• Analog Devices, Inc. v. Number 14 B.V.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 16, 2025 · IPR2025-00551 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests and denied institution under § 314(a), citing settled expectations and the real party in interest’s role in obtaining and maintaining the patents.

  RulingsDirector review decision

  • Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied

    “In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for more than 13 years, creating strong settled expectations, and Petitioner does not provide any 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 › Real party in interest / privityInstitution denied rpiDenied

    “Furthermore, Patent Owner presents evidence that Petitioner’s real party in interest (and now wholly owned subsidiary2) controlled prosecution of and maintained the involved patents, and paid “millions of dollars in royalties.” DD Req. 18–19; Ex. 2002 ¶ 88; Ex. 2001 § 2.2; Paper 1, iv (identifying Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. as a real party in interest). It is not an appropriate use of Office resources where a party or its real party in interest applied for and was issued a patent, but, as is the case here, now advocates for its unpatentability.” slip op. at 2

  • Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied

    “After considering the parties’ arguments and the record, and in view of all relevant considerations, discretionary denial of institution is appropriate in these proceedings. 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 7,812,665
• Analog Devices, Inc. v. Number 14 B.V.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 16, 2025 · IPR2025-00550 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests and denied the petitions under § 314(a), so no trial was instituted.

  RulingsDirector review decision

  • Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied

    “In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for more than 13 years, creating strong settled expectations, and Petitioner does not provide any 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 › Real party in interest / privityInstitution denied rpiInstitution denied

    “Furthermore, Patent Owner presents evidence that Petitioner’s real party in interest (and now wholly owned subsidiary2) controlled prosecution of and maintained the involved patents, and paid “millions of dollars in royalties.” DD Req. 18–19; Ex. 2002 ¶ 88; Ex. 2001 § 2.2; Paper 1, iv (identifying Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. as a real party in interest). It is not an appropriate use of Office resources where a party or its real party in interest applied for and was issued a patent, but, as is the case here, now advocates for its unpatentability.” slip op. at 2

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,973,596

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.