- HS Hyosung Advanced Materials Corp. v. Kolon Industries, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00664 · 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 including settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“Other factors, however, weigh in favor of discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for more than seven, six, and nine years, respectively, 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 under these circumstances. 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. Furthermore, Petitioner has not filed a 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00662. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00663 and IPR2025-00664. stipulation to address concerns of duplicative efforts and potentially conflicting decisions should the stay be lifted. DD Opp. 28 n.10. On balance, the circumstances in these proceedings favor discretionary denial.” 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 9,617,663 - HS Hyosung Advanced Materials Corp. v. Kolon Industries, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00663 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied the petitions under § 314(a); no trial was instituted.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“Other factors, however, weigh in favor of discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for more than seven, six, and nine years, respectively, 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 under these circumstances. 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. Furthermore, Petitioner has not filed a” 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).” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,196,765 - HS Hyosung Advanced Materials Corp. v. Kolon Industries, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00662 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied the petitions under § 314(a), declining to institute inter partes review.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“Other factors, however, weigh in favor of discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for more than seven, six, and nine years, respectively, 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 under these circumstances. 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. Furthermore, Petitioner has not filed a 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00662. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00663 and IPR2025-00664. stipulation to address concerns of duplicative efforts and potentially conflicting decisions should the stay be lifted. DD Opp. 28 n.10. On balance, the circumstances in these proceedings favor discretionary denial.” 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 9,789,731 - Microsoft Corporation v. Dialect, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00659 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution of the petitions under § 314(a), citing settled expectations, subsidiary ownership history, and parallel litigation.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“wholly owned subsidiary of Petitioner, owned and maintained the challenged patents from 2015 until 2021. DD Opp. 4, 6; Ex. 1034; Paper 10, 1. Nuance further retained a license upon selling the patent that extended to its customers. DD Opp. 4, 6. Absent exceptional circumstances, it is not an appropriate use of Office resources where a party’s wholly owned subsidiary owned, maintained, sold, and retained a license for a patent, but, as is the case here, the party now advocates for its unpatentability. See Analog Devices, Inc. v. Number 14 B.V., IPR2025-00550, Paper 10 at 2 (Director July 16, 2025). Additionally, the challenged patents have been in force for more than fifteen, twelve, nine, thirteen, and eight years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner, and Petitioner does not provide any persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00655. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00656, IPR2025-00657, IPR2025-00658, and IPR2025-00659. 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 denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“Furthermore, one of Petitioner’s real-parties-in-interest, Bank of America, N.A., is a party to a parallel district court proceeding that involves the same challenged patents, the same challenged claims, and significantly overlapping invalidity contentions as these IPR proceedings. DD. Req. 15– 16; see Ex. 2003, 3, 60–76. The projected final written decision due date in these Board proceedings is in October 2026. DD Req. 6. The district court’s scheduled trial date is May 4, 2026. DD Opp. 15–16. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. This additionally weighs in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 3
- 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 9,495,957 - Microsoft Corporation v. Dialect, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00658 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied institution under § 314(a), citing settled expectations, the subsidiary’s patent history, and parallel litigation.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“wholly owned subsidiary of Petitioner, owned and maintained the challenged patents from 2015 until 2021. DD Opp. 4, 6; Ex. 1034; Paper 10, 1. Nuance further retained a license upon selling the patent that extended to its customers. DD Opp. 4, 6. Absent exceptional circumstances, it is not an appropriate use of Office resources where a party’s wholly owned subsidiary owned, maintained, sold, and retained a license for a patent, but, as is the case here, the party now advocates for its unpatentability. See Analog Devices, Inc. v. Number 14 B.V., IPR2025-00550, Paper 10 at 2 (Director July 16, 2025). Additionally, the challenged patents have been in force for more than fifteen, twelve, nine, thirteen, and eight years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner, and Petitioner does not provide any persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00655. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00656, IPR2025-00657, IPR2025-00658, and IPR2025-00659. 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 denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“Furthermore, one of Petitioner’s real-parties-in-interest, Bank of America, N.A., is a party to a parallel district court proceeding that involves the same challenged patents, the same challenged claims, and significantly overlapping invalidity contentions as these IPR proceedings. DD. Req. 15– 16; see Ex. 2003, 3, 60–76. The projected final written decision due date in these Board proceedings is in October 2026. DD Req. 6. The district court’s scheduled trial date is May 4, 2026. DD Opp. 15–16. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. This additionally weighs in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 3
- 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 8,195,468 - Microsoft Corporation v. Dialect, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00657 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution of the IPR petitions under § 314(a).
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“wholly owned subsidiary of Petitioner, owned and maintained the challenged patents from 2015 until 2021. DD Opp. 4, 6; Ex. 1034; Paper 10, 1. Nuance further retained a license upon selling the patent that extended to its customers. DD Opp. 4, 6. Absent exceptional circumstances, it is not an appropriate use of Office resources where a party’s wholly owned subsidiary owned, maintained, sold, and retained a license for a patent, but, as is the case here, the party now advocates for its unpatentability. See Analog Devices, Inc. v. Number 14 B.V., IPR2025-00550, Paper 10 at 2 (Director July 16, 2025). Additionally, the challenged patents have been in force for more than fifteen, twelve, nine, thirteen, and eight years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner, and Petitioner does not provide any persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00655. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00656, IPR2025-00657, IPR2025-00658, and IPR2025-00659. 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 denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Furthermore, one of Petitioner’s real-parties-in-interest, Bank of America, N.A., is a party to a parallel district court proceeding that involves the same challenged patents, the same challenged claims, and significantly overlapping invalidity contentions as these IPR proceedings. DD. Req. 15– 16; see Ex. 2003, 3, 60–76. The projected final written decision due date in these Board proceedings is in October 2026. DD Req. 6. The district court’s scheduled trial date is May 4, 2026. DD Opp. 15–16. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. This additionally weighs in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 3
- 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).” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,263,039 - Microsoft Corporation v. Dialect, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00656 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions, declining to institute IPR based on the totality of the circumstances.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“wholly owned subsidiary of Petitioner, owned and maintained the challenged patents from 2015 until 2021. DD Opp. 4, 6; Ex. 1034; Paper 10, 1. Nuance further retained a license upon selling the patent that extended to its customers. DD Opp. 4, 6. Absent exceptional circumstances, it is not an appropriate use of Office resources where a party’s wholly owned subsidiary owned, maintained, sold, and retained a license for a patent, but, as is the case here, the party now advocates for its unpatentability. See Analog Devices, Inc. v. Number 14 B.V., IPR2025-00550, Paper 10 at 2 (Director July 16, 2025). Additionally, the challenged patents have been in force for more than fifteen, twelve, nine, thirteen, and eight years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner, and Petitioner does not provide any persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00655. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00656, IPR2025-00657, IPR2025-00658, and IPR2025-00659. 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 denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied discretionary otherDenied
“Furthermore, one of Petitioner’s real-parties-in-interest, Bank of America, N.A., is a party to a parallel district court proceeding that involves the same challenged patents, the same challenged claims, and significantly overlapping invalidity contentions as these IPR proceedings. DD. Req. 15– 16; see Ex. 2003, 3, 60–76. The projected final written decision due date in these Board proceedings is in October 2026. DD Req. 6. The district court’s scheduled trial date is May 4, 2026. DD Opp. 15–16. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. This additionally weighs in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 3
- 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 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 8,447,607 - Microsoft Corporation v. Dialect, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00655 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution of IPR on the challenged patent under § 314(a), based on the holistic assessment.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“wholly owned subsidiary of Petitioner, owned and maintained the challenged patents from 2015 until 2021. DD Opp. 4, 6; Ex. 1034; Paper 10, 1. Nuance further retained a license upon selling the patent that extended to its customers. DD Opp. 4, 6. Absent exceptional circumstances, it is not an appropriate use of Office resources where a party’s wholly owned subsidiary owned, maintained, sold, and retained a license for a patent, but, as is the case here, the party now advocates for its unpatentability. See Analog Devices, Inc. v. Number 14 B.V., IPR2025-00550, Paper 10 at 2 (Director July 16, 2025). Additionally, the challenged patents have been in force for more than fifteen, twelve, nine, thirteen, and eight years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner, and Petitioner does not provide any persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00655. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00656, IPR2025-00657, IPR2025-00658, and IPR2025-00659. 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 denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“Furthermore, one of Petitioner’s real-parties-in-interest, Bank of America, N.A., is a party to a parallel district court proceeding that involves the same challenged patents, the same challenged claims, and significantly overlapping invalidity contentions as these IPR proceedings. DD. Req. 15– 16; see Ex. 2003, 3, 60–76. The projected final written decision due date in these Board proceedings is in October 2026. DD Req. 6. The district court’s scheduled trial date is May 4, 2026. DD Opp. 15–16. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before district court trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. This additionally weighs in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 3
- 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 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 7,640,160 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Genghiscomm Holdings, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00781 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a), instituting no trial because district-court trial would likely precede the final written decisions and settled expectations favored denial.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is October 18, 2026. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 20, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by January 2026. DD Req. 6. 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 expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Id. at 3–11.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“Further, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately eight and six 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).” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,200,227 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Genghiscomm Holdings, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00780 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions without instituting trial under § 314(a), based on parallel litigation and settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is October 18, 2026. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 20, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by January 2026. DD Req. 6. 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 expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Id. at 3–11.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“Further, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately eight and six 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).” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,768,842
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.