- Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. / Azurity Pharma India LLP et al. v. Heron Therapeutics, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · PGR2025-00035 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · PGR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied the petitions under § 314(a), instituting no trial because the district court trial would precede the final written decision.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“particular, the projected final written decision due date in these proceedings is October 14, 2026. See DD Req. 16. The district court’s scheduled trial date is November 17, 2025. Id.; Ex. 2002, 2–3. Additionally, both parties agree that the district court is unlikely to stay its proceeding. DD Req. 15– 16; DD Opp. 12. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the trial in the district court, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk 1 Citations are to papers in PGR2025-00035. The parties filed similar papers in PGR2025-00036. of inconsistent decisions.2 Furthermore, there has been substantial investment by the parties in the district court proceeding. DD Req. 18. For example, the parties have exchanged invalidity and infringement contentions, conducted all fact depositions, completed all document production, and expert discovery will close prior to the due date for an institution decision in these proceedings. Id.; Ex. 2002, 2–3. On balance, the circumstances in these cases favor discretionary denial. 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 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“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). In consideration of the foregoing, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial is granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 12,115,254 - Transcend Information Inc. v. Truesight Communications LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2025-00723 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), citing the earlier district court trial, duplication risk, and settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is October 16, 2026. DD Req. 5. The district court’s scheduled trial date is January 5, 2026. Id.; DD Opp. 3. 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 for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial, and there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. DD Req. 7–8. Finally, the patent has been in force for ten years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“proceeding is October 16, 2026. DD Req. 5. The district court’s scheduled trial date is January 5, 2026. Id.; DD Opp. 3. 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 for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial, and there has been meaningful investment in the parallel proceeding by the parties. DD Req. 7–8. Finally, the patent has been in force for ten years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. Petitioner argues it has its own settled expectations because it “had no reason to believe that it was infringing a patent that requires a kiosk, which [Petitioner] is not even alleged to make or use.” DD Opp. 11. Although this weighs against discretionary denial, it does not overcome both Patent Owner’s settled expectations and the significantly earlier district court trial date. See BOE Tech. Grp. Co. v. Optronic Scis. LLC, IPR2025-00238, Paper 11 at 2–3 (Director July 29, 2025).” slip op. at 2
- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“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 FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,977,783 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Headwater Research LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2025-00483 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution under § 314(a), finding the projected Board decision would follow district court trial and create duplication, expense, and risk of inconsistent decisions.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceedings is October 16, 2026. See DD Req. 15. The district court’s scheduled trial date is February 9, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in June 2026. Id. at 13; DD Opp. 15–16; Ex. 2002; Ex. 2003. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. 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 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,609,510 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Headwater Research LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2025-00481 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Petitions were denied under § 314(a), and no trial was instituted, because the holistic assessment favored discretionary denial amid likely parallel district court proceedings.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceedings is October 16, 2026. See DD Req. 15. The district court’s scheduled trial date is February 9, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in June 2026. Id. at 13; DD Opp. 15–16; Ex. 2002; Ex. 2003. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. 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 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,096,055 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Cerence Operating CompanyInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2025-00457 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution under § 314(a) because the district court trial is scheduled before the projected final written decision.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewDirector review, deniedOther
“After considering the parties’ arguments and the record, and in view of all relevant considerations, discretionary denial of institution is appropriate in this proceeding. This determination is based on the totality of the evidence and arguments the parties have presented. In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is October 8, 2026. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 20, 2026. DD Req. 6. 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 for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. DD Opp. 1–2. These considerations favor discretionary denial. 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
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is October 8, 2026. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 20, 2026. DD Req. 6. 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 for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. DD Opp. 1–2. These considerations favor discretionary denial. 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
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“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 7,680,334 - Vertiv Corporation v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 31, 2025 · IPR2025-00669 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions without instituting trial under § 314(a), citing parallel proceedings and settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceedings is in October 2026. DD Req. 20. There are two parallel proceedings involving the challenged patent, one involving Petitioner and one involving Petitioner’s customers. DD Opp. 16. The scheduled trial dates are April 6, 2026 and June 22, 2026, respectively, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest the trials will begin between February 2026 and August 2026. Id. at 20–23. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceedings even if the Board were to institute trial. Furthermore, each of the challenged patents has been in force for approximately twenty years, creating strong settled expectations.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“proceedings is in October 2026. DD Req. 20. There are two parallel proceedings involving the challenged patent, one involving Petitioner and one involving Petitioner’s customers. DD Opp. 16. The scheduled trial dates are April 6, 2026 and June 22, 2026, respectively, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest the trials will begin between February 2026 and August 2026. Id. at 20–23. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceedings even if the Board were to institute trial. Furthermore, each of the challenged patents has been in force for approximately twenty years, creating strong settled expectations.” slip op. at 2
- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“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 FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,862,179 - Vertiv Corporation v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 31, 2025 · IPR2025-00668 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a), declining to institute review because of parallel proceedings and settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceedings is in October 2026. DD Req. 20. There are two parallel proceedings involving the challenged patent, one involving Petitioner and one involving Petitioner’s customers. DD Opp. 16. The scheduled trial dates are April 6, 2026 and June 22, 2026, respectively, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest the trials will begin between February 2026 and August 2026. Id. at 20–23. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceedings even if the Board were to institute trial. Furthermore, each of the challenged patents has been in force for approximately twenty years, creating strong settled expectations. Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00667. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00668 and IPR2025-00669. all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petition is denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“proceedings is in October 2026. DD Req. 20. There are two parallel proceedings involving the challenged patent, one involving Petitioner and one involving Petitioner’s customers. DD Opp. 16. The scheduled trial dates are April 6, 2026 and June 22, 2026, respectively, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest the trials will begin between February 2026 and August 2026. Id. at 20–23. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceedings even if the Board were to institute trial. Furthermore, each of the challenged patents has been in force for approximately twenty years, creating strong settled expectations. Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of” slip op. at 2
- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“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 FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,718,277 - Vertiv Corporation v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 31, 2025 · IPR2025-00667 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR2025-00667 under § 314(a), citing parallel district court trials, likely duplication and inconsistent decisions, and strong settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceedings is in October 2026. DD Req. 20. There are two parallel proceedings involving the challenged patent, one involving Petitioner and one involving Petitioner’s customers. DD Opp. 16. The scheduled trial dates are April 6, 2026 and June 22, 2026, respectively, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest the trials will begin between February 2026 and August 2026. Id. at 20–23. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceedings even if the Board were to institute trial. Furthermore, each of the challenged patents has been in force for approximately twenty years, creating strong settled expectations.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsDenied
“proceedings is in October 2026. DD Req. 20. There are two parallel proceedings involving the challenged patent, one involving Petitioner and one involving Petitioner’s customers. DD Opp. 16. The scheduled trial dates are April 6, 2026 and June 22, 2026, respectively, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest the trials will begin between February 2026 and August 2026. Id. at 20–23. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceedings even if the Board were to institute trial. Furthermore, each of the challenged patents has been in force for approximately twenty years, creating strong settled expectations.” slip op. at 2
- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“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 FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,854,287 - NVIDIA Corporation v. Neural Ai, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 31, 2025 · IPR2025-00608 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a), citing the district court schedule, settled expectations, and Board efficiency.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is October 14, 2026. DD Req. 31.2 The district court’s scheduled trial date is September 8, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest that the latest trial would begin is in September 2026. Id. at 31–32. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsDenied
“Additionally, the challenged patent in IPR2025-00606 has been in force for over 11 years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. The patent challenged in IPR2025-00608, however, has not been in force for a significant period of time. Although the patent originally issued in 2015, the patent reissued in 2023 with different claims from the original patent. While ordinarily such circumstances would counsel against discretionary denial, Petitioner and the original patent owner, Neurala, Inc., 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00606. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00608. 2 The projected final written decision due date in IPR2025-00608 is October 15, 2026. IPR2025-00608, Paper 13 at 33. had a commercial relationship and, in 2017, Neurala sent Petitioner a presentation that included a discussion of Neurala’s patent portfolio, including the patent challenged in IPR2025-00606 and the original patent that the patent challenged in IPR2025-00608 issued from. DD Req. 21–27. Accordingly, Petitioner had actual notice of the challenged patents and Petitioner’s failure to seek early review of the patents favors denial. Furthermore, in view of the fact that the district court will be considering the validity of the patent challenged in IPR2025-00608 along with the validity of the patent challenged in IPR2025-00606 before a final written decision is due in these proceedings, referring IPR2025-00608 to the Board would be an inefficient use of Board resources and tips the balance to discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determinations in this Decision are 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). In consideration of the foregoing, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial is granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denial - NVIDIA Corporation v. Neural Ai, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 31, 2025 · IPR2025-00606 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied the petitions under § 314(a), without instituting trial.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is October 14, 2026. DD Req. 31.2 The district court’s scheduled trial date is September 8, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest that the latest trial would begin is in September 2026. Id. at 31–32. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsDenied
“Additionally, the challenged patent in IPR2025-00606 has been in force for over 11 years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. The patent challenged in IPR2025-00608, however, has not been in force for a significant period of time. Although the patent originally issued in 2015, the patent reissued in 2023 with different claims from the original patent. While ordinarily such circumstances would counsel against discretionary denial, Petitioner and the original patent owner, Neurala, Inc., 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00606. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00608. 2 The projected final written decision due date in IPR2025-00608 is October 15, 2026. IPR2025-00608, Paper 13 at 33. had a commercial relationship and, in 2017, Neurala sent Petitioner a presentation that included a discussion of Neurala’s patent portfolio, including the patent challenged in IPR2025-00606 and the original patent that the patent challenged in IPR2025-00608 issued from. DD Req. 21–27. Accordingly, Petitioner had actual notice of the challenged patents and Petitioner’s failure to seek early review of the patents favors denial. Furthermore, in view of the fact that the district court will be considering the validity of the patent challenged in IPR2025-00608 along with the validity of the patent challenged in IPR2025-00606 before a final written decision is due in these proceedings, referring IPR2025-00608 to the Board would be an inefficient use of Board resources and tips the balance to discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,648,867
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.