- 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 - Tesla, Inc. v. Granite Vehicle Ventures LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00943 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of Tesla’s petitions under § 314(a), finding the district court trial likely to precede the Board’s final written decision and create duplication and risk of inconsistent decisions.
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 December 2026. DD Req. 8. The district court’s scheduled trial date is August 3, 2026, and time-to-trial statistics suggest trial would begin in October or November 2026. Id. at 6, 16; DD Opp. 15; Reply 3. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Therefore, 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. Even though the challenged patents have not been in force for a significant period of time (issued in 2023), this fact alone does not tip the balance against discretionary denial. Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of 2 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00943. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00944. 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 11,597,402 - Tesla, Inc. v. Granite Vehicle Ventures LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00944 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of the petitions under § 314(a), citing likely overlap with the district court trial and the risk of duplicated effort and inconsistent decisions.
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 in December 2026. DD Req. 8. The district court’s scheduled trial date is August 3, 2026, and time-to-trial statistics suggest trial would begin in October or November 2026. Id. at 6, 16; DD Opp. 15; Reply 3. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Therefore, 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. Even though the challenged patents have not been in force for a significant period of time (issued in 2023), this fact alone does not tip the balance against discretionary denial. 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
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,738,765 - Coretronic Corporation / Optoma Corporation v. Maxell, Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00942 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR2025-00942 under § 314(a), citing settled expectations, parallel district court proceedings, and the holistic assessment of the record.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately seven and eighteen years, creating settled expectations for Patent Owner, 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 › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“Board proceedings is in December 2026. The patent challenged in IPR2025- 00942 is part of a parallel district court proceeding involving the parties. Although there is currently no trial date set for the district court trial, Patent Owner presents time-to-trial statistics that suggest trial would begin in August 2026, which Petitioner does not contest. DD Req. 6–8; DD Opp. 4– 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 for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court 2 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00941. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00942. 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. 4–5, 9–14. For example, the parties have participated in a Markman hearing, fact discovery was scheduled to close on August 21, 2025, and expert discovery will close soon. Id. at 7–8.” 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). In consideration of the foregoing, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s requests for discretionary denial are granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,900,569 - Coretronic Corporation / Optoma Corporation v. Maxell, Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00941 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR2025-00941 under § 314(a), citing settled expectations and inefficient use of Board resources because the patent was no longer asserted in district court.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“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. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately seven and eighteen years, creating settled expectations for Patent Owner, 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
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“The patent challenged in IPR2025-00941 presents different circumstances. Patent Owner is no longer asserting the challenged patent in the parallel district court proceeding. DD Opp. 2; Ex. 1017. It is an inefficient use of Board resources to review claims of a patent that will not be further addressed in the district court trial involving the parties. See Roche Diabetes Care, Inc. v. Trividia Health, Inc., IPR2025-00553, Paper 10 (Director July 29, 2025). 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 7,159,988 - Be Smarter, LLC / James Guerra v. Yonder, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00970 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of inter partes review under § 314(a), citing parallel district court proceedings, settled expectations, and the totality of the circumstances.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied
“is December 10, 2026. DD Req. 7–8. The district court’s scheduled trial date is September 21, 2026 (DD Req. 7–8; Ex. 2008), but Petitioner offers conflicting time-to-trial statistics that suggest trial could begin as late as 2027 (DD. Opp. 17–18). As such, it is not clear whether a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before the district court trial occurs. The parties, however, have made meaningful investments in the district court proceeding. DD Req. 8–10. For example, the parties have exchanged infringement and invalidity contentions, and a Markman hearing is scheduled to occur before the due date for an institution decision. Id.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“Additionally, the challenged patent has been in force for approximately eight 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
- 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).” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,819,788 - L’Oreal USA, Inc. v. Brightex Bio-Photonics, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00971 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), citing settled expectations and the parties’ long technology partnership.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsGranted
“Other considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patent has been in force for eight years, creating settled expectations for Patent Owner. DD Req. 19. Additionally, it is uncontested that the parties were technology partners for many years and developed products together. Id. at 1–3, 20. Patent Owner provides evidence demonstrating that it informed Petitioner of the filing of the provisional application that led to the challenged patent in 2013, the publication of the non-provisional application in 2014, and the issuance of the challenged patent in 2017. Id. at 1–2, 5; Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 6–7. Patent Owner also sent a letter to Petitioner in 2022 identifying the challenged patent as relevant to Petitioner’s products. Ex. 1022. Accordingly, Petitioner appears to have had notice of the challenged patent for a significant period of time. Under these circumstances, the considerations that favor discretionary denial outweigh those that counsel against it.” 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).” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,542,595 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Headwater Research LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00963 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution of the IPR under § 314(a), citing parallel litigation and 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 dates in the Board proceedings are in November and December 2026. DD Req. 13. The district court’s scheduled trial date is May 4, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in September 2026. DD Opp. 50. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Therefore, 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 expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“In addition, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately seven 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
- 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” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,028,144 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Headwater Research LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00932 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions without instituting IPR under § 314(a), citing the parallel litigation and settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due dates in the Board proceedings are in November and December 2026. DD Req. 13. The district court’s scheduled trial date is May 4, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in September 2026. DD Opp. 50. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Therefore, 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
“In addition, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately seven 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 denialInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of 2 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00932. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00963. all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 2
- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE,1 Acting Chief Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 1 Coke Morgan Stewart, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, is recused and took no part in this decision. The Director has delegated his discretionary authority for this decision. See https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/dsco-delegation.pdf.” slip op. at 1
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,080,250 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Genghiscomm Holdings, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00899 · 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 likely to precede the final written decision.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date for this case is November 27, 2026. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 15, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by August 2026. DD Req. 5–6. 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. Id. at 4–5. Although the challenged patent has not been in force for a significant period of time (issued in 2022), this fact alone does not tip the balance against 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
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,431,386
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.