- Intel Corp. / Dell Inc. et al. v. General Video, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-01038 · 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 based on the holistic record and strong settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsGranted
“Other considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately seven, ten, and seventeen years, creating strong 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); Intel Corp. v. Proxense LLC, IPR2025-00327, Paper 12, 2–3 (Director June 26, 2025). Additionally, Dell appears to have been notified of the challenged patents in 2016, 2017, and 2021. See, e.g., DD Req. 46–47; DD Reply 1–3. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient explanation by Petitioner, Patent Owner’s strong settled expectations tip the balance in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 3
- Other 314aInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“particular, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately seven, ten, and seventeen years, creating strong 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); Intel Corp. v. Proxense LLC, IPR2025-00327, Paper 12, 2–3 (Director June 26, 2025). Additionally, Dell appears to have been notified of the challenged patents in 2016, 2017, and 2021. See, e.g., DD Req. 46–47; DD Reply 1–3. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient explanation by Petitioner, Patent Owner’s strong settled expectations 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 7,359,437 - Hisense USA Corporation / Hisense Electronica Mexico S.A. De C.V. v. Videolabs, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00882 · 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 based on a holistic assessment that included settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsGranted
“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 denialPatents in suitUS 8,291,236 - Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. v. Pantech CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 3, 2025 · IPR2025-00888 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests and denied institution in IPR2025-00888 based on settled expectations and the totality of the evidence and arguments.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsGranted
“The patents challenged in IPR2025-00720, IPR2025-00887, and IPR2025-00888 present different circumstances and are unrelated to the patent challenged in IPR2025-00756. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for eight, ten, and nine years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner, and Petitioner does not provide 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00720. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00756, IPR2025-00887, and IPR2025-00888. 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 2
- 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 IPR2025-00720, IPR2025-00887, and IPR2025-00888 are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), and the Petition in IPR2025-00756 is referred to the Board to handle the case in the normal course, including by issuing a decision on institution addressing the merits and other non-discretionary considerations, as appropriate.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,369,251 - Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. v. Pantech CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 3, 2025 · IPR2025-00720 · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary denial request and denied institution of IPR2025-00720 based on the totality of the evidence, including settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsGranted
“The patents challenged in IPR2025-00720, IPR2025-00887, and IPR2025-00888 present different circumstances and are unrelated to the patent challenged in IPR2025-00756. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for eight, ten, and nine years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner, and Petitioner does not provide 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00720. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00756, IPR2025-00887, and IPR2025-00888. 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 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,769,776 - 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 - NKT Photonics Inc. / NKT Photonics A/S v. Omni Continuum LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 4, 2025 · IPR2025-00839 · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), citing settled expectations and Petitioner’s longstanding notice of the patent.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsGranted
“Other factors weigh in favor of discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patent has been in force for nearly seventeen years, creating strong 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). Furthermore, Patent Owner provides evidence that Petitioner first became aware of the challenged patent as early as 2012—having received notice from the previous patent owner of the challenged patent as part of its patent portfolio. DD Req. 5–6; Ex. 2002; see iRhythm Techs., Inc. v. Welch Allyn, Inc., IPR2025-00363, Paper 10, 3 (Director June 6, 2025). Discussions between the parties about the challenged patent continued in 2017, and licensing discussions regarding Patent Owner’s patent portfolio continued through 2022. See DD Req. 5–6; DD Opp. 18–19. Accordingly, Petitioner appears to have had notice of the challenged patent for a significant period of time and was engaged in discussions with Patent Owner about its portfolio until shortly before Patent Owner asserted the challenged patent. Under these circumstances, the factors 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). In consideration of the foregoing, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial is granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,433,116 - Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon.Com Services LLC et al. v. Audio Pod IP, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00774 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied the petitions without instituting trial based on a holistic assessment under § 314(a).
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsGranted
“particular, the challenged patents in IPR2025-00757, IPR2025-00765, IPR2025-00769, IPR2025-00774, and IPR2025-00777 have been in force for approximately seven, eleven, seven, eleven, and nine years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. Furthermore, Patent Owner provides evidence that Petitioner first learned of Patent Owner’s 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00757. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00765, IPR2025-00768, IPR2025-00769, IPR2025-00774, and IPR2025-00777. technology in 2007, and, in 2012, Patent Owner informed Petitioner of its patent portfolio, including an issued ancestor patent to the challenged patents. DD Req. 14–15; Ex. 2013. Accordingly, Petitioner appears to have had notice of the challenged patents or patent family for a significant period of time.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“as the other patents challenged. While ordinarily such circumstances might counsel against discretionary denial, the district court will be considering the validity of the patents challenged in IPR2025-00757, IPR2025-00765, IPR2025-00769, IPR2025-00774, and IPR2025-00777, along with the validity of the patent challenged in IPR2025-00768, and referring IPR2025- 00768 to the Board would be an inefficient use of Board resources and tips the balance to discretionary denial as to that patent too. 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 8,738,740 - 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
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.