- 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 - Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. VB Assets, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · 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 denialPatents in suitUS 8,515,765 - Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. VB Assets, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · 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 denialPatents in suitUS 7,818,176 - Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. VB Assets, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00866 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests and denied institution of IPR for the challenged patent under § 314(a).
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 8,073,681 - 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
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.