- PTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00640 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR challenging the patent under § 314(a), citing the district court schedule, risk of duplication, and Patent Owner’s settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceedings is October 16, 2026. DD Req. 4–5. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 6, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in May or June of 2026. Id. at 4; DD Opp. 8; Ex. 1050. 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. Additionally, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00639, IPR2025-00640, IPR2025-00642, IPR2025-00643, and IPR2025-00644 have been in force for over nine, eight, twelve, nine, and nine years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsDenied
“proceedings is October 16, 2026. DD Req. 4–5. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 6, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in May or June of 2026. Id. at 4; DD Opp. 8; Ex. 1050. 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. Additionally, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00639, IPR2025-00640, IPR2025-00642, IPR2025-00643, and IPR2025-00644 have been in force for over nine, eight, twelve, nine, and nine years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,483,722 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Mobile Data Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00544 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR, finding discretionary denial appropriate based on the projected district court trial timing, risk of duplication, and Patent Owner’s settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is in October 2026. DD Req. 30. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 20, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest that trial would begin by August 2026. Id. at 30–31; DD Opp. 47; Ex. 1052, 35. 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.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsDenied
“Further, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately ten, ten, eight, and eight years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 3
- Director reviewInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution 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 9,619,578 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Mobile Data Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00542 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution under § 314(a), finding that the district court trial would likely precede the final written decision and settled expectations favored denial.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is in October 2026. DD Req. 30. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 20, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest that trial would begin by August 2026. Id. at 30–31; DD Opp. 47; Ex. 1052, 35. 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.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsDenied
“Further, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately ten, ten, eight, and eight years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. 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 9,922,348 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Mobile Data Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00541 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR, finding discretionary denial appropriate under § 314(a) based on the district court schedule and Patent Owner’s settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is in October 2026. DD Req. 30. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 20, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest that trial would begin by August 2026. Id. at 30–31; DD Opp. 47; Ex. 1052, 35. 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.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsDenied
“Further, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately ten, ten, eight, and eight years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,922,348 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Mobile Data Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00539 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR2025-00539 under § 314(a), citing likely district-court trial before the final written decision and Patent Owner’s 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 date for each of these cases is in October 2026. DD Req. 30. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 20, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest that trial would begin by August 2026. Id. at 30–31; DD Opp. 47; Ex. 1052, 35. 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.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“Further, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately ten, ten, eight, and eight years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. 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
- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“After considering the parties’ arguments and the record, and in view 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 8,793,336 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Mobile Data Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00538 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution under § 314(a), finding that the district court schedule, likely duplication, and settled expectations favor discretionary denial.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is in October 2026. DD Req. 30. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 20, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest that trial would begin by August 2026. Id. at 30–31; DD Opp. 47; Ex. 1052, 35. 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.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsDenied
“Further, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately ten, ten, eight, and eight years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution 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 8,825,801 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Mobile Data Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00537 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests and denied institution under § 314(a), citing the parallel district-court schedule and settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is in October 2026. DD Req. 30. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 20, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest that trial would begin by August 2026. Id. at 30–31; DD Opp. 47; Ex. 1052, 35. 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.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsDenied
“Further, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately ten, ten, eight, and eight years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialInstitution 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 8,825,801 - Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. v. Pantech CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00637 · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of inter partes review under § 314(a), finding the patent’s age and the absence of persuasive reasons to use Board resources favored discretionary denial.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“However, other considerations favor discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patent has been in force over seven 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). In the absence of any such information, the Office is disinclined to disturb the strong settled expectations of Patent Owner. On balance, the circumstances in this case 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 Petition is denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” 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 Petition is denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,763,283 - Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v. Micron Technology, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00499 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of inter partes review, finding that settled expectations and the holistic assessment of the record favored discretionary denial under § 314(a).
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“Other factors, however, favor discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately ten, six, and six 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.” 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 2 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00498. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00499, IPR2025-00500, and IPR2025-00501. all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,803,214 - Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v. Micron Technology, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00498 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · 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 settled expectations and a holistic assessment.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“Other factors, however, favor discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately ten, six, and six 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.” 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 2 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00498. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00499, IPR2025-00500, and IPR2025-00501. all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,803,214
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.