• Google LLC v. Secure Communication Technologies, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 15, 2026 · IPR2026-00099 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review

  The Director denied Google’s petition and instituted no trial, exercising discretion based on the complete record and holistic assessment, including settled expectations.

  RulingsDirector review decision

  • Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied

    “Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive. Petitioner was aware of the challenged patent no later than February 2012, and Patent Owner specifically identified the patent as being of interest to mobile commerce providers. See Ex. 2004. Petitioner cited the challenged patent to the Office during prosecution of Petitioner’s own Application No. 13/716,675 in December 2012. See Ex. 2007. Application No. 13/716,675 is titled “Methods and Systems for Efficient Discovery of Devices in a Peer-to-Peer Network.” See Ex. 2006. Efficient discovery of devices in a peer-to-peer network appears to be relevant to both retail operations and the finding and tracking of personal electronic devices. Accordingly, Petitioner’s own actions indicate it was aware that the challenged patent was relevant to its technology space.” slip op. at 3

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for patent owner

    “Finally, I do not agree with Petitioner’s assertion that the Office committed a material error during prosecution. While demonstrating error is usually one of the strongest considerations weighing against discretionary denial, here Petitioner’s material error argument is weak. Petitioner points to the notice of allowance, and focuses on a single phrase that appears in a rather long listing of limitations the examiner indicated were missing from the prior art. DD Opp. 2–3. According to Petitioner, the phrase “first, direct, short range separate local wireless link” never existed in the claims. Id. at 4. However, Petitioner acknowledges that the phrase “via a separate local wireless link” was part of the claims, as was the phrase “first, direct, short range” local wireless link. Id. Although the ultimate listing in the notice of allowance may constitute a clerical error, Petitioner has not demonstrated sufficiently that this error was material to the patentability of the challenged claims, especially considering the number of other limitations listed in the notice of allowance that the examiner determined to be missing from the reviewed prior art. Petitioner does not address those limitations in its error arguments. Id. at 3–6.” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,116,749
• Hisense USA Corporation / Hisense Electronica Mexico S.A. De C.V. v. Videolabs, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00881 · 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 IPR.

  RulingsDirector review decision

  • Settled expectationsDecided for patent owner

    “Other considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for twelve and eleven years, creating settled expectations for Patent Owner. DD Req. 1, 7–8. Patent Owner also provides evidence that the challenged patents have been licensed to over twenty companies. Id. at 4; Ex. 2002. In addition, Patent Owner provides evidence that it has been in contact with Petitioner since December 2022, when Patent Owner sent Petitioner a notice letter regarding Patent Owner’s patent portfolio. DD Req. 4–5, 9; Ex. 2004. Patent Owner 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00880. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00881, IPR2025-00882, and IPR2025-00883. specifically notified Petitioner about the challenged patents in June 2023, when Patent Owner provided Petitioner with a claim chart during licensing negotiations. DD Req. 9. Petitioner’s arguments regarding Patent Owner’s settled expectations are not persuasive, and Petitioner does not otherwise 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 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 denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,291,236
• Google LLC v. Advanced Coding Technologies LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · 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 denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,218,995
• Belden Inc. / PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Commscope, Inc. Of North CarolinaInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00833 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director denied institution under § 314(a), finding discretionary denial appropriate based on a holistic assessment that included settled expectations and the prosecution search.

  RulingsDirector review decision

  • Settled expectationsDecided for patent owner

    “Other considerations favor discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patent has been in force for nine years creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. DD Req. 2. Patent Owner provides evidence that the invention was commercialized at least seven years ago and is still on the market. Id. at 3; Ex. 2001; Ex. 2006. Patent Owner also provides evidence of patent marking of the commercialized product. DD Req. 3–4; Ex. 2001, 2. Finally, Patent Owner provides evidence that Petitioner has been aware of the challenged patent since at least 2022, showing where Petitioner cited the challenged patent in an unrelated inter partes review and an information disclosure statement. DD Req. 4.” slip op. at 2

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “Petitioner argues that the Examiner erred during prosecution by performing an incomplete search after being reversed on appeal. DD Opp. 22–23. In particular, Petitioner argues that the search was based on the Examiner’s prior claim construction and not the Board’s claim construction decided on appeal. Id. Thus, according to Petitioner, the Examiner should have performed “a targeted prior art search for bags made of a ‘flexible material’ consistent with the Board’s interpretation.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 19–20). This argument is unconvincing as the evidence of record indicates that the Examiner did perform a search for flexible bags and Petitioner does not sufficiently address why this search was inadequate. Ex. 1003, 20. 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 denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,266,697
• Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. VB Assets, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00868 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests and denied the petitions under § 314(a), instituting no trial based on the holistic assessment of the record.

  RulingsDirector review decision

  • Settled expectationsDecided for patent owner

    “Other considerations, however, weigh in favor of discretionary denial. In particular, each of the challenged patents has been in force for more than ten years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. Additionally, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00866, IPR2025-00867,” slip op. at 2

  • Other 314aInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution 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 denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,515,765
• Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. VB Assets, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00867 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review

  The Director denied institution under § 314(a), citing settled expectations and prior adjudications of the challenged patents.

  RulingsDirector review decision

  • Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDecided for patent owner

    “Other considerations, however, weigh in favor of discretionary denial. In particular, each of the challenged patents has been in force for more than ten years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. Additionally, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00866, IPR2025-00867,” slip op. at 2

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “and IPR2025-00869 have all been subject to previous adjudications. The patents challenged in IPR2025-00866, IPR2025-00867, and IPR2025-00869 were involved in prior Board proceedings. In those proceedings, the Board denied institution of two petitions and entered a final written decision finding the challenged claims not unpatentable in the third proceeding. DD Req. 12; see also IPR2025-00867, Paper 8, 11–12; IPR2025-00869, Paper 8, 12. The patents challenged in IPR2025-00866 and IPR2025-00867 were also subject to a prior district court proceeding, in which the patents were found not invalid. DD Req. 12; IPR2025-00867, Paper 8, 12. It is not an efficient use of Board resources to further consider petitions challenging patents that have already been subject to challenges before the Office or patents that already have had validity adjudicated either at the Board or in another tribunal. 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 denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,818,176
• Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd v. Georgia Tech Research CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00384 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review

  The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), finding the patent’s age and Petitioner’s long-standing awareness favored denial.

  RulingsDirector review decision

  • Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDecided for patent owner

    “Other factors, however, weigh in favor of discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patent has been in force for more than 16 years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. Additionally, Petitioner and Patent Owner had discussions in 2007 regarding the technology space involving the challenged patent. See, e.g., DD Opp. 21– 26. Therefore, Petitioner was aware that Patent Owner was involved in the same technology space for a significant amount of time before filing its 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00383. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00384. Petition challenging Patent Owner’s patent. A failure to seek early review of the patent favors denial and outweighs the above-discussed considerations.” 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 request for discretionary denial is granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,489,914
• Solus Advanced Materials Co, Ltd. v. SK Nexilis Co., Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 22, 2025 · IPR2024-01460 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of review of claims 1–11 because the Fintiv factors, including the early trial date and close merits case, favored discretionary denial.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied

    “whether to institute an inter partes review. Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not institute an inter partes review unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Institution of inter partes review, however, is discretionary. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). For the reasons stated below, we exercise our discretion not to institute an inter partes review. A. Real Parties-in-Interest” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied

    “Board’s projected statutory deadline to issue a final written decision. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 9. “If the court’s trial date is at or around the same time as the projected statutory deadline . . . the decision whether to institute will likely implicate other factors.” Id. Conversely, “[i]f the court’s trial date is earlier than the projected statutory deadline,” this has generally weighed “in favor of exercising authority to deny institution.” Id.” slip op. at 15

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached

    “Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because the same or substantially the same art and arguments were before the Examiner during prosecution and Petitioner’s has not demonstrated that the Examiner erred in a material manner when allowing the claims. Pet. 17–18. Given our discretionary denial of the Petition in view of the Fintiv factors, we do not address Petitioner’s further arguments with respect to § 325(d).” slip op. at 32

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s recited level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 4. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the prior art of record, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan for purposes of this decision as it appears consistent with the disclosures of the ’090 patent and the prior art of record. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 9

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,480,090
• Charter Communications, Inc. v. Adaptive Spectrum And Signal Alignment, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 17, 2025 · IPR2024-01379 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of review of claim 20, finding that the Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial under § 314(a).

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied

    “(which we address in more detail below) turns on the determination of the meaning of the claim term “periodically.” We note that the District Court has construed the term “periodically monitor” to mean “monitor at regular intervals of time.” See Sec. II.C below. Given this construction, which we preliminarily agree with at this stage, we cannot agree with Petitioner that the Petition presents “a strong case for obviousness.” Thus, we find that Factor 6 weighs in favor of exercising discretionary denial.” slip op. at 16

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “periodically” as it is used in claim 20, with Petitioner arguing that “periodically’ means “repeated . . . over time” and Patent Owner arguing that “periodically” means “at fixed intervals.” See Pet. 25; Prelim. Resp. 8. Our preliminary determination of the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “periodically” as it is used in claim 20 substantially impacts our view of the merits in this case as this issue is the principal one raised by Patent Owner in its Preliminary Response. See Prelim. Resp. 5–22. slip op. at 20

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears consistent with the subject matter of the ’996 patent. This is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Martin. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 55–56. We adopt Petitioner’s assessment of a person of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision, with the exception of the qualifier “at least,” to keep the description from being vague and extending to a level reflecting that of an expert. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 18

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,809,996
• Lenovo (United States) Inc. / Dell Inc. et al. v. Universal Connectivity Technologies, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 17, 2025 · IPR2024-01482 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1, 2, 4, 8–10, 12, 13, 15, 18–20, and 25, exercising § 314(a) discretion after balancing the Fintiv factors and finding the merits not particularly strong.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied

    “partes review “allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts,” and strongly weighs against exercising our authority to deny institution. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. Of the three district court proceedings, the Lenovo Group case, pending in the Eastern District of Texas, is the most significant to our analysis here. In the Lenovo Group case, Lenovo Group has not requested a stay. Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner argues that the Lenovo Group case is not likely to be stayed based on that court’s low grant rate in other cases and the progress of that case in particular. Id. at 17. The district court in the HP case denied a stay without prejudice and stated that a stay could be reconsidered in the future depending on the outcome at the PTAB. Prelim. Reply 3. The Dell case has been stayed. Id. On this record, we decline to speculate as to how any of the involved district courts where no stay is pending might rule on any future motion to stay. Thus, we determine that, while one stay has been granted, the lack of a stay in the other underlying district court cases, especially the Lenovo Group case, is not sufficiently persuasive to weigh this factor against exercising discretion. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 at 12 (PTAB May 13, 2020) (informative), cautions against speculating whether the district court would grant a stay if one were requested. Therefore, this factor has a neutral effect on the overall balancing of the Fintiv factors. B. Proximity of Trial Date to Projected Statutory Deadline (Factor 2) The scheduled trial date for the Lenovo Group case is November 3, 2025, which is about six months prior to the expected date for the final written decision here (i.e., late April 2026). See Prelim. Resp. 20; IPR2024- 01429, Ex. 2002 (Lenovo Group case Docket Control Order), 1. Petitioner argues this trial date is uncertain. Prelim. Reply 3. Further, Petitioner focuses its argument on what it terms a “growing backlog” in the Eastern District of Texas and “associated scheduling uncertainty.” Id. at 4. Petitioner refers to the status of the HP case, which is currently set for trial on September 21, 2026, and the stay in the Dell case. Id. Patent Owner responds that “[b]oth the scheduled trial date and the date of trial [in the Lenovo Group case] based on median time-to-trial statistics occur months before a final written decision would be expected here.” Prelim. Sur-reply 4. Patent Owner asserts that the time-to-trial statistics for the Eastern District of Texas project a median time-to-trial of 21.9 months. Prelim. Resp. 20–21 (citing Ex. 2007, U.S. District Courts Federal Court Management Statistics–Profiles—September 30, 2024). This projection yields a trial date that is prior to the expected final written decision date of April 2026. Prelim. Sur-reply 4. As with the previous factor, the status of the Lenovo Group case is our focus here. As stated, that trial is set to occur about six months before a final written decision would issue in this proceeding. The district court has stated that this trial date setting “cannot be changed without an acceptable showing of good cause.” Prelim. Resp. 20. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s unsupported argument that the trial date is uncertain. We also consider the fact that the median time-to-trial statistic discussed by both parties projects a trial date earlier than the actual date set by the district court. Ex. 2007; Prelim. Sur-reply 1. The fact that the time-to-trial statistic is earlier than the trial date set in the Lenovo Group case confirms that the schedule set by the district court is credible and should be given weight. From this evidence, we are persuaded that we should rely on the trial” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “E. Conclusion Regarding the Merits Petitioner does not present particularly strong merits. Petitioner’s arguments on the “bus limitation,” to succeed at trial, would require addressing a claim construction issue that was never addressed in the Petition and is arguably contradicted by the ’520 patent, which discloses transmitting packets representing a plurality of different control signals on a single bus. See Prelim. Sur-reply 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:34–38, 9:23–25, 9:50–54). Similarly, prevailing on the “modified protocol” issue would require proving that the HDMI–C protocol, which uses the same separate channel arrangement for CEC and DDC as standard HDMI, is sufficiently “modified” to meet the claim. Taking into account Patent Owner’s persuasive arguments supra in response, and for the reasons given, we do not find the merits of Petitioner’s position on either of these dispositive issues to be particularly strong.” slip op. at 20

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Neither party proposes claim constructions for our consideration. Petitioner submits that it “for the purposes of this proceeding, the terms of the challenged claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and no terms require specific construction.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s position that no terms require construction. Prelim. Resp. 11–12. We determine there are no claim terms that need to be expressly construed for this Decision.” slip op. at 15

  • Skill levelDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner states that a person of ordinary skill “would have the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training and three years of work experience with data communications systems or interfaces, including at least some experience with serial or display data communications systems or interfaces .” Prelim. Resp. 12. The differences between these nearly-identical definitions are minor and immaterial to our decision. We regard either description as consistent with the challenged patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill).” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,856,520

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.