- Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 31, 2025 · IPR2025-00649 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests and denied institution in IPR2025-00647, IPR2025-00648, and IPR2025-00649 based on strong settled expectations and the holistic § 314(a) assessment.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsGranted
“The patents challenged in IPR2025-00647, IPR2025-00648, and IPR2025-00649 present different circumstances. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for seven, eleven, and nine 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. 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 Petitions in IPR2025-00647, IPR2025-00648, and IPR2025-00649 are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), and the Petitions in IPR2025-00650, IPR2025-00651, IPR2025-00652, and IPR2025-00653 are referred to the Board to handle these cases 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:” slip op. at 3
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“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 Petitions in IPR2025-00647, IPR2025-00648, and IPR2025-00649 are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), and the Petitions in IPR2025-00650, IPR2025-00651, IPR2025-00652, and IPR2025-00653 are referred to the Board to handle these cases 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:” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,342,078 - Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 31, 2025 · IPR2025-00647 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution in IPR2025-00647 through -00649 based on settled expectations and referred IPR2025-00650 through -00653 to the Board.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsGranted
“IPR2025-00649 present different circumstances. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for seven, eleven, and nine 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. 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 Petitions in IPR2025-00647, IPR2025-00648, and IPR2025-00649 are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), and the Petitions in IPR2025-00650, IPR2025-00651, IPR2025-00652, and IPR2025-00653 are referred to the Board to handle these cases 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:” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“in this Decision are based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions in IPR2025-00647, IPR2025-00648, and IPR2025-00649 are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), and the Petitions in IPR2025-00650, IPR2025-00651, IPR2025-00652, and IPR2025-00653 are referred to the Board to handle these cases 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:” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,898,014 - Boe Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. Optronic Sciences LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00239 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), citing the district court schedule and Patent Owner’s settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Granted
“particular, the projected final written decision due date for each of these cases is in October 2026. DD Req. 5. The district court’s scheduled trial date is May 4, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest that the trial would begin in July 2026. Id. 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 expenses for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Further, the challenged patents 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00238. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00239. have been in force for approximately twelve years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. These considerations favor discretionary denial, and outweigh the considerations that counsel against it.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsGranted
“Petitioner argues it has settled expectations that the challenged patents would not be asserted against it because the challenged patents are directed to technology that is fundamentally different from what Petitioner uses in its products. DD Opp. 9–13. Therefore, Petitioner contends it had no reason to challenge the claims of the patents in these proceedings until Patent Owner asserted the challenged patents in district court. Id. at 12.” 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 8,502,757 - Tesla, Inc. v. The United States Of America As Represented By The Secretary Of The Navy (Intellectual Ventures II LLC)Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 24, 2025 · IPR2025-00341 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Tesla had not shown a reasonable likelihood that claims 10, 11, 14, 16, and 18 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Having considered the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Reply, and the Sur-reply, as well as the evidence of record, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 10, 11, 14, 16, and 18 of the ’743 patent. We accordingly do not institute inter partes review. A.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “been someone knowledgeable and familiar with the areas of networking and distributed computing that are pertinent to the ’743 patent,” would “have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or equivalent training, and approximately 2-3 years of professional experience relating to distributed computing,” and that a “[l]ack of professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex.1003, ¶¶ 32-34). Patent Owner does not address this issue in the Preliminary Response. As Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization of the level of skill in the art, we adopt it for purposes of this analysis. B.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“of “event,” in which Petitioner argued that the term should be broad enough to include “processing radar sensor data, performing radar tracking initialization and refinement, and distributing radar tracking information to other modules,” and Patent Owner argued that the specification uses the term as “as an umbrella term to cover various types of ‘internal event and performance data’ such as ‘application statuses, states, performance, and internally detected errors.’” Reply 1; Sur-reply 2. We agree with Patent Owner that that claimed “events” must concern “application statuses, states, performance, and internally detected errors.” See Ex. 1001, 7:44–45. The patent explains that function group 2 collects that type of information from applications using an API and then “correlate[es], combin[es], and reformat[s] [the] application data into higherlevel metrics (composite events) for use by displays or other Resource Management components.” Id. at 7:52–54. The middleware described and claimed in the ’743 is concerned with how applications are performing, not what they doing.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“This claim limitation, however, also requires “event correlation capabilities.” For that, Petitioner asserts that “Welch’s metrics calculation component (part of the ‘second function group’) provides ‘event correlation capabilities’ because the QoS management software “implementation includes the following capabilities: . . . (2) track correlation and filtering algorithms.” Pet. 44–45 (citing Ex. 1003, 4). This, we find, mischaracterizes Welch’s disclosure, because Welch’s metrics calculation component does not perform the identified “correlation.” The language quoted by Petitioner comes from the experimental results section of Welch, which describes how the implementation of the NSWC HiPer-D testbed, the system that was used test Welch’s QoS middleware, included “track correlation and filtering algorithms.” Ex. 1005, 4. Welch is not explaining that the middleware correlates the QoS system level events that Petitioner has identified as the claimed “events,” but, instead, that the NSWC HiPer-D system that was used to test the middleware included the ability to correlate radar data in a shipboard anti-air-warfare system.6 The correlating mentioned in Welch occurs at the application level, not in the middleware.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,181,743 - PTAB · Jul 16, 2025 · IPR2025-00467 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution of IPR2025-00467 under § 314(a), citing multiple prior proceedings and no persuasive reason to use Board resources.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsGranted
“Some factors counsel against discretionary denial. For example, the challenged patents have not been in force for a significant period of time (issued in 2019, 2021, 2022, and 2023), such that the Patent Owner has not developed strong settled expectations. Other factors, however, weigh in favor of discretionary denial. In particular, despite that the patents were issued relatively recently, they have already been the subject of multiple proceedings. For example, the patent challenged in IPR2025-00467 was also the subject of IPR2024-00045 (final written decision issued on April 14, 2025), IPR2024-00903 (joined to IPR2024-00045), IPR2024-00514 (discretionary denial of institution), and an ITC investigation.2 The Board has issued final written decisions addressing almost all of the claims challenged by Petitioner in these proceedings. See, e.g., Aylo Freesites Ltd. v. Dish Techs. LLC, IPR2024- 1 Citations are to the papers in IPR2025-00467. Similar papers can be found in IPR2025-00468, IPR2025-00469, and IPR2025-00470. 2 The respondents in the ITC proceeding do not include Petitioner, but the ITC investigation addressed the patent challenged in IPR2025-00467. 00045, Paper 59 at 3 (PTAB April 14, 2025) (holding unpatentable claims 1–3, 5, 16–20, 22, 26–28, and 30 and holding not unpatentable claims 4, 7, 8, 10–14, and 23–25 of the patent challenged in IPR2025-00467). Petitioner does not provide persuasive reasoning why an inter partes review is an appropriate use of Board resources under these circumstances. In view of the number of prior proceedings involving the challenged patents and in the absence of a persuasive reason from Petitioner, these circumstances favor 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 Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution 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 10,469,554 - SAP America, Inc. v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00417 · 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 review.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsGranted
“proceedings has been dismissed from the parallel district court proceeding with prejudice. See, e.g., IPR2025-00415, Paper 8, 2–3. As Patent Owner asserts, it is an inefficient use of Board resources to review these challenged patents that have been dismissed from the litigation. See id. In addition, the challenged patents in IPR2025-00415, IPR2025-00417, and IPR2025-00418 have been in force for approximately 20 years, creating strong settled expectations, 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). These circumstances tip the balance in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 3
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“proceedings has been dismissed from the parallel district court proceeding with prejudice. See, e.g., IPR2025-00415, Paper 8, 2–3. As Patent Owner asserts, it is an inefficient use of Board resources to review these challenged patents that have been dismissed from the litigation. See id. In addition, the challenged patents in IPR2025-00415, IPR2025-00417, and IPR2025-00418 have been in force for approximately 20 years, creating strong settled expectations, 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). These circumstances 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 Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,823,409 - Phison Electronics Corporation v. Vervain, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00214 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a), citing the parallel district court’s earlier trial and significant investment.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)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
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialGranted
“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 9,997,240 - Trove Brands, LLC v. Camelbak Products, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 8, 2025 · IPR2025-00155 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 3–9, 11–17, or 19 were unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018).1 For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of claims 1, 3–9, 11–17, and 19 of the ’187 patent is unpatentable based on the grounds set forth in the Petition, and we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or equivalent coursework, and a year or more of experience in designing, prototyping, and/or manufacturing fluid containers or similar products. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 29). Petitioner asserts that more work experience may substitute for a lower level of education, and vice versa. Id. Patent Owner admittedly sets forth “a similar, though slightly different, level of ordinary skill”: a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or the equivalent coursework and approximately one year of experience with liquid-containing devices, with more work experience substituting for less education and vice versa. Prelim. Resp. 27 (citing Ex.2001 ¶¶ 60–64). Patent Owner discerns no material difference between the definitions provided by the parties for purposes of the Board’s decision on whether to institute this proceeding. Id. For purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill as being consistent with the prior art, although our conclusion on whether to institute would be unchanged under either definition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“The failure to use the word “means” in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply. Williamson v. Citrix Online, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). The presumption can be overcome and § 112 ¶ 6 will apply if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to “recite[ ] sufficiently definite structure” or else recites “function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function. “Construing a means-plus-function claim term is a two-step process.” Id. at 1351. “The [tribunal] must first identify the claimed function.” Id. “Then, the [tribunal] must determine what structure, if any, disclosed in the specification corresponds to the claimed function.” Id. There may be multiple claimed functions, each with disclosed corresponding structure. See id. at 1351–52.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We are persuaded by Patent Owner that the term “automatically” in “to automatically disengage the first and second catch structures” means that it is not just the force applied by the user that disengages the first and second catch structures, but also the bias of the mouthpiece that helps to disengage the first and second catch structures. In the first instance, we agree with Patent Owner that the claim itself recites that, upon actuation, the mouthpiece assembly is “release[d]” to “move via its bias from the stowed configuration to the dispensing configuration.” See Ex. 1001, 21:59–64. This meaning is supported by the Specification which states: “In some examples, the mouthpiece assembly is biased toward the dispensing configuration and thus moves automatically under its bias upon release by the user-release mechanism.” Ex. 1001, 1:64–67. We further agree with Patent Owner that the plain and ordinary meaning of “automatic” is that the user operation alone is not responsible for the action. For example, in one dictionary cited by Petitioner, “automatic” is defined as “2: having a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism.” See Ex. 2007, 1.11 The district court construction is consistent therewith. The district court identified two functions, the first of which is the same as that of the ’028 patent, i.e., “Automatically disengaging the first and second catch structures upon actuation of the user release mechanism and thereby releasing the mouthpiece assembly to move via its bias from the stowed configuration to the dispensing configuration.” See Section II.C.1, supra. In discussing that function, the district court states: “While a user may impart force upon user engagement portion 260 to release the mouthpiece, the bias of the mouthpiece towards the dispensing configuration causes the mouthpiece to move automatically, satisfying the requirements of Claim 1.” Ex. 2002, 16. We conclude that the term “automatically” in “adapted to” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,684,187 - Cambridge Industries USA, Inc. v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 27, 2025 · IPR2025-00433 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary denial request and denied institution of IPR2025-00433 based on a holistic assessment, including stronger settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsGranted
“Accordingly, Patent Owner’s settled expectations as to U.S. Patent No. 10,379,301 B2, U.S. Patent No. 10,313,024 B1, and U.S. Patent No. 10,788,690 B2 do not favor discretionary denial. The patents challenged in IPR2025-00433 and IPR2025-00435, however, have been in force for nine and seven years, respectively, and are not from the same patent family as those in IPR2025-00434, IPR2025- 00436, and IPR2025-00437. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s settled expectations as to the patents challenged in IPR2025-00433 and IPR2025- 00435 are stronger and discretionary denial is appropriate as to these proceedings.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“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. In particular, Patent Owner and Petitioner are involved in a parallel district court proceeding in the Northern District of California. DD Req. 7– 9; DD Opp. 2. There is no currently scheduled trial date in the co-pending district court litigation. DD Opp. 7. The District Court further vacated the scheduled Markman hearing. DD Req. 9; DD Opp. 7. Although Patent Owner argues that discretionary denial is warranted because Petitioner is over-reliant on expert testimony, Patent Owner does not identify any portions of the expert testimony that suggest Petitioner is using its expert to fill gaps in the prior art. DD Req. 28–29; DD Opp. 10. Additionally, Patent Owner’s arguments for discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) for some of the proceedings are unavailing and discretionary denial under § 325(d) is not appropriate. Furthermore, most of the challenged patents have not been in force for a significant period of time (issued in 2020, 2019, and 2019), and, accordingly, Patent Owner has not developed strong settled expectations that favor discretionary denial as to at least those patents.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,523,826 - Intel Corporation v. Proxense LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00329 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied institution of IPR on the challenged patent.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsGranted
“However, the considerations favoring discretionary denial outweigh those that counsel against it. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force over nine years, creating settled expectations, and Petitioner does not provide any 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 (Acting Director Stewart June 18, 2025). There may be persuasive reasons why the Board should review challenged claims several years after their issuance date. For example, a significant change in law may have occurred since the patent issued, and a petitioner can explain how that change in law directly bears on the patentability of the challenged claims. As another example, a patent may have been in force for years but may not have been commercialized, asserted, marked, licensed, or otherwise applied in a petitioner’s particular 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00327. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00328 and IPR2025-00329. technology space, if at all. These non-exclusive examples provide considerations that weigh against a patent owner’s claim of settled expectations and bears on the Director’s discretion. In the absence of any such information, however, such as in the present proceedings, the Office is disinclined to disturb the settled expectations of Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“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 8,457,672
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.