- 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 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Headwater Research LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00963 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution of the IPR under § 314(a), citing parallel litigation and settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due dates in the Board proceedings are in November and December 2026. DD Req. 13. The district court’s scheduled trial date is May 4, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in September 2026. DD Opp. 50. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Therefore, 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 expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“In addition, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately seven 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).” 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” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,028,144 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Headwater Research LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00932 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions without instituting IPR under § 314(a), citing the parallel litigation and settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due dates in the Board proceedings are in November and December 2026. DD Req. 13. The district court’s scheduled trial date is May 4, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in September 2026. DD Opp. 50. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Therefore, 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 expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsDenied
“In addition, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately seven 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).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of 2 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00932. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00963. all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 2
- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE,1 Acting Chief Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 1 Coke Morgan Stewart, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, is recused and took no part in this decision. The Director has delegated his discretionary authority for this decision. See https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/dsco-delegation.pdf.” slip op. at 1
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,080,250 - Lenovo (United States) Inc. / Motorola Mobility LLC v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 19, 2025 · IPR2025-00927 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), citing the parallel district court schedule, settled expectations, and a prior denied IPR.
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 November 23, 2026. DD Req. 12. The district court’s scheduled trial date is January 5, 2026, and time-to-trial statistics show trial would begin in April 2026. Id. at 2. Therefore, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before the 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
“Additionally, the challenged patent has been in force for approximately 16 years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. Further, the challenged patent in this proceeding was the subject of a previous inter partes review, and the Board denied institution on the merits. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Collision Comm’s, Inc., IPR2024- 01247, Paper 14 (PTAB Feb. 7, 2025). Repeat challenges raise concerns of road mapping and weigh against institution.” 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 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,593,492 - Toyota Motor Corp. v. Autoconnect Holdings LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 19, 2025 · IPR2025-00891 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s requests for discretionary denial and denied the Petitions, so no trial was instituted.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“Some considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately eleven and ten 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). Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner does not have 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00890. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00891. strong settled expectations because “Patent Owner has not commercialized its purported inventions, nor has it done anything to improve the United States economy or public interest with its purported inventions,” without more, does not defeat Patent Owner’s strong settled expectations. DD Opp. 8. Additionally, Patent Owner provides evidence that it brought the challenged patents to Petitioner’s attention in 2023, which further supports discretionary denial. DD Req. 22; see Geotab Inc., v. Fractus, S.A., IPR2025-00928, Paper 11, 2–3 (Director Sept. 12, 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 requests for discretionary denial are granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,147,296 - Toyota Motor Corp. v. Autoconnect Holdings LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 19, 2025 · IPR2025-00890 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary denial requests and denied the petitions under § 314(a), with no trial instituted.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“Some considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately eleven and ten 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). Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner does not have 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00890. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00891. strong settled expectations because “Patent Owner has not commercialized its purported inventions, nor has it done anything to improve the United States economy or public interest with its purported inventions,” without more, does not defeat Patent Owner’s strong settled expectations. DD Opp. 8. Additionally, Patent Owner provides evidence that it brought the challenged patents to Petitioner’s attention in 2023, which further supports discretionary denial. DD Req. 22; see Geotab Inc., v. Fractus, S.A., IPR2025-00928, Paper 11, 2–3 (Director Sept. 12, 2025).” 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). 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 denialPatents in suitUS 8,793,034 - 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
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.