- Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. Marlin Semiconductor Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 3, 2025 · IPR2025-00848 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution in IPR2025-00848, IPR2025-00864, IPR2025-00865, and IPR2025-00879 under § 314(a), citing ITC overlap 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 November 15, 2026. The hearing in the parallel U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) investigation is set for February 2, 2026. DD Req. 14. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the ITC trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. In addition, the patents challenged in IPR2025- 00848, IPR2025-00864, IPR2025-00865, and IPR2025-00879 have been in force for seven, nine, nine, 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- 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00847. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00848, IPR2025-00864, IPR2025-00865, and IPR2025-00879. 00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025). These factors favor discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“these cases is November 15, 2026. The hearing in the parallel U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) investigation is set for February 2, 2026. DD Req. 14. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings will issue before the ITC trial occurs, resulting in significant duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. In addition, the patents challenged in IPR2025- 00848, IPR2025-00864, IPR2025-00865, and IPR2025-00879 have been in force for seven, nine, nine, 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- 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00847. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00848, IPR2025-00864, IPR2025-00865, and IPR2025-00879. 00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025). These factors favor discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“Petitioner argues that national security, economic, and public interest considerations counsel against discretionary denial because “[t]he semiconductor chips manufactured by TSMC are vital to leading U.S. companies (from Apple and NVIDIA to Amazon and Tesla) . . . and national security and defense through TSMC’s CyberShuttle program.” DD Opp. 31. Petitioner, however, does not explain in sufficient detail why review of the challenged patents is in the interest of national security, the economy, or the public. That is, Petitioner’s arguments are not narrowly-tailored towards particular products or manufacturing methods, and Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how national security, economic, or public interests warrant review of the specific patents challenged in these proceedings.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“circumstances. In particular, Petitioner provides persuasive reasoning, supported by evidence, that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged patent during patent examination, and, accordingly, discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) is not appropriate. Specifically, during prosecution of the challenged patent, the patent examiner applied Chien7702 to reject the claims, but subsequently allowed the claims after the applicant amended them. DD Opp. 5–6. Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that the patent examiner overlooked 2 US Pat. 6,815,770, Nov. 9, 2004 (Ex. 1037). certain teachings in Chien770 that appear to disclose the claimed features that the patent examiner indicated were not taught by the prior art of record, including Chien770. Id. at 7–10. Although the challenged patent has been in force for fifteen years, Petitioner appears to show a material error by the Office, and it is an appropriate use of Office resources to review the potential error.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,953,880 - Amgen Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb CompanyInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 24, 2025 · IPR2025-00601 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution in IPR2025-00601 and IPR2025-00602 based on Patent Owner’s strong settled expectations; IPR2025-00603 was referred to the Board.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“The patents challenged in IPR2025-00601 and IPR2025-00602 present different circumstances. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for seven 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 3
- Director reviewOther
“Before COKE MORGAN STEWART, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. DECISION Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review in IPR2025-00601 and IPR2025-00602 and Referring the Petition in IPR2025-00603 to the Board” slip op. at 1
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,856,320 - Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. v. Axa Power ApsInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 18, 2025 · IPR2025-00408 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied institution under § 314(a), citing the patent’s nearly eight years in force and settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“those that counsel against it. In particular, the challenged patent has been in force almost eight years, creating settled expectations. See Ex. 1001. The interim processes permit a patent owner to file a brief explaining why discretionary denial is appropriate and the petitioner not only to respond to patent owner’s arguments but also to identify reasons not to exercise discretion to deny institution. As the Office has explained, “the parties are permitted to address all relevant considerations . . . bearing on the Director’s discretion.”1 The Office further has explained that “[p]arties are encouraged to address any fact or circumstance they believe bears on whether the Office should or should not institute trial.”2” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsOther
“Some facts counsel against discretionary denial. For example, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) are unpersuasive.” 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 9,771,169 - RPX Corporation v. Applications In Internet Time, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 4, 2020 · IPR2015-01750 · APJ Scott R Boalick · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied RPX’s rehearing request, leaving in place the remand decision terminating the reviews because Salesforce was an RPI and the petitions were time-barred under § 315(b).
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence or merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for patent owner
“legally required for Salesforce to be a “beneficiary.” Req. Reh’g. 14. Further, Petitioner further asserts that we overlooked the authority cited by Petitioner that “‘behest’ means command, and that RPX cannot have acted as Salesforce’s representative unless RPX were appointed by Salesforce to so act.” Id. at 14–15. Petitioner asserts that the evidence, at most, demonstrates that RPX filed as a “mere volunteer to benefit Salesforce.” Id. at 15. We are not persuaded because Petitioner’s argument proposes that we apply a more narrow and rigid analysis of RPI than the one instructed by the Federal Circuit in these cases. As stated by the Federal Circuit, “[d]etermining whether a non-party is a ‘real party in interest’ demands a flexible approach that takes into account both equitable and practical considerations, with an eye toward determining whether the non-party is a clear beneficiary that has a preexisting, established relationship with the petitioner.” AIT, 897 F.3d at 1351; see also Dec. 4–5. Applying this flexible approach to the evidence of record, we determined that Salesforce is an RPI in these proceedings.” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barDecided for patent owner
“III. ANALYSIS In the Final Decision on Remand, we determined that Petitioner had not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Salesforce was not an RPI in these proceedings. Dec. 1–2, 6–7, 30–35, 40. As noted above, in light of this determination, we terminated the previously instituted inter partes reviews, and denied inter partes reviews under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Id. at 35, 40.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for patent owner
“entitled to due process and the protections afforded by the Administrative Procedure Act. Pet. Reply 1 (citing SAS Inst., Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC, 825 F.3d 1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). We agree with Patent Owner, however, that all requirements of procedural due process have been met here. “The indispensable ingredients of due process are notice and an opportunity to be heard by a disinterested decision-maker.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Cordis Corp., 710 F.3d 1318, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). In this case, Petitioner had ample opportunity to brief the issue of RPI. See Paper 28, Paper 29 (redacted version); Paper 38, Paper 37 (redacted version); Paper 98, Paper 95 (redacted version); Paper 100, Paper 104 (redacted version); Paper 101, Paper 102 (redacted version). Petitioner also had an opportunity to argue the issue of RPI in two oral hearings. See Paper 77, Paper 112, Paper 123 (redacted version). Moreover, in its Request for Rehearing, Petitioner had a chance to identify any matters it believes this panel misapprehended or overlooked in its Final Decision on Remand. Petitioner further had an opportunity to file a Reply to Patent Owner’s Response to its Request. Thus, both before and after this panel issued its Final Decision on Remand, Petitioner had notice and an opportunity to be heard on issues relevant to these cases on remand from the Federal Circuit. Finally, although a change in panel after remand from the Federal Circuit is not common, this panel, like the original panel, decided the merits of each case based on the entirety of the record. Stated another way, either panel would have decided the case after careful consideration of the same evidence. Nor can Petitioner complain that it lacked notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the panel change – Petitioner received notice of the panel change both before and in the panel decision, and Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing and Board-authorized Reply gave it ample opportunity to be heard. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the change in panel has prejudiced Petitioner in any way or violated Petitioner’s due process rights.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,484,111 - Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 27, 2020 · IPR2019-01403 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Juniper’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in denying institution because the petition was time-barred under § 315(b).
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS The applicable standard for granting a request for rehearing of a petition decision is abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party seeking rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barDecided for patent owner
“district court and the June 13, 2018 vacatur of that grant, we determined that “service occurred at a time authorized by the district court.” Dec. 6. In its Request, Petitioner contends that, because the district court originally granted leave to serve the complaint in “error,” “Patent Owner’s June 8, 2018 filing was not properly served and cannot start the clock on Petitioner’s one-year deadline.” Req. Reh’g 1. But in advancing this contention, Petitioner misconstrues the meaning of “properly served” in the context of the Board’s precedential decision in GoPro, Inc. v. 360Heros, Inc., IPR2018-01754, Paper 38 (PTAB Aug. 23, 2019) (precedential). In recognizing that a complaint “improperly served” does not trigger the § 315(b) time bar, the Precedential Opinion Panel in GoPro cites IpDatatel, LLC v. ICN Acquisition, LLC, IPR2018-01823, Paper 17 at 10–18 (PTAB Apr. 17, 2019) for the interpretation of “served” in § 315(b) as “requir[ing] compliance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” GoPro at 14. Although we alerted the parties in our Decision that “we discern no evidence on this record that service failed to comply with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” Petitioner offers no evidence or argument in its Request that prompts us to reconsider that finding. See Dec. 6.” slip op. at 3
- Other 314aOther
“In this case, the Chief Judge has considered Petitioner’s suggestion for an expanded panel, but has determined that an expanded panel is not warranted.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,418,731 - Sega Of America, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. And Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 2, 2016 · IPR2016-00427 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Institution
The Board denied joinder and denied institution on all challenged claims and grounds because § 315(b) barred the time-barred petition without joinder.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“entitlement to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.122(b). A motion for joinder should: (1) set forth the reasons why joinder is appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition; (3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule for the existing review; and (4) specifically address how briefing and discovery may be simplified. See, e.g., Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, Case IPR2013-00004, slip op. at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013) (Paper 15).” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsOther
“weigh in favor of denying Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder. Petitioner previously filed a petition for inter partes review of the ’216 patent in IPR2014-01453 and a petition for a covered business patent review of the ’216 patent in CBM2014-00183. Sega of America, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2014-01453 (Paper 6); Sega of America, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., CBM2014-00183 (Paper 6). The earlier petitions were filed within one year of the date on which Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’216 patent. Id. The grounds and arguments now asserted by Petitioner are substantially identical to the grounds presented in CBM2014-00183, which was denied, and could have been brought in IPR2014-01453, which was instituted. Petitioner did not include the asserted grounds in a petition for inter partes review until now. Nor has Petitioner explained sufficiently why the petition in IPR2014-01453 did not contain the grounds and arguments set forth in the Petition in this proceeding. Joinder may be authorized when warranted, but the decision to grant joinder is discretionary. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). When exercising that discretion, the Board is mindful that patent trial regulations, including the rules of joinder, must be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 (b). In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to show that joinder would be appropriate, even if IPR2015-01207 had not been terminated.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barInstitution denied
“is filed more than one year after the petitioner (or the petitioner’s real partyin-interest or privy) is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent, see 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b), the one-year time bar does not apply to a request for joinder. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (stating that “[t]he time limitation set forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply to a request for joinder under subsection (c)” of 35 U.S.C. § 315); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). In the present case, Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’216 patent more than one year prior to filing the Petition in this proceeding. See Pet. 51; Ex. 1025. Thus, absent joinder of this proceeding with IPR2015-01207, institution of inter partes review is barred.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 5,490,216
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.