- Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v. Longhorn Automotive Group LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 19, 2025 · IPR2025-00955 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), citing parallel proceedings, settled expectations, and the holistic record.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is December 2, 2026. DD Req. 6. Although Patent Owner has not asserted the challenged patent against Petitioner in district court, the challenged patent is part of several district court proceedings involving other parties. Of these parallel proceedings, the earliest district court scheduled trial date is June 1, 2026. Id. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before a district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense, and a risk of inconsistent decisions.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsDenied
“Additionally, the challenged patent has been in force for more than eleven years, 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 Solutions Inc. v. Axa Power Aps, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025). Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner does not have strong settled expectations because the challenged patent was not previously commercialized or asserted in the technology space of vehicle headlamps or headlights is unpersuasive. DD Opp. 4–5. Furthermore, Petitioner’s argument that it did not expect a patent claiming a “system for projecting a pattern of light” to be asserted in the technology space of vehicle headlamps is not persuasive. See Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 52–65 (claim 1).” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aDenied
“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 8,810,803 - Docker Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 19, 2025 · IPR2025-00840 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), citing resource efficiency and settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“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. The parties are not engaged in a parallel proceeding involving the challenged patent. The challenged patent, however, is being asserted against Petitioner’s customers in two district court proceedings, and is also the subject of IPR2025-00931. The grounds in this Petition overlap those being advanced in one of the parallel district court proceedings. DD Req. 7–10. Furthermore, the Office recently issued an order granting ex parte reexamination of the challenged patent. Id. at 4–5. Under these circumstances, it would not be an efficient use of Office resources to further review the patent. Additionally, the challenged patent has been in force for approximately twelve years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. Id. at 16. This also weighs 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 Petition is denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“challenged patent. The challenged patent, however, is being asserted against Petitioner’s customers in two district court proceedings, and is also the subject of IPR2025-00931. The grounds in this Petition overlap those being advanced in one of the parallel district court proceedings. DD Req. 7–10. Furthermore, the Office recently issued an order granting ex parte reexamination of the challenged patent. Id. at 4–5. Under these circumstances, it would not be an efficient use of Office resources to further review the patent. Additionally, the challenged patent has been in force for approximately twelve years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. Id. at 16. This also weighs in favor of discretionary denial. Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,332,844 - Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v. Payrange LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 19, 2025 · IPR2025-00950 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), citing the third petition, prior merits denials, road-mapping concerns, and settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“Other considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. In particular, this is the third petition involving the challenged patent. Both of the prior petitions were denied based on the merits. See Kiosoft Techs., LLC v. PayRange Inc., PGR2021-00084, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 16, 2021) (“Kiosoft PGR”); CSC ServiceWorks, Inc. v. PayRange Inc., IPR2023-01188 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2024). Petitioner states that it “relies on the same reference, Breitenbach, as a primary reference for both of its grounds of invalidity” that was used in the Kiosoft PGR. DD Opp. 4. Petitioner further states that “the present Petition addresses and cures any purported deficiencies with Breitenbach by relying on additional references Brown and Kaspar.” DD Opp. 36. Petitioner’s admission raises concerns of road mapping and weighs in favor of discretionary denial. See Amazon Web Servs., Inc. v. Croga Innovations, Ltd., IPR2025-00884, Paper 9, at 2 (Director Sept. 3, 2025).” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsDenied
“In addition, although the challenged patent has not been in force for a significant period of time (issued in 2021), Patent Owner presents evidence that it has licensed the challenged patent, which creates some settled expectations favoring Patent Owner. DD Req. 3. The considerations favoring discretionary denial outweigh those that counsel against it.” slip op. at 3
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“example, the co-pending district court litigation was stayed on September 10, 2025. See Ex. 1026. As such, it is likely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before district court trial occurs.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,891,608 - Kangxi Communications Technologies v. Skyworks Solutions Canada, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00912 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied the petition, instituting no trial under § 314(a) based on the patent’s strong settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“Other considerations favor discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patent has been in force for over seventeen years, 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 under these circumstances. Dabico Airport Sols. Inc. v. AXA Power ApS, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025). Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner does not have settled expectations because Patent Owner did not previously assert the challenged patent against Petitioner does not defeat Patent Owner’s settled expectations. DD Opp. 3– 6. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient explanation, 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 Petition is denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,409,200 - Belden Inc. / PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Commscope, Inc. Of North CarolinaInstitution deniedPTAB · 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 denialPatents in suitUS 9,266,697 - Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. / Volkswagen AG et al. v. Longhorn Automotive Group LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00925 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR2025-00925 under § 314(a), finding discretionary denial appropriate based on the totality of the evidence and arguments.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“Some considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patent has been in force for thirteen years 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). Further, Petitioner’s argument that the Examiner erred is unconvincing as it does not accurately characterize the prosecution history. See DD Opp. 2–7 (focusing on “removable storage”); Ex. 1003, 134 (interview summary discussing encrypted memory).” 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 Petition is denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“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 8,085,192 - Geotab Inc. / Geotab USA, Inc. v. Fractus, S.A.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00929 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution under § 314(a), finding that settled expectations outweighed considerations against discretionary denial.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for more than eleven years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. Petitioner argues with respect to settled expectations that the challenged patents do not relate to its technology space (fleet tracking) as the patents concern a “mobile communications device with a multi-band antenna which, at best, is only one of many components that can be used in a fleet tracking system.” DD Opp. 26–29. Patent Owner, however, provides evidence that it brought the challenged patents to Petitioner’s attention in 2021. DD Req. 17 (citing” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,810,458 - Geotab Inc. / Geotab USA, Inc. v. Fractus, S.A.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00928 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution under § 314(a), finding that settled expectations favoring denial outweighed considerations that counseled against it.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for more than eleven years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. Petitioner argues with respect to settled expectations that the challenged patents do not relate to its technology space (fleet tracking) as the patents concern a “mobile communications device with a multi-band antenna which, at best, is only one of many components that can be used in a fleet tracking system.” DD Opp. 26–29. Patent Owner, however, provides evidence that it brought the challenged patents to Petitioner’s attention in 2021. DD Req. 17 (citing 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00928. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00929. Ex. 2007 ¶ 6; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 17–18). Accordingly, Petitioner appears to have had notice of the challenged patents for a significant period of time and was engaged in discussions with Patent Owner about the challenged patents until shortly before Patent Owner asserted the challenged patent. See Ex. 1043; Ex. 1044. 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
“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 8,456,365 - Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. v. Pantech CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00783 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution in IPR2025-00783 under § 314(a), finding nine years of settled expectations and no persuasive reason to use Board resources for review.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“The patent challenged in IPR2025-00783 presents different circumstances. In particular, the challenged patent has been in force for nine years, 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 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00762. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00783. absence of any such information, the Office is disinclined to disturb the strong settled expectations of Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“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 Petition in IPR2025-00783 is denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), and the Petition in IPR2025-00762 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. In consideration of the foregoing, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial in IPR2025-00783 is granted; FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition in IPR2025-00783 is denied, and no trial is instituted;” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,288,824 - Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. VB Assets, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00869 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests and denied institution under § 314(a), citing settled expectations and prior adjudications.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“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 otherDenied
“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 denialPatents in suitUS 8,886,536
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.