- Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 31, 2025 · IPR2025-00649 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests and denied institution in IPR2025-00647, IPR2025-00648, and IPR2025-00649 based on strong settled expectations and the holistic § 314(a) assessment.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsGranted
“The patents challenged in IPR2025-00647, IPR2025-00648, and IPR2025-00649 present different circumstances. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for seven, eleven, and nine 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 ApS, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025). In the absence of any such information, the Office is disinclined to disturb the strong settled expectations of Patent Owner. 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 in IPR2025-00647, IPR2025-00648, and IPR2025-00649 are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), and the Petitions in IPR2025-00650, IPR2025-00651, IPR2025-00652, and IPR2025-00653 are referred to the Board to handle these cases in the normal course, including by issuing a decision on institution addressing the merits and other non-discretionary considerations, as appropriate. In consideration of the foregoing, it is:” slip op. at 3
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“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 in IPR2025-00647, IPR2025-00648, and IPR2025-00649 are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), and the Petitions in IPR2025-00650, IPR2025-00651, IPR2025-00652, and IPR2025-00653 are referred to the Board to handle these cases in the normal course, including by issuing a decision on institution addressing the merits and other non-discretionary considerations, as appropriate. In consideration of the foregoing, it is:” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,342,078 - Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 31, 2025 · IPR2025-00647 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution in IPR2025-00647 through -00649 based on settled expectations and referred IPR2025-00650 through -00653 to the Board.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsGranted
“IPR2025-00649 present different circumstances. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for seven, eleven, and nine 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 ApS, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025). In the absence of any such information, the Office is disinclined to disturb the strong settled expectations of Patent Owner. 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 in IPR2025-00647, IPR2025-00648, and IPR2025-00649 are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), and the Petitions in IPR2025-00650, IPR2025-00651, IPR2025-00652, and IPR2025-00653 are referred to the Board to handle these cases in the normal course, including by issuing a decision on institution addressing the merits and other non-discretionary considerations, as appropriate. In consideration of the foregoing, it is:” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“in this Decision are based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions in IPR2025-00647, IPR2025-00648, and IPR2025-00649 are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), and the Petitions in IPR2025-00650, IPR2025-00651, IPR2025-00652, and IPR2025-00653 are referred to the Board to handle these cases in the normal course, including by issuing a decision on institution addressing the merits and other non-discretionary considerations, as appropriate. In consideration of the foregoing, it is:” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,898,014 - Boe Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. Optronic Sciences LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00239 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), citing the district court schedule and Patent Owner’s settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Granted
“particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is in October 2026. DD Req. 5. The district court’s scheduled trial date is May 4, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest that the trial would begin in July 2026. Id. 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 expenses for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Further, the challenged patents 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00238. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00239. have been in force for approximately twelve years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. These considerations favor discretionary denial, and outweigh the considerations that counsel against it.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsGranted
“Petitioner argues it has settled expectations that the challenged patents would not be asserted against it because the challenged patents are directed to technology that is fundamentally different from what Petitioner uses in its products. DD Opp. 9–13. Therefore, Petitioner contends it had no reason to challenge the claims of the patents in these proceedings until Patent Owner asserted the challenged patents in district court. Id. at 12.” 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 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 8,502,757 - Amgen Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb CompanyInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 24, 2025 · IPR2025-00601 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution in IPR2025-00601 and IPR2025-00602 based on Patent Owner’s strong settled expectations; IPR2025-00603 was referred to the Board.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“The patents challenged in IPR2025-00601 and IPR2025-00602 present different circumstances. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for seven and six 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 ApS, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025). In the absence of any such information, the Office is disinclined to disturb the strong settled expectations of Patent Owner.” slip op. at 3
- Director reviewOther
“Before COKE MORGAN STEWART, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. DECISION Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review in IPR2025-00601 and IPR2025-00602 and Referring the Petition in IPR2025-00603 to the Board” slip op. at 1
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,856,320 - PTAB · Jul 16, 2025 · IPR2025-00467 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution of IPR2025-00467 under § 314(a), citing multiple prior proceedings and no persuasive reason to use Board resources.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsGranted
“Some factors counsel against discretionary denial. For example, the challenged patents have not been in force for a significant period of time (issued in 2019, 2021, 2022, and 2023), such that the Patent Owner has not developed strong settled expectations. Other factors, however, weigh in favor of discretionary denial. In particular, despite that the patents were issued relatively recently, they have already been the subject of multiple proceedings. For example, the patent challenged in IPR2025-00467 was also the subject of IPR2024-00045 (final written decision issued on April 14, 2025), IPR2024-00903 (joined to IPR2024-00045), IPR2024-00514 (discretionary denial of institution), and an ITC investigation.2 The Board has issued final written decisions addressing almost all of the claims challenged by Petitioner in these proceedings. See, e.g., Aylo Freesites Ltd. v. Dish Techs. LLC, IPR2024- 1 Citations are to the papers in IPR2025-00467. Similar papers can be found in IPR2025-00468, IPR2025-00469, and IPR2025-00470. 2 The respondents in the ITC proceeding do not include Petitioner, but the ITC investigation addressed the patent challenged in IPR2025-00467. 00045, Paper 59 at 3 (PTAB April 14, 2025) (holding unpatentable claims 1–3, 5, 16–20, 22, 26–28, and 30 and holding not unpatentable claims 4, 7, 8, 10–14, and 23–25 of the patent challenged in IPR2025-00467). Petitioner does not provide persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an appropriate use of Board resources under these circumstances. In view of the number of prior proceedings involving the challenged patents and in the absence of a persuasive reason from Petitioner, these circumstances 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 10,469,554 - SAP America, Inc. v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00417 · 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.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsGranted
“proceedings has been dismissed from the parallel district court proceeding with prejudice. See, e.g., IPR2025-00415, Paper 8, 2–3. As Patent Owner asserts, it is an inefficient use of Board resources to review these challenged patents that have been dismissed from the litigation. See id. In addition, the challenged patents in IPR2025-00415, IPR2025-00417, and IPR2025-00418 have been in force for approximately 20 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). These circumstances tip the balance in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 3
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“proceedings has been dismissed from the parallel district court proceeding with prejudice. See, e.g., IPR2025-00415, Paper 8, 2–3. As Patent Owner asserts, it is an inefficient use of Board resources to review these challenged patents that have been dismissed from the litigation. See id. In addition, the challenged patents in IPR2025-00415, IPR2025-00417, and IPR2025-00418 have been in force for approximately 20 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). These circumstances tip the balance in favor of 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 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,823,409 - Phison Electronics Corporation v. Vervain, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00214 · 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 parallel district court’s earlier trial and significant investment.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)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.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialGranted
“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 9,997,240 - Cambridge Industries USA, Inc. v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 27, 2025 · IPR2025-00433 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary denial request and denied institution of IPR2025-00433 based on a holistic assessment, including stronger settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsGranted
“Accordingly, Patent Owner’s settled expectations as to U.S. Patent No. 10,379,301 B2, U.S. Patent No. 10,313,024 B1, and U.S. Patent No. 10,788,690 B2 do not favor discretionary denial. The patents challenged in IPR2025-00433 and IPR2025-00435, however, have been in force for nine and seven years, respectively, and are not from the same patent family as those in IPR2025-00434, IPR2025- 00436, and IPR2025-00437. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s settled expectations as to the patents challenged in IPR2025-00433 and IPR2025- 00435 are stronger and discretionary denial is appropriate as to these proceedings.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“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. In particular, Patent Owner and Petitioner are involved in a parallel district court proceeding in the Northern District of California. DD Req. 7– 9; DD Opp. 2. There is no currently scheduled trial date in the co-pending district court litigation. DD Opp. 7. The District Court further vacated the scheduled Markman hearing. DD Req. 9; DD Opp. 7. Although Patent Owner argues that discretionary denial is warranted because Petitioner is over-reliant on expert testimony, Patent Owner does not identify any portions of the expert testimony that suggest Petitioner is using its expert to fill gaps in the prior art. DD Req. 28–29; DD Opp. 10. Additionally, Patent Owner’s arguments for discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) for some of the proceedings are unavailing and discretionary denial under § 325(d) is not appropriate. Furthermore, most of the challenged patents have not been in force for a significant period of time (issued in 2020, 2019, and 2019), and, accordingly, Patent Owner has not developed strong settled expectations that favor discretionary denial as to at least those patents.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,523,826 - Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless / T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v. Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00293 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted the Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), citing the parallel district court trial schedule and investment.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date for IPR2025-00137 is July 17, 2026, for IPR2025-00138 is July 28, 2026, for IPR2025-00292 is August 5, 2026, and for IPR2025-00293 is August 2, 2026. DD Req. 5; IPR2025-00138, Paper 12, 6; IPR2025-000292, Paper 12, 5–6; IPR2025-00293, Paper 12, 7. The district court’s scheduled trial date is September 8, 2025, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in November 2025. DD Req. 5–8. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before district court trial occurs. 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 2 Unless indicated otherwise, citations are to papers in IPR2025-00137. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00138, IPR2025-00290, IPR2025- 00291, IPR2025-00292, IPR2025-00293, and IPR2025-00317. parties. Id. at 4–5; 11–15. For example, fact discovery has closed and the parties have participated in a Markman hearing. Id. at 14–15.” slip op. at 3
- Director reviewOther
“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 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,009,161 - Intel Corporation v. Proxense LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00329 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied institution of IPR on the challenged patent.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsGranted
“However, the considerations favoring discretionary denial outweigh those that counsel against it. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force over nine years, creating settled expectations, and Petitioner does not provide any persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an appropriate use of Board resources. Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. v. Axa Power Aps, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Acting Director Stewart June 18, 2025). There may be persuasive reasons why the Board should review challenged claims several years after their issuance date. For example, a significant change in law may have occurred since the patent issued, and a petitioner can explain how that change in law directly bears on the patentability of the challenged claims. As another example, a patent may have been in force for years but may not have been commercialized, asserted, marked, licensed, or otherwise applied in a petitioner’s particular 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00327. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00328 and IPR2025-00329. technology space, if at all. These non-exclusive examples provide considerations that weigh against a patent owner’s claim of settled expectations and bears on the Director’s discretion. In the absence of any such information, however, such as in the present proceedings, the Office is disinclined to disturb the settled expectations of Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“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 denialPatents in suitUS 8,457,672
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.