- United Microelectronics Corporation / Umc Group (USA) v. Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-01079 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), citing trial timing, duplication concerns, and Patent Owner’s settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied discretionary otherDenied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in these Board proceedings is December, 2026. DD Req. 2. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 22, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin between July and September 2026. Id. at 25, 27. 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.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“Furthermore, the challenged patents have been in force for eleven, sixteen, fourteen, ten, thirteen, thirteen, and twelve years, respectively, creating strong 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 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-01053. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-01076, IPR2025-01079, IPR2025-01090, IPR2025-01091, IPR2025-01092, and IPR2025-01093. ApS, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025). Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner does not have settled expectations because Patent Owner did not previously assert the challenged patents against Petitioner does not defeat Patent Owner’s settled expectations. DD Opp. 5. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient explanation, Patent Owner’s strong settled expectations further favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,923,764 - United Microelectronics Corporation / Umc Group (USA) v. Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-01076 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution under § 314(a), citing the district court schedule, risk of duplicated effort and inconsistent decisions, and Patent Owner’s 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 these Board proceedings is December, 2026. DD Req. 2. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 22, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin between July and September 2026. Id. at 25, 27. 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.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“Furthermore, the challenged patents have been in force for eleven, sixteen, fourteen, ten, thirteen, thirteen, and twelve years, respectively, creating strong 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 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-01053. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-01076, IPR2025-01079, IPR2025-01090, IPR2025-01091, IPR2025-01092, and IPR2025-01093. ApS, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025). Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner does not have settled expectations because Patent Owner did not previously assert the challenged patents against Petitioner does not defeat Patent Owner’s settled expectations. DD Opp. 5. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient explanation, Patent Owner’s strong settled expectations further favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,579,227 - United Microelectronics Corporation / Umc Group (USA) v. Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-01053 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), citing likely district court trial before the final written decision and strong settled expectations.
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 these Board proceedings is December, 2026. DD Req. 2. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 22, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin between July and September 2026. Id. at 25, 27. 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.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“Furthermore, the challenged patents have been in force for eleven, sixteen, fourteen, ten, thirteen, thirteen, and twelve years, respectively, creating strong 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 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-01053. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-01076, IPR2025-01079, IPR2025-01090, IPR2025-01091, IPR2025-01092, and IPR2025-01093. ApS, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025). Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner does not have settled expectations because Patent Owner did not previously assert the challenged patents against Petitioner does not defeat Patent Owner’s settled expectations. DD Opp. 5. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient explanation, Patent Owner’s strong settled expectations further favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution 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).” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,796,779 - Omnivision Technologies, Inc. v. Re Secured Networks, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-01019 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution under § 314(a), citing settled expectations for the expired patent and the parallel proceeding’s investment and uncertain likelihood of a stay.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“In particular, the challenged patent has been in force for approximately twenty years and is now expired, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. Petitioner’s argument that it assumed that it had become licensed to the challenged patent through Patent Owner’s settlement in a prior litigation is unsupported by evidence. DD Opp. 7. In addition, Petitioner’s argument that it did not expect enforcement of the challenged patent is undermined by Petitioner filing a declaratory judgement action of noninfringement. Id.; Pet. 1.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied discretionary otherDenied
“Additionally, the projected final written decision due date for this case is December 20, 2026. DD Req. 5. The district court’s scheduled trial date is October 26, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by January 2027. Id. 4–6; DD Opp. 4–5. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the trial will take place prior to the final written decision due date. As such, these considerations neither favor nor counsel against discretionary denial. However, 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. 6–10. For example, the parties have participated in a Markman hearing, fact discovery was scheduled to close on October 8, 2025, and expert reports are due to be completed by December 17, 2025. Id. at 7–8. 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 6,838,651 - Qualcomm Incorporated v. Collabo Innovations, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-01015 · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied the petition; no trial was instituted under § 314(a).
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“particular, the challenged patent has been in force for approximately fourteen years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. Patent Owner provides evidence that Petitioner has had knowledge of the challenged patent since 2015, when Petitioner identified the patent publication for the challenged patent on an information disclosure statement Petitioner filed during prosecution of its own application. DD Req. 19. Additionally, the challenged patent was involved in two prior Board proceedings. Id. at 18–19. In those prior proceedings, the Board denied institution after determining that the petitions did not present a reasonable likelihood that a challenged claim was unpatentable. Id.; Advanced Micro March 27, 2020) (decision denying institution); Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Collabo Innovations, Inc., IPR2019-01524, Paper 13 (PTAB March 30, 2020) (decision denying institution). Even absent road mapping, repeated prior challenges weigh against institution.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialInstitution 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 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 7,930,575 - Google LLC v. Advanced Coding Technologies LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-01000 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution under § 314(a), citing likely district court trial before the projected final written decision, settled expectations, and the holistic record.
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 December 11, 2026. DD Req. 6 n.1. The district court’s scheduled trial date is March 2, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin between July 2026 and October 2026. Id. at 6–7; DD Opp. 45–48. 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.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“In addition, the challenged patents have been in force for thirteen, seven, and six 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). Additionally, Petitioner’s arguments that the Office made a material error during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 29–38.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for patent owner
“seven, and six 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). Additionally, Petitioner’s arguments that the Office made a material error during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 29–38.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution 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 Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,218,995 - PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-01024 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied institution under § 314(a), citing settled expectations and the totality of the circumstances.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“Other considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patent has been in force for nearly nine years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. Further, Patent Owner explains that it has made, and continues to make, substantial investments of time, money, and resources in the research, development, and commercialization of drugs which embody the claimed invention. DD Req. 1–2; 15–16. In particular, Patent Owner has conducted 83 clinical trials involving tirzepatide. Id. at 15–16. Patent Owner also listed the challenged patent in the FDA’s Orange Book in 2022. Id. at 19. Petitioner’s arguments that Patent Owner lacks settled expectations are not persuasive, and Petitioner does not otherwise provide persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an appropriate use of Board” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution 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 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
- 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 9,474,780 - Google LLC v. Advanced Coding Technologies LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00999 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution under § 314(a), finding that district court trial would likely precede the final written decision, settled expectations favored denial, and prosecution-error arguments were unpersuasive.
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 December 11, 2026. DD Req. 6 n.1. The district court’s scheduled trial date is March 2, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin between July 2026 and October 2026. Id. at 6–7; DD Opp. 45–48. 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.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“In addition, the challenged patents have been in force for thirteen, seven, and six 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). Additionally, Petitioner’s arguments that the Office made a material error during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 29–38.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“seven, and six 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). Additionally, Petitioner’s arguments that the Office made a material error during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 29–38.” slip op. at 2
- 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 Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,986,303 - Google LLC v. Advanced Coding Technologies LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00998 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), citing trial timing, settled expectations, and unpersuasive prosecution-error arguments.
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 December 11, 2026. DD Req. 6 n.1. The district court’s scheduled trial date is March 2, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin between July 2026 and October 2026. Id. at 6–7; DD Opp. 45–48. 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.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“In addition, the challenged patents have been in force for thirteen, seven, and six 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). Additionally, Petitioner’s arguments that the Office made a material error during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 29–38.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“seven, and six 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). Additionally, Petitioner’s arguments that the Office made a material error during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 29–38.” 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; FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,090,025 - Astera Manufacturing Ltd. / Chauvet & Sons, LLC v. Electraled Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-01022 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), citing the patent’s fifteen years in force and insufficient justification for IPR.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“Other considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patent has been in force for fifteen years, creating strong 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). Under these circumstances, the considerations that favor discretionary denial outweigh those that counsel against it. 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
- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“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). 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 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,651,245
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.