- Ipr2025-01061OtherPTAB · Dec 23, 2025 · IPR2025-01061 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Order
Institution was granted in IPR2025-01061 because the petitioner showed the required likelihood of prevailing and no other non-discretionary considerations warranted denial.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and § 324(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, or that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable, as applicable, and no other non-discretionary considerations warrant denial of institution. Accordingly, institution of inter partes review or post-grant review is granted in the following proceedings: IPR2025-010611 IPR2025-01205 PGR2025-00067 IPR2025-01173 IPR2025-01206 PGR2025-00068 IPR2025-01188 IPR2025-01207 PGR2025-00069 IPR2025-01189 IPR2025-01208 IPR2025-01203 IPR2025-01209 IPR2025-01204 IPR2025-01270” slip op. at 1
NonePatents in suitUS 11,763,316 - Ipr2025-01265OtherPTAB · Dec 11, 2025 · IPR2025-01265 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Order
The Director granted institution of IPR2025-01265 after determining that the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim and no non-discretionary consideration warranted denial.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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 8,993,384 - Ipr2025-01242OtherPTAB · Dec 11, 2025 · IPR2025-01242 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Order
The Director granted institution of IPR2025-01242 after finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one challenged claim and no other nondiscretionary reason to deny institution.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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: IPR2025-01042 IPR2025-01241 IPR2025-01264 IPR2025-01153 IPR2025-01242 IPR2025-01265 IPR2025-01179” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 11,338,511 - Pgr2025-00057OtherPTAB · Dec 1, 2025 · PGR2025-00057 · PGR · Order
The Director granted institution of PGR2025-00057, subject to review for merits and non-discretionary considerations.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“merits, the petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition, or that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable, as applicable, and no other non-discretionary considerations warrant denial of institution. Accordingly, institution of inter partes review or post-grant review is granted in the following proceedings:” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 12,234,236 - PTAB · Nov 19, 2014 · IPR2014-00308 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated the proceeding after settlement, before a final decision on the merits.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Petitioner filed a Petition on December 27, 2013, and Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response to the petition on April 14, 2014. The Board instituted inter partes review on July 10, 2014. Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response on September 10, 2014, but Petitioner has not yet filed a Reply. This proceeding has not resulted in a final decision on the merits.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Based on the facts of the case, it is appropriate to terminate the proceeding as to both Petitioner and Patent Owner. Therefore, the joint motion to terminate and the joint motion to file the release agreement as business confidential information are granted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the joint motion to file the release agreement as business confidential information, to be kept separate from the patent file, is granted; FURTHER ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate the proceeding is granted; FURTHER ORDERED that the proceeding is terminated.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 5,825,891 - PTAB · Sep 15, 2014 · IPR2014-00456 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Order
The Board granted the joint motions and terminated the instituted inter partes reviews as to Intel and Zond after settlement.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“On September 3, 2014, the Board instituted an inter partes review of the ’184 patent, in each above-identified proceeding. Paper 12. However, Zond has not filed a Patent Owner Response. Nor has Intel filed a Reply. Furthermore, no Final Hearing has been held.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Generally, the Board expects that a proceeding will terminate after the filing of a settlement agreement. See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Upon consideration of the facts before us, we determine that it is appropriate to terminate the above-identified proceedings as to both parties, and enter judgment. For the foregoing reasons, it is: ORDERED that the Joint Motions to Terminate the above-identified inter partes reviews are granted; FURTHER ORDERED that the above-identified proceedings are terminated as to all parties—namely, Intel and Zond; and FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Request that their Written Settlement Agreement be treated as business confidential information kept separate from the patent file, and made available only to Federal Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of good cause, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), is granted.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,808,184 - PTAB · Jul 15, 2014 · IPR2014-00120 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated the inter partes review as to WMS and MGT without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), “[a]n inter partes review instituted under this chapter shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint request of the petitioner and patent owner, unless the Office has decided the merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed.” In this proceeding, the Board instituted trial on April 30, 2014 (Paper 10), but has not yet reached a decision on the merits with respect to the patentability of any involved claim. Accordingly, the requirement for terminating review with respect to WMS, as petitioner, is met.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Based on the record before us, we determine that it is appropriate to terminate this inter partes review both as to petitioner WMS and patent owner MGT without rendering a final written decision. See 35 U.S.C. § 317(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,892,088 - PTAB · Jun 26, 2014 · IPR2014-00084 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated the proceeding following settlement, without issuing a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“A decision by the Board to institute a trial was entered on April 1, 2014. Paper 12. This matter, however, is in the preliminary stages. The parties have not identified any other related matters. Under these circumstances, we determine that it is appropriate to enter judgment1 and terminate the trial without rendering a final written decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“to a settlement. On June 20, 2014, we authorized the parties to file a joint request to terminate and to file the settlement agreement as business confidential information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). Paper 15. On June 20, 2014, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate, as well as a joint motion requesting that the joint settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information and sealed. Papers 16 and 17; see also 35 U.S.C. § 317; 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. With their motion to terminate and seal, the parties also filed a copy of a written settlement agreement. Ex. 1018.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,361,235 - PTAB · Mar 25, 2014 · IPR2013-00355 · APJ Sally C Medley · IPR · Order
The Board granted the joint motion to terminate IPR2013-00355 and terminated the proceeding without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“The Board instituted trial on December 12, 2013. Paper 13. At this juncture of the proceeding, the Board does not have before it full briefing on the trial issues and the Board has not entered a final decision.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“It is ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate IPR2013-00355 is granted; FURTHER ORDERED that the proceeding is terminated; and FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ joint request that the settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information kept separate from the patent file, and made available only to Federal Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of good cause, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), is granted.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,305,840 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2013 · IPR2013-00234 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated the instituted proceeding under their settlement, without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“A decision by the Board to institute a trial was entered on September 25, 2013. Paper 17. This matter, however, is in the preliminary stages. The parties have not identified any other related matters between them. Under these circumstances, the Board determines that it is appropriate to enter judgment2 and terminate the trial without rendering a final written decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“to a settlement. On November 15, 2013, the Board authorized the parties to file a joint request to terminate the proceeding and to file the settlement agreement as business confidential under 37 C.F.R. 42.74(c). Paper 32. On that same day, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate, Paper 30, and to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential, Paper 31.1 See 35 U.S.C. § 317(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. With their motion to terminate and to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential, the parties also filed a copy of a written settlement agreement. Paper 31 (Exhibit A).” slip op. at 2
None
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.