- 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 - 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 - Intel Corporation v. Proxense LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00327 · 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 Petitioner’s lack of persuasive justification.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsGranted
“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” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“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” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,265,043 - Neogenomics Laboratories, Inc. v. Natera, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00455 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied institution under § 314(a), based on the parallel district court proceeding.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“proceeding is August 14, 2026. DD Req. 9. The district court’s scheduled trial date is October 10, 2025, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in February 2026. Id. at 13–14. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding 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. Further, as of the date Patent Owner filed its request, fact discovery was complete, expert discovery was already underway, final invalidity and infringement contentions had been exchanged, and the district court had issued a Markman order. DD Req. 17–21. According to Patent Owner, “[n]early all substantive work other than trial itself will be complete by the time of th[e] institution decision date.” Id. at 18. The substantial time and effort the parties and the district court have invested in the parallel proceeding strongly favors discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
- Director reviewDirector review, grantedGranted
“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.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,319,596 - Eunsung Global Corp. v. Hydrafacial LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 11, 2025 · IPR2024-01491 · APJ Jamie T Wisz · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under § 314(a), finding that the advanced ITC proceeding and substantial overlap made review inefficient.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“When determining whether to exercise discretion to deny institution in view of a parallel litigation, we consider the following factors: 1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We find that Petitioner’s obviousness challenges meet the standard for institution. We also will not speculate as to whether the other three petitions referenced by Petitioner will be instituted. Taken together with the other” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“B. Discretionary Denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Patent Owner asserts that we should deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because the Petition presents substantially the same art and arguments that the Office previously analyzed and fails to show that the Office erred during prosecution. See Prelim. Resp. 58–68. Because we exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) for the reasons discussed above, we do not need to reach Patent Owner’s argument regarding denial under § 325(d).” slip op. at 17
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,865,287 - Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Oct 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00324 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Rehearing
Patent Owner’s rehearing request was granted; the Petition was denied and no trial instituted because the challenges did not meet the compelling-merits standard under Fintiv.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision [i]s based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “The burden of showing that a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). In its request for rehearing, the dissatisfied party must (1) “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked” and (2) identify the place “where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Our reviewing court has explained that “[t]he prosecution history modifies the scope of a claim term if ‘the patentee distinguished that term from prior art on the basis of a particular embodiment, expressly disclaimed subject matter, or described a particular embodiment as important to the invention.’” Sentry Protection Prods., Inc. v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 400 F.3d 910, 915 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 228 F.3d 1359, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“discretion to deny institution due to the advanced state of parallel litigation, taking into consideration the six factors identified in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential), as well as applying guidance set forth in a Memorandum regarding the “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation” issued by the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (hereinafter, “Guidance Memo”).5 Inst. Dec. 6–43. We determined that the first five Fintiv factors favor discretionary denial,6 and that the Petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability as to independent claims 1, 12, and 17 under the sixth Fintiv factor. Id. at 15–16, 23–43. Because “the PTAB will not deny institution based on Fintiv if there is compelling evidence of unpatentability,” we declined to exercise our discretion to deny. Guidance Memo 5; Inst. Dec. 15–16.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“those arguments. See Inst. Dec. 45–47. As to Petitioner’s arguments on the claimed first and second formats of limitation 1D in particular, we found the record provided “some support” for Petitioner’s position that “it would have been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art] that one or more RTS Media Abstraction Modules could operate at a server, such as in [Aldrey’s] Service Provider Network 103,” even though Petitioner asserted that Mahajan teaches command conversion at the client. Id. at 45–46 (citing Pet. 66–67). Yet assuming Mahajan’s RTS Media Abstraction Module could have operated at a server, as Petitioner argued, it is not readily apparent why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered locating the RTS Media Abstraction Module at a server based on Mahajan’s disclosure of command conversion at a client. See also Pet. 66 (“[I]t would have been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art] that the RTS Media Abstraction Module could be located on the client or server.” (emphasis added)). Nor did Petitioner adequately explain why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered locating Mahajan’s RTS Media Abstraction Module at a server. We note Petitioner further argued that combining Mahajan and Aldrey would have provided a system where “Aldrey’s end terminal would translate commands associated with a first type of media playing application to a command associated with a second type of media playing application on a STB.” Pet. 68; see also id. at 67 (“Mahajan’s server-command teachings could be implemented on Aldrey’s end terminal remote control.”). Arguing that Aldrey’s end terminal would translate commands seems inconsistent with Petitioner’s earlier argument for locating command conversion at Aldrey’s network service provider. See id. at 66–68. Moreover, it is not readily apparent how command translation by Aldrey’s end terminal––rather than Aldrey’s network service provider––teaches or suggests the format of a command sent from the end terminal to the network service provider is different from the format of a command sent from the network service provider to the STB. Petitioner did not close these logical gaps, leaving its case short of compelling.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,048,751 - PTAB · Jul 15, 2022 · PGR2021-00030 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · PGR · Rehearing
Patent Owner’s rehearing request was granted, and institution was denied for all challenged claims based on changed circumstances in the parallel district court proceeding under Fintiv.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, summarized above, we agree with Patent Owner that a rehearing of our prior institution decision is appropriate due to the changed circumstances of: (1) the statutory disclaimer of claims 6–8 of the ’039 patent, (2) Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment of related proceeding PGR2021-00042, and (3) the additional investment in the parallel proceeding by the district court and the parties, including the completion of a jury trial that resulted in a jury verdict not finding invalidity of the challenged claims. We further agree with Patent Owner that “[c]ontinuing with this proceeding would result in duplicative efforts and potentially conflicting results between the district court and the Board.” Reh’g Req. 9. It is the combination of these changed circumstances, rather than any one of them individually, that compels the result we reach.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“In considering the parties’ positions and the evidence of record, we note that we have been instructed not to exercise discretion to deny a petition when “the information presented at the institution stage presents a compelling unpatentability challenge.” Guidance Memo 4–5. We previously described “Petitioner’s argument that the claims lack enablement” as presenting “strong merits.” Paper 17, 3. Despite that determination, we believe the record as it stands currently does not “present[] a compelling unpatentability challenge” on the lack-of-enablement issue. Guidance Memo 4–5. The district court already has substantially completed its review of the enablement issue, and a jury has determined that the claims do not lack enablement. Given this new information, we cannot conclude that Petitioner’s enablement case is compelling.” slip op. at 6
- Adverse judgmentOther
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,808,039
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.