- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Genghiscomm Holdings LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 22, 2025 · IPR2025-00789 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions, declining to institute inter partes review based on a holistic assessment under § 314(a).
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution 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
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,075,786 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Genghiscomm Holdings LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 22, 2025 · IPR2025-00788 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petition under § 314(a), so no trial was instituted.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution 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. This case presents essentially the same discretionary considerations at those presented in IPR2025-00780 and IPR2025-00781. See, e.g., Samsung Electronics Co. v. GhengisComm Holdings LLC, IPR2025-00780, Paper 11 (Director August 14, 2025) (granting Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial). Accordingly, that analysis is incorporated here. Id. at 2–3. Although the patents challenged in these proceedings have not been in force for as long as those in IPR2025-00780 and IPR2025-00781, this fact alone does not tip the balance against discretionary denial. 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 2
- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“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. This case presents essentially the same discretionary considerations at those presented in IPR2025-00780 and IPR2025-00781. See, e.g., Samsung Electronics Co. v. GhengisComm Holdings LLC, IPR2025-00780, Paper 11 (Director August 14, 2025) (granting Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial). Accordingly, that analysis is incorporated here. Id. at 2–3. Although the patents challenged in these proceedings have not been in force for as long as those in IPR2025-00780 and IPR2025-00781, this fact alone does not tip the balance against discretionary denial. 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 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,389,568 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Genghiscomm Holdings, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00781 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a), instituting no trial because district-court trial would likely precede the final written decisions and settled expectations favored denial.
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 October 18, 2026. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 20, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by January 2026. DD Req. 6. 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 expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Id. at 3–11.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“Further, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately eight and six 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).” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,200,227 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Genghiscomm Holdings, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00780 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions without instituting trial under § 314(a), based on parallel litigation 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 October 18, 2026. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 20, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by January 2026. DD Req. 6. 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 expense for the parties, and a risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Id. at 3–11.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“Further, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately eight and six 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).” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,768,842 - PTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00645 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied the petitions under § 314(a); no trial was instituted.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied discretionary otherDenied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceedings is October 16, 2026. DD Req. 4–5. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 6, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in May or June of 2026. Id. at 4; DD Opp. 8; Ex. 1050. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings 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 patents challenged in IPR2025-00639, IPR2025-00640, IPR2025-00642, IPR2025-00643, and IPR2025-00644 have been in force for over nine, eight, twelve, nine, and nine years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“proceedings is October 16, 2026. DD Req. 4–5. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 6, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in May or June of 2026. Id. at 4; DD Opp. 8; Ex. 1050. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings 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 patents challenged in IPR2025-00639, IPR2025-00640, IPR2025-00642, IPR2025-00643, and IPR2025-00644 have been in force for over nine, eight, twelve, nine, and nine years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,270,174 - PTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00644 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution under § 314(a) because district court trial is expected first and settled expectations favor denial.
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 proceedings is October 16, 2026. DD Req. 4–5. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 6, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in May or June of 2026. Id. at 4; DD Opp. 8; Ex. 1050. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings 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 patents challenged in IPR2025-00639, IPR2025-00640, IPR2025-00642, IPR2025-00643, and IPR2025-00644 have been in force for over nine, eight, twelve, nine, and nine years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“proceedings is October 16, 2026. DD Req. 4–5. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 6, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in May or June of 2026. Id. at 4; DD Opp. 8; Ex. 1050. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings 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 patents challenged in IPR2025-00639, IPR2025-00640, IPR2025-00642, IPR2025-00643, and IPR2025-00644 have been in force for over nine, eight, twelve, nine, and nine years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” 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 9,208,423 - PTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00643 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Acting Deputy Chief Administrative Patent Judge granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied institution under § 314(a), citing trial timing, duplication, and settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“proceedings is October 16, 2026. DD Req. 4–5. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 6, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in May or June of 2026. Id. at 4; DD Opp. 8; Ex. 1050. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings 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 patents challenged in IPR2025-00639, IPR2025-00640, IPR2025-00642, IPR2025-00643, and IPR2025-00644 have been in force for over nine, eight, twelve, nine, and nine years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“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 9,202,156 - PTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00642 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a), instituting no trial.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceedings is October 16, 2026. DD Req. 4–5. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 6, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in May or June of 2026. Id. at 4; DD Opp. 8; Ex. 1050. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings 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 patents challenged in IPR2025-00639, IPR2025-00640, IPR2025-00642, IPR2025-00643, and IPR2025-00644 have been in force for over nine, eight, twelve, nine, and nine years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“proceedings is October 16, 2026. DD Req. 4–5. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 6, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in May or June of 2026. Id. at 4; DD Opp. 8; Ex. 1050. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings 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 patents challenged in IPR2025-00639, IPR2025-00640, IPR2025-00642, IPR2025-00643, and IPR2025-00644 have been in force for over nine, eight, twelve, nine, and nine years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,403,219 - PTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00641 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR2025-00641 under § 314(a), finding district court trial likely to precede the Board’s decision and settled expectations favored denial.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“proceedings is October 16, 2026. DD Req. 4–5. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 6, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in May or June of 2026. Id. at 4; DD Opp. 8; Ex. 1050. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings 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 patents challenged in IPR2025-00639, IPR2025-00640, IPR2025-00642, IPR2025-00643, and IPR2025-00644 have been in force for over nine, eight, twelve, nine, and nine years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“proceedings is October 16, 2026. DD Req. 4–5. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 6, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in May or June of 2026. Id. at 4; DD Opp. 8; Ex. 1050. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings 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 patents challenged in IPR2025-00639, IPR2025-00640, IPR2025-00642, IPR2025-00643, and IPR2025-00644 have been in force for over nine, eight, twelve, nine, and nine years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,694,053 - PTAB · Aug 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00640 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR challenging the patent under § 314(a), citing the district court schedule, risk of duplication, and Patent Owner’s settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceedings is October 16, 2026. DD Req. 4–5. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 6, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in May or June of 2026. Id. at 4; DD Opp. 8; Ex. 1050. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings 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 patents challenged in IPR2025-00639, IPR2025-00640, IPR2025-00642, IPR2025-00643, and IPR2025-00644 have been in force for over nine, eight, twelve, nine, and nine years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsDenied
“proceedings is October 16, 2026. DD Req. 4–5. The district court’s scheduled trial date is April 6, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin in May or June of 2026. Id. at 4; DD Opp. 8; Ex. 1050. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in these proceedings 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 patents challenged in IPR2025-00639, IPR2025-00640, IPR2025-00642, IPR2025-00643, and IPR2025-00644 have been in force for over nine, eight, twelve, nine, and nine years, respectively, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,483,722
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.