PTAB
Advanced fields
2,904 decisions · 311msnewest first
  • Ipr2026-00241Institution denied
    PTAB · Jun 12, 2026 · IPR2026-00241 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review

    The Director denied institution of IPR2026-00241 after reviewing discretionary and non-merits considerations.

    RulingsDirector review decision
    • 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: IPR2026-00239* IPR2026-00241* IPR2026-00243* IPR2026-00240* IPR2026-00242*” slip op. at 1

    Discretionary denial
    Patents in suitUS 10,998,017
  • Ipr2026-00240Institution denied
    PTAB · Jun 12, 2026 · IPR2026-00240 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review

    The Director denied institution of IPR2026-00240 after reviewing discretionary and non-merits considerations.

    RulingsDirector review decision
    • 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: IPR2026-00239* IPR2026-00241* IPR2026-00243* IPR2026-00240* IPR2026-00242*” slip op. at 1

    Discretionary denial
    Patents in suitUS 9,201,834
  • Ipr2026-00192Institution denied
    PTAB · Jun 2, 2026 · IPR2026-00192 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Institution

    Institution of IPR2026-00192 was denied because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.

    RulingsInstitution decision
    • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

      “IPR2026-00253 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of the merits, the petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. Accordingly, institution of inter partes review is denied in the following proceeding: IPR2026-00192” slip op. at 1

    None
    Patents in suitUS 12,143,606
  • Ipr2026-00252Institution denied
    PTAB · Jun 2, 2026 · IPR2026-00252 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review

    The notice lists IPR2026-00252 among proceedings denied institution after review of discretionary and non-merits considerations.

    RulingsDirector review decision
    • Director reviewDirector review, deniedInstitution 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 proceeding: IPR2026-00212 IPR2026-00252 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of discretionary” slip op. at 1

    Discretionary denial
    Patents in suitUS 9,185,268
  • Ipr2026-00174Institution denied
    PTAB · May 26, 2026 · IPR2026-00174 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Institution

    The Director denied institution of IPR2026-00174 because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.

    RulingsInstitution decision
    • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

      “Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of the merits, the petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. Accordingly, institution of inter partes review is denied in the following proceeding: IPR2026-00174” slip op. at 1

    None
    Patents in suitUS 9,762,692
  • PTAB · May 26, 2026 · IPR2025-01441 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Institution

    The Director denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1–5 and 8–16, despite finding two claims met the institution threshold, because a trial would not efficiently use Board resources.

    RulingsInstitution decision
    • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

      “Petitioner’s third ground challenging claims 8 and 12 meets the reasonable likelihood threshold for institution, in part because it relies on a reference that expressly discloses detecting movement. See id. at 73–74. Petitioner’s remaining grounds, however, fail to meet the reasonable likelihood standard. Petitioner makes inherency arguments relying on expert testimony, but does not explain sufficiently how the prior art inherently discloses the detecting movement limitation. See id. at 7, 33, 59–60, 92–93; Ex. 1003 ¶ 59.” slip op. at 2

    • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

      “At most, the challenges to only two of the fourteen challenged claims meet the reasonable likelihood standard for institution. Under these circumstances, institution of trial would not be an efficient use of Board resources. Factors such as the efficient administration of the Office, coupled with the ability of the Office to timely complete its work, by their nature, center broadly on the Office, the patent system, and the public interest and, thus, inform my exercise of discretion. See, e.g., Chevron Oronite Co v. Infineum USA, IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 at 10–11 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (informative) (determining that instituting a trial was “not an efficient use of the Board’s time and resources” where only two of twenty challenged claims met the reasonable likelihood standard).” slip op. at 2

    Discretionary denial
    Patents in suitUS 7,706,641
  • PTAB · May 26, 2026 · IPR2025-00425 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Remand

    The Board denied institution of IPR2025-00425 because it instituted the earlier-considered IPR2025-00424 challenging the same patent.

    RulingsRemand decision
    • RemandOther

      “Request for Director Review. See Paper 35; IPR2025-00424, Paper 35. The request was denied without prejudice and the cases were remanded to the Board to “allow discovery, narrowly tailored to resolve the RPI and privity issues.” Paper 41, 4. Following such discovery, we were instructed to “then determine on the full record whether Petitioners have met their burden of demonstrating that the Petitions are not time-barred under § 315(b), applying the framework set forth in Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., 903 F.3d 1237, 1242– 44 (Fed. Cir. 2018).” Id. A later-issued Order Supplementing Director Review Decision instructed that “if the Board determines that Petitioners met their burden to identify all RPIs in the Petitions, then the Board should maintain at most one IPR challenging” the ’225 patent. Paper 64, 3. Concurrently herewith, we issue a decision in IPR2025-00424 finding that Petitioner has met its burden of demonstrating that the Petition in that case is not time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).” slip op. at 3

    • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

      “In connection with the ’225 patent, Petitioner filed two petitions requesting inter partes review: the petition in this proceeding (IPR2025- 00425), and the petition in IPR2025-00424. In this proceeding and in IPR2025-00424, Petitioner filed an Explanation regarding the necessity of multiple petitions. Paper 2; IPR2025-00424, Paper 2. Petitioner requested that, “if the Board uses its discretion to institute the Petitions, the Board consider the merits of IPR2025-00424 . . . before IPR2025-00425.” Paper 2,” slip op. at 2

    Discretionary denial
    Patents in suitUS 10,589,225
  • Ipr2026-00151Institution denied
    PTAB · May 19, 2026 · IPR2026-00151 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Institution

    The Director denied institution of IPR2026-00151 after finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.

    RulingsInstitution decision
    • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

      “Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of the merits, the petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. Accordingly, institution of inter partes review is denied in the following proceedings:” slip op. at 2

    None
    Patents in suitUS 11,575,381
  • Ipr2026-00223Institution denied
    PTAB · May 19, 2026 · IPR2026-00223 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review

    The Director denied institution of IPR2026-00223 after finding the petitioner failed to show 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)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

      “Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of the merits, the petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. Accordingly, institution of inter partes review is denied in the following proceedings:” slip op. at 2

    None
    Patents in suitUS 9,218,574
  • Ipr2026-00202Institution denied
    PTAB · May 19, 2026 · IPR2026-00202 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review

    Institution of IPR2026-00151 was denied because the petitioner failed to show 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)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

      “Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), after review of the merits, the petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. Accordingly, institution of inter partes review is denied in the following proceedings:” slip op. at 2

    None
    Patents in suitUS 11,003,191

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.