR2023-01218 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1–19, finding that General Plastic factors 3–7 outweighed factors favoring institution.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied

    “It is the “opportunity to morph positions along the way” that favors denying a second petition that is time-staggered relative to a first petition. General Plastic, Paper 19 at 9 n.13, 11 (Board’s emphasis). Petitioner had more than a mere opportunity to morph its positions. It is beyond dispute that Petitioner, in fact, accessed the trial record in IPR099 at least six months prior to filing the instant Petition. Ex. 1010 (Petitioner’s email dated January 14, 2023). Further, Petitioner leaves uncontested on this record Patent Owner’s assertion and evidence that Petitioner “bolstered arguments” in the Petition based on review of the trial record developed in IPR099. Prelim. Resp. 19–20 (identifying persuasive examples); see Reply 1–3 (declining to contest Patent Owner’s arguments or evidence on that point).” slip op. at 13

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,845,044
• General Motors LLC / Nissan North America, Inc. v. Neo Wireless LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 6, 2023 · IPR2023-00962 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 7 and 11 under § 314(a), finding that the General Plastic factors favored denying this follow-on petition.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied

    “previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent.” General Plastic, Paper 19 at 16. “[O]ur application of the General Plastic factors is not limited solely to instances when multiple petitions are filed by the same petitioner. Rather, when different petitioners challenge the same patent, we consider any relationship between those petitioners when weighing the General Plastic factors.” Valve, Paper 11 at 2, 8–9.” slip op. at 13

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . 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).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied

    “seeking joinder to Ford Motor Co. v. Neo Wireless LLC, IPR2023-00763. See Mot. 1. Petitioner acknowledges “[s]hould the Ford IPR be . . . not 2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 effective March 16, 2013. Because the ’450 Patent claims the benefit of an earlier effective filing date prior to the effective date of the applicable AIA amendment, we refer to the pre-AIA versions of §§ 102 and 103. 3 US 2006/0039274 A1, published Feb. 23, 2006 (Ex. 1005). 4 IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks, Part 16: Air Interface for Fixed Broadband Wireless Access Systems (Oct. 1, 2004) (Ex. 1006). instituted for any reason, Petitioners submit this motion for joinder would be moot, and requests the Board consider Petitioner’s IPR petition on its own merits.” Institution was denied in IPR2023-00763. Ford Motor Co. v. Neo Wireless LLC, IPR2023-00763, Paper 17 (PTAB Nov. 9, 2023). Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder as moot.” slip op. at 10

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,447,450

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.