- Google LLC v. Secure Communication Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 15, 2026 · IPR2026-00099 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied Google’s petition and instituted no trial, exercising discretion based on the complete record and holistic assessment, including settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive. Petitioner was aware of the challenged patent no later than February 2012, and Patent Owner specifically identified the patent as being of interest to mobile commerce providers. See Ex. 2004. Petitioner cited the challenged patent to the Office during prosecution of Petitioner’s own Application No. 13/716,675 in December 2012. See Ex. 2007. Application No. 13/716,675 is titled “Methods and Systems for Efficient Discovery of Devices in a Peer-to-Peer Network.” See Ex. 2006. Efficient discovery of devices in a peer-to-peer network appears to be relevant to both retail operations and the finding and tracking of personal electronic devices. Accordingly, Petitioner’s own actions indicate it was aware that the challenged patent was relevant to its technology space.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for patent owner
“Finally, I do not agree with Petitioner’s assertion that the Office committed a material error during prosecution. While demonstrating error is usually one of the strongest considerations weighing against discretionary denial, here Petitioner’s material error argument is weak. Petitioner points to the notice of allowance, and focuses on a single phrase that appears in a rather long listing of limitations the examiner indicated were missing from the prior art. DD Opp. 2–3. According to Petitioner, the phrase “first, direct, short range separate local wireless link” never existed in the claims. Id. at 4. However, Petitioner acknowledges that the phrase “via a separate local wireless link” was part of the claims, as was the phrase “first, direct, short range” local wireless link. Id. Although the ultimate listing in the notice of allowance may constitute a clerical error, Petitioner has not demonstrated sufficiently that this error was material to the patentability of the challenged claims, especially considering the number of other limitations listed in the notice of allowance that the examiner determined to be missing from the reviewed prior art. Petitioner does not address those limitations in its error arguments. Id. at 3–6.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,116,749 - Pgr2025-00087Institution deniedPTAB · May 15, 2026 · PGR2025-00087 · APJ John A Squires · PGR · Director review
The Director denied institution of post-grant review in PGR2025-00087 after reviewing discretionary and non-merits considerations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“NOTICE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 324(a), after review of discretionary and non-merits considerations, institution of post-grant review is denied in the following proceedings: PGR2025-00087 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 324(a), after review of” slip op. at 1
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 12,371,685 - Microsoft Corporation v. Sandpiper CDN, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 15, 2026 · IPR2026-00190 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of Microsoft’s IPR petition based on settled expectations and § 325(d), finding no material Office error in its consideration of the prior art.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“challenged patent has been in “force for over nine years.” DD Req. 10. Patent Owner argues that, over that time period, it developed settled expectations that the patent is valid and enforceable. See Dabico Airport Sols. Inc. v. Axa Power Aps, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025). Patent Owner’s settled expectations favor discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“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.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 9; see Ecto World, LLC v. RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., IPR2024-01280, Paper 13 at 6 (Director May 19, 2025) (precedential) (“Ecto World”). Petitioner’s argument is a general disagreement with the patent examiner’s position and does not set forth an error material to the patentability of the challenged claims. slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,456,053 - Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp. v. Railware, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 15, 2026 · IPR2026-00134 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied the petitions and declined to institute inter partes review, citing the petitioner’s failure to present a single, consistent claim construction position.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“As I have indicated previously, a petitioner should present a single construction and apply that construction consistently. See Infineon Techs.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denial - Qiagen Sciences, LLC v. Tecan Genomics, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · May 13, 2026 · IPR2025-00029 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12 and 14–19 are unpatentable as obvious over the listed combinations; Petitioner’s motion to strike is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“for purposes of this Decision, we find a POSA would have had a Ph.D. in molecular biology, molecular genetics, bioinformatics, biochemistry, or a related field. Alternatively, a POSA would have had a B.S. or M.S. degree with three to five years of experience working in any of those fields. Additionally, the POSA would have had experience with NGS sequencing methods and a working knowledge of how those methods functioned.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under that standard, the words of a claim “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we see no need to construe any claim term expressly.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
Patent outcomesUS 10,876,108 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,876,108 - Ford Motor Company v. Autoconnect Holdings LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 13, 2026 · IPR2026-00171 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied the petitions and instituted no trial under § 314(a), citing Petitioner’s inadequate claim-construction stipulation in the parallel litigation.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“But Petitioner does not address the other terms that it argues are indefinite in the district court. See Ex. 2026, 1–3. Instead, Petitioner “stipulates to withdraw all indefiniteness arguments . . . from the Related Litigation if the PTAB institutes this IPR.” DD Opp. 18. As I previously explained in similar circumstances, Petitioner’s stipulation to continue to pursue different constructions and abandon the inconsistent construction in district court only if the IPR is instituted is inadequate. See Tiktok, Inc. v. Shopsee, Inc., IPR2025-01485, Paper 13, 2–3 (Director Jan. 16, 2025). Petitioner’s claim construction stipulation does not increase efficiency and minimize the potential for inconsistent outcomes, unlike a stipulation that it will not pursue in the parallel litigation the grounds it raised or could have reasonably raised in the Petition. See id. at 3. At best, it replaces one argument in district court for another argument at the Board. Id. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). While certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on the complete record and a holistic assessment of all of the evidence in light of the arguments presented.” slip op. at 3
- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“While certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on the complete record and a holistic assessment of all of the evidence in light of the arguments presented. In consideration of the foregoing, it is: ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,082,239 - Qiagen Sciences, LLC v. Tecan Genomics, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · May 12, 2026 · IPR2025-00026 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 are unpatentable: claims 1–3 and 5–10 are anticipated by Porreca and obvious over Schmitt and McCloskey; claims 4 and 7 are also obvious over the listed Illumina combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“On the initial trial record, we agreed with Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had experience with next generation sequencing, but were not persuaded that this would only be possible in the field of molecular biology. Instead, we found that a person of ordinary skill would have had either (1) a Ph.D. in the field of chemistry, molecular biology, or biochemistry or (2) a B.S. or M.S. degree with three to five years of experience working in any of those fields. Inst. Dec. 8. We specifically found that “[t]he person of ordinary skill would have had experience with next generation sequencing methods and a working knowledge of how those methods functioned.” Id. at 8–9. Patent Owner now submits that it does not dispute the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art as laid out in the Institution Decision. PO Resp. 13. Reviewing the entire trial record, we maintain the same definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art and note that it is consistent with the skill level reflected in the disclosures of the ’357 patent and prior art. We further note that the skill level does not affect our analysis or our final decision.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“In the Institution Decision, the Board adopted Petitioner’s construction of the term “adaptor.” Inst. Dec. 9. Patent Owner does not dispute this construction. PO Resp. 13–14. During oral argument, Petitioner argued that claim 1 requires “an adapter to be ligated onto a target DNA, and that adapter needs to have two different sequences of DNA that are used for identification” including a “socalled identifier that's one to eight nucleotides in an indexing site.” Tr. 6:19–7:2. Patent Owner, again, did not dispute this characterization of “adaptor.” See generally Tr. Based on the entirety of the trial record, we continue to apply Petitioner’s construction of the term “adaptor,” although we note that it does not affect our analysis.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Based on the entirety of the trial record, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s reading of either the claims or the prior art because Patent Owner takes too narrow a view of both. First, based on the plain language of Porreca, we find it uses a combination of the sequence reads of the target sequence and differentiator tag sequences to determine whether there is duplication. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 139–140, 143, 148, 153. All that the claim requires is that the method identifies sequence reads with identical identifier and target sequences as duplicates. Because claim 1 contains the transition “comprising,” the claim is still satisfied if the category of identified duplicate reads contains identical labels and also contains more. Patent Owner admits that the identifier and target sequence do not have to be used simultaneously. Tr. 46:16–48:4. Instead, Patent Owner challenges whether Porreca uses the required elements in combination as recited in the challenged claims. Based on the record before us, we agree with Petitioner’s position especially in view of the open-ended nature of the claims and Patent Owner’s own admission that there is no temporal requirement for the use of target sequences and differentiator tag sequences. Specifically, we find that Porreca teaches using the combination of the target sequences and the differentiator tag sequence to determine whether particular sequence reads are unique or PCR duplicates. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 139–140, 143, 148, 153. The use of both such sequences meet the claim limitations. This finding is consistent with the prosecution history of the ’357 patent and how the applicant and examiner interpreted the claims. See Ex. 1013, 69–70, 78–79. Second, we find the disclosure of Porreca sufficient to demonstrate to an ordinarily skilled artisan that “collapsing” is done by comparing target sequences and differentiator tag sequences. Porreca specifically explains that: after multiple reads have been collected for a given locus, it is possible that due to bias (e.g., caused by PCR amplification steps), a large fraction of the reads are derived from a single originating molecule. This would skew the population of target sequences observed, and would affect the outcome of the genotype call.” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree with Patent Owner for at least two reasons. First, Patent Owner fails to address the fact that Schmitt cites to McCloskey 2007. We find that the citation of McCloskey 2007 in Schmitt indicates that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered the teachings of McCloskey to be highly relevant to the teachings of Schmitt and would have considered them to be both useful in the field of sequencing. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 6. Second, Patent Owner fails to explain or even identify the purported structural differences between Schmitt and McCloskey that would prevent the teachings of McCloskey from being relevant to Schmitt. In addition, we credit the testimony of Dr. Metzker that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the benefits of adding a barcode to target sequences and would have looked to McCloskey and the batch-stamps it teaches because both Schmitt and McCloskey are in the same field and address the same problems. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 110, 114. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the critical time would have had sufficient reason to combine the teachings of Schmitt and McCloskey to arrive at challenged claim 1.” slip op. at 48
Patent outcomesUS 11,098,357 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,098,357 - Ipr2026-00209Institution deniedPTAB · May 6, 2026 · IPR2026-00209 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR2026-00209 after review of discretionary and non-merits considerations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“NOTICE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of discretionary and non- merits considerations, institution of inter partes review is denied in the following proceedings: IPR2026-00156 IPR2026-00208 IPR2026-00210 IPR2026-00206 IPR2026-00209 IPR2026-00211 IPR2026-00207 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of discretionary” slip op. at 1
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“NOTICE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of discretionary and non- merits considerations, institution of inter partes review is denied in the following proceedings: IPR2026-00156 IPR2026-00208 IPR2026-00210 IPR2026-00206 IPR2026-00209 IPR2026-00211 IPR2026-00207 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of discretionary” slip op. at 1
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,576,046 - Ipr2026-00206Institution deniedPTAB · May 6, 2026 · IPR2026-00206 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR2026-00206 after review of discretionary and non-merits considerations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“NOTICE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of discretionary and non- merits considerations, institution of inter partes review is denied in the following proceedings: IPR2026-00156 IPR2026-00208 IPR2026-00210 IPR2026-00206 IPR2026-00209 IPR2026-00211 IPR2026-00207 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of discretionary” slip op. at 1
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“NOTICE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of discretionary and non- merits considerations, institution of inter partes review is denied in the following proceedings: IPR2026-00156 IPR2026-00208 IPR2026-00210 IPR2026-00206 IPR2026-00209 IPR2026-00211 IPR2026-00207 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of discretionary” slip op. at 1
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,027,032 - Ipr2026-00156Institution deniedPTAB · May 6, 2026 · IPR2026-00156 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR2026-00156 after reviewing discretionary and non-merits considerations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“NOTICE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of discretionary and non- merits considerations, institution of inter partes review is denied in the following proceedings: IPR2026-00156 IPR2026-00208 IPR2026-00210 IPR2026-00206 IPR2026-00209 IPR2026-00211 IPR2026-00207 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of discretionary” slip op. at 1
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,772,193
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.