- Ipr2025-01454InstitutedPTAB · Feb 10, 2026 · IPR2025-01454 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Institution
Institution of inter partes review in IPR2025-01454 is granted because the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of the merits, the petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition, and no other non-discretionary considerations warrant denial of institution. Accordingly, institution of inter partes review is granted in the following proceedings:” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 11,286,168 - Ipr2025-01356InstitutedPTAB · Feb 10, 2026 · IPR2025-01356 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Institution
The Director granted institution of IPR2025-01356 after finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one challenged claim and no other non-discretionary basis for denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of the merits, the petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition, and no other non-discretionary considerations warrant denial of institution. Accordingly, institution of inter partes review is granted in the following proceedings:” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialNot reached
“2 This proceeding was identified in the Notice of Decisions on Institution dated December 11, 2025, as being reviewed for merits and non-discretionary considerations. In view of the Director’s recusal, discretionary considerations for the proceeding have been reconsidered and the decision to review for merits and non-discretionary considerations is maintained.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 12,211,095 - Ipr2025-01326InstitutedPTAB · Feb 10, 2026 · IPR2025-01326 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
Institution of IPR2025-01326 is granted because the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of the merits, the petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition, and no other non-discretionary considerations warrant denial of institution. Accordingly, institution of inter partes review is granted in the following proceedings:” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 12,159,310 - Ipr2026-00011Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 10, 2026 · IPR2026-00011 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
Institution of IPR2026-00011 was denied after review of discretionary considerations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“NOTICE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of discretionary considerations, institution of inter partes review is denied in the following proceeding: IPR2026-00011” slip op. at 1
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,841,803 - Ipr2025-01202Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 20, 2025 · IPR2025-01202 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of inter partes review in IPR2025-01202 after reviewing discretionary considerations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of discretionary considerations, institution of inter partes review is denied2 in the following proceedings:” slip op. at 1
- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“Before COKE MORGAN STEWART,1 Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.” slip op. at 1
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,135,456 - Ipr2025-01200Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 20, 2025 · IPR2025-01200 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of inter partes review in IPR2025-01200 after reviewing discretionary considerations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of discretionary considerations, institution of inter partes review is denied2 in the following proceedings:” slip op. at 1
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of discretionary considerations, institution of inter partes review is denied2 in the following proceedings:” slip op. at 1
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,271,802 - Ipr2025-01201Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 20, 2025 · IPR2025-01201 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of inter partes review in IPR2025-01201 after reviewing discretionary considerations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of discretionary considerations, institution of inter partes review is denied2 in the following proceedings:” slip op. at 1
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of discretionary considerations, institution of inter partes review is denied2 in the following proceedings:” slip op. at 1
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,904,194 - Intel Corp. / Dell Inc. et al. v. General Video, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-01039 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a), instituting no trial based on a holistic assessment emphasizing settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“particular, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately seven, ten, and 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); Intel Corp. v. Proxense LLC, IPR2025-00327, Paper 12, 2–3 (Director June 26, 2025). Additionally, Dell appears to have been notified of the challenged patents in 2016, 2017, and 2021. See, e.g., DD Req. 46–47; DD Reply 1–3. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient explanation by Petitioner, Patent Owner’s strong settled expectations 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 7,359,437 - Intel Corp. / Dell Inc. et al. v. General Video, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-01038 · 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 the holistic record and strong settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsGranted
“Other considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately seven, ten, and 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); Intel Corp. v. Proxense LLC, IPR2025-00327, Paper 12, 2–3 (Director June 26, 2025). Additionally, Dell appears to have been notified of the challenged patents in 2016, 2017, and 2021. See, e.g., DD Req. 46–47; DD Reply 1–3. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient explanation by Petitioner, Patent Owner’s strong settled expectations tip the balance in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 3
- Other 314aInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“particular, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately seven, ten, and 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); Intel Corp. v. Proxense LLC, IPR2025-00327, Paper 12, 2–3 (Director June 26, 2025). Additionally, Dell appears to have been notified of the challenged patents in 2016, 2017, and 2021. See, e.g., DD Req. 46–47; DD Reply 1–3. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient explanation by Petitioner, Patent Owner’s strong settled expectations 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 7,359,437 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Quicker Connections LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-01088 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), citing likely district court trial before the projected final written decision 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 in the Board proceeding is December 25, 2026. DD Req. 32. The district court’s scheduled trial date is October 19, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in November 2026. Id. at 32–33; Ex. 2032. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding 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 challenged patent has been in force for more than seventeen years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. DD Req. 4.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“proceeding is December 25, 2026. DD Req. 32. The district court’s scheduled trial date is October 19, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in November 2026. Id. at 32–33; Ex. 2032. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding 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 challenged patent has been in force for more than seventeen years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. DD Req. 4.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialInstitution 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). In consideration of the foregoing, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial is granted; FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,061,859
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.