- 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 - PTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-01096 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary denial requests and denied the petitions, declining to institute inter partes review under § 314(a).
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“Other considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. For example, the challenged patents have been in force for ten, eight, and ten 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). Additionally, Patent Owner presents evidence demonstrating Petitioner had knowledge of the challenged patent in IPR2025-01096 as early as 2018. DD Req. 14. 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 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).” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,031,259 - PTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-01080 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests and denied the petitions under § 314(a), declining to institute review based on a holistic assessment, including settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“Other considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. For example, the challenged patents have been in force for ten, eight, and ten 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). Additionally, Patent Owner presents evidence demonstrating Petitioner had knowledge of the challenged patent in IPR2025-01096 as early as 2018. DD Req. 14. 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 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 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 9,804,819 - PTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-01067 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution under § 314(a), finding Patent Owner’s strong settled expectations favored discretionary denial.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“Other considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. For example, the challenged patents have been in force for ten, eight, and ten 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). Additionally, Patent Owner presents evidence demonstrating Petitioner had knowledge of the challenged patent in IPR2025-01096 as early as 2018. DD Req. 14. 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 2
- Director reviewDirector review, deniedInstitution 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 9,070,374 - Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v. Solmetex, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · PGR2025-00058 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · PGR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests and denied the Petitions under §§ 314(a) and 325(d), declining to institute trial based on the prior presentation of the art and lack of material error.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“particular, Patent Owner persuasively demonstrates that Petitioner relies on references that were considered by the patent examiner during prosecution of the challenged patents or cited by the Patent Owner during prosecution. DD Req. 4–6. Petitioner does not address Patent Owner’s arguments that the same prior art was previously presented to the Office. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Nor has Petitioner persuasively demonstrated that the Office erred in evaluating this art. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-01065. The parties filed similar papers in PGR2025-00058. Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). Rather, Petitioner merely disagrees with the Examiner’s treatment of the art without showing material error. DD Opp. 6– 10. “If reasonable minds can disagree regarding the purported treatment of the art or arguments, it cannot be said that the Office erred in a manner material to patentability.” See Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 9. Petitioner’s assertion is insufficient to demonstrate material error by the Office. Under these circumstances, discretionary denial is appropriate.” 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 Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 325(d). 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 12,167,948
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.