- Micron Technology, Inc. / Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. v. Palisade Technologies, LLPInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-01009 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests and denied the petitions; no trial was instituted under § 314(a).
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“Some considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately twelve and nine years, creating 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, Petitioner’s arguments that the Office made a material error” 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). 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 9,281,314 - Micron Technology, Inc. / Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. v. Palisade Technologies, LLPInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-01008 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of IPR on the challenged patents under § 314(a), citing settled expectations and the holistic assessment of the parties’ arguments and evidence.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“Some considerations, however, favor discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately twelve and nine years, creating 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, Petitioner’s arguments that the Office made a material error 2 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-01008. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-01009. during prosecution are not persuasive. 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). 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 8,327,051 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. W&Wsens Devices Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-00996 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution of the IPR petitions under § 314(a), citing likely district court trial before the final written decision and Patent Owner’s settled expectations.
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 December 24, 2026. DD Req. 12. The district court trial is scheduled to begin August 3, 2026, and time-to-trial statistics suggest trial could begin between August 2026 and early December 2026. Id. at 12–13; DD Opp. 15. 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. This favors discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied
“Additionally, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately six years, creating settled expectations for Patent Owner. Further, Patent Owner provides evidence demonstrating Petitioner was aware of the challenged patents as early as 2020. Ex. 2001; Ex. 2002; Ex. 2003; Ex. 2004. This further favors discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,446,700 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. W&Wsens Devices Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-00995 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests and denied the petitions under § 314(a), citing trial timing, duplication risk, and settled expectations.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceedings is December 24, 2026. DD Req. 12. The district court trial is scheduled to begin August 3, 2026, and time-to-trial statistics suggest trial could begin between August 2026 and early December 2026. Id. at 12–13; DD Opp. 15. 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. This favors discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsInstitution denied
“Additionally, the challenged patents have been in force for approximately six years, creating settled expectations for Patent Owner. Further, Patent Owner provides evidence demonstrating Petitioner was aware of the challenged patents as early as 2020. Ex. 2001; Ex. 2002; Ex. 2003; Ex. 2004. This further favors 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 10,468,543 - Google LLC v. Cellular South, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-00876 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution in IPR2025-00876 under § 314(a), finding settled expectations and insufficient justification for using Board resources.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“The patents challenged in IPR2025-00875 and IPR2025-00876 present different circumstances. In particular, these challenged patents have been in force for seven and six years, respectively, creating 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,” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,218,954 - Google LLC v. Cellular South, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2025-00875 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution in IPR2025-00875 and IPR2025-00876 based on settled expectations, and referred IPR2025-00877 to the Board for a decision on institution.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied
“The patents challenged in IPR2025-00875 and IPR2025-00876 present different circumstances. In particular, these challenged patents have been in force for seven and six years, respectively, creating 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, 2 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00875. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00876 and IPR2025-00877. Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025). In the absence of any such information, the Office is disinclined to disturb the settled expectations of Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,940,972 - CQV Co., Ltd. v. Merck Patent GmbHNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 14, 2025 · PGR2021-00054 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · PGR · Remand
Claims 1–22 were not shown unpatentable because Sample C was not proven publicly available as prior art, and the original decision found the remaining grounds insufficient.
RulingsRemand decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s evidence in Kuntz (Ex. 1026), the Annual Report (Ex. 1028), Masuko (Ex. 1029), and Pfaff (Ex. 1034) is insufficient to show that Xirallic® Sample C was available to the public before the effective filing date of the ’861 patent. Petitioner has not asserted, nor do we find, that any of these documents refer to or describe the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken. See Final Dec. 26. Kuntz, the Annual Report, Masuko, and Pfaff may support a finding that the Xirallic® line of products was available to the public, but these documents do not support a finding that the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken was available to the public. We also agree with Patent Owner that the Technical Data Sheets (Exs. 1005–1010), Certificates of Analysis (Exs. 1011–1017), and Material Safety Data Sheet (Ex. 1025) are insufficient to show that Xirallic® Sample C was available to the public. Petitioner has not asserted, nor do we find, that any of these documents refer to or describe the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken. See Final Dec. 26–27. Regardless of how the Technical Data Sheets were used in the Opposition against the European counterpart of the ’861 patent (Exs. 1040, 1041) and during the prosecution of the application from which the ’861 patent issued (Ex. 1003, 102–104), the Technical Data Sheets do not refer to or describe the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken. Moreover, as noted by Patent Owner, the Technical Data Sheets (Exs. 1005–1010) indicate that they are “preliminary” and Petitioner has not provided any evidence that the Technical Data Sheets were ever issued to the public, as opposed to just issued internally. See PO Resp. 18–19. We also find persuasive Patent Owner’s argument that the Technical Data Sheets are preliminary because other, later-dated technical data sheets (Exs. 2012, 2013) lack the “preliminary” label and list characteristics that are different from those in Exhibits 1005–1010. See PO Resp. 19 (comparing, e.g., Ex. 1009 and Ex. 2013; Ex. 1005 and Ex. 2012). The Technical Data Sheets may support a finding that the Xirallic® products they describe existed as of the dates on the documents, but they do not support a finding that the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken was available to the public.” slip op. at 20
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedOther
“witnesses. See Elbit Systems of Am., LLC v. Thales Visionix, Inc., 881 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Illumina, Inc., 620 F. App’x 916, 922 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 856 (1982)). We have reviewed the witness testimony in the record and, more particularly, Mr. Choi’s deposition answers regarding Petitioner’s purchase of the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C came. We find that Mr. Choi’s responses cast doubt on the credibility of his declaration testimony, namely with regard to the public availability of Sample C. Mr. Choi represented that he was involved in the purchase of the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken. Ex. 2011, 48:1–23. Mr. Choi stated that he instructed Petitioner’s marketing team manager to buy the sample from a distributor of Patent Owner’s products located in Europe. Id. at 48:24–49:4. Mr. Choi stated that he has evidence of the transaction, but refused to reveal the name of the company from which Petitioner purportedly purchased the lot of Xirallic® (id. at 49:5–50:3) and refused to produce an email in his possession that would corroborate his testimony regarding Petitioner’s acquisition of the product (id. at 50:8–16, 51:10–23). Mr. Choi represented that he does not remember how much Petitioner paid for Sample B. Id. at 56:4–5. Mr. Choi admitted that the entity from which Petitioner acquired the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken is “not currently a Merck distributor” (Ex. 2011, 50:4–7) and was not “a Merck distributor at the time” that “samples B and C were purchased” (id. at 51:25–52:2). According to Mr. Choi, the company is a “former distributor” of Patent Owner’s products. Id. at 52:3–6. Mr. Choi did not know, according to his testimony, when that unnamed entity first obtained the lot of Xirallic® (id. at 52:7–10) and he stated that he did not have personal knowledge of how the entity obtained the lot of Xirallic® (id. at 52:12–19). Instead, Mr. Choi assumed the entity was “able to obtain the sample through the routine course or process” the entity uses “to take samples or get samples.” Id. at 52:12–19. Mr. Choi believed the sample of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken was sealed when Petitioner received it because samples from dealers are sealed, and he remembered observing that the package was from a dealer. Id. at 52:24– 54:25. However, Mr. Choi admitted that he did not obtain a technical data sheet or certificate of analysis for the lot of Xirallic® from which Samples B and C were taken. Id. at 59:6–11. Mr. Choi also answered questions regarding Petitioner’s purchase of Samples D and H. Ex. 2011, 62:20–66:8, 67:7–9, 73:12–13, 73:17–22. Similar to his testimony regarding Samples B and C, Mr. Choi admitted withholding an email regarding the purchase of the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample D was taken. Id. at 62:20–63:9. Mr. Choi also admitted that he did not know how Akzo USA or Axalta obtained the Xirallic® the companies sold to him, and admitted that Akzo USA was not a distributor of Patent Owner’s products at the time Petitioner purchased the product. Id. at 63:10–66:8, 73:17–22. Mr. Choi also admitted that Petitioner did not pay Akzo USA for the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample D was taken, and did not pay Axalta for the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample H was taken. Id. at 67:7–9, 73:12–13. Although Petitioner presents declaration testimony from Mr. Choi representing that he purchased the lot of Xirallic® from which Samples B and C were taken in October 2011 (Ex. 1004 ¶ 16), Mr. Choi’s declaration testimony lacks corroborating evidence, and his deposition testimony does not support that the product was available to the public, as we found in our Final Written Decision. See Final Dec. 27–28. Notably, Petitioner produced corroborating evidence for Mr. Choi’s acquisition of Samples A, H, and I. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 13 (citing Ex. 1047), 18 (citing Exs. 1024, 1025). However, Mr. Choi withheld similar evidence for the Xirallic® lots from which Samples B, C, and D were taken. See Ex. 2011, 50:8–16, 51:10–23, 62:20– 63:9; Final Dec. 28. As Patent Owner argues, there is “no information to determine when a contract was established, that there was consideration for the exchange, that the product was available to be delivered when the alleged transaction took place, or even when the product was delivered. Choi has no memory of what was paid for the product.” Sur-Reply 24–25; see also PO Resp. 13–14; PO Br. Rem. 2–4.” slip op. at 34
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Based on the evidence discussed above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Sample C was available to the public. Regardless of whether a company avoids wasting shelf life of its products (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 15–16), there is no persuasive evidence in the record showing that the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken was released from quality control and then made available to the public by Patent Owner. Mr. Choi’s testimony shows that Petitioner obtained the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken in an atypical manner (i.e., not from Patent Owner or one of Patent Owner’s current distributors) (Ex. 2011, 49:5–50:7, 50:8–16, 51:10–23, 51:25–52:6, 52:12– 19), and there is no evidence in the record to show that the lot of Xirallic® was intended for sale, rather than for experimental use only or for some other restricted use. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Sample C qualifies as prior art against the ’861 patent, and we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the ’861 patent is unpatentable over the grounds relying on Sample C.” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 10,647,861 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,647,861 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Telcom Ventures LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00978 · 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
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is December 10, 2026.3 DD Req. 13. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 1, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by October 2026. Id.; DD. Opp. 17. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding 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, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Further, Petitioner’s argument that the patent examiner committed “multiple errors” during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 7–12.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“After considering the parties’ arguments and the record, and in view 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 12,028,793 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Telcom Ventures LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00977 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a); no trial was instituted.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied
“In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is December 10, 2026.3 DD Req. 13. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 1, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by October 2026. Id.; DD. Opp. 17. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding 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, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Further, Petitioner’s argument that the patent examiner committed “multiple errors” during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 7–12.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“After considering the parties’ arguments and the record, and in view 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. In particular, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceeding is December 10, 2026.3 DD Req. 13. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 1, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by October 2026. Id.; DD. Opp. 17. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding 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, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Further, Petitioner’s argument that the patent examiner committed “multiple errors” during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 7–12.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,770,756 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Telcom Ventures LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00975 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial request and denied the petitions under § 314(a), citing likely district-court trial before the final written decision and other considerations.
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 proceeding is December 10, 2026.3 DD Req. 13. The district court’s scheduled trial date is June 1, 2026, and the time-to-trial statistics suggest trial will begin by October 2026. Id.; DD. Opp. 17. As such, it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding 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, there is insufficient evidence that the district court is likely to stay its proceeding even if the Board were to institute trial. Further, Petitioner’s argument that the patent examiner committed “multiple errors” during prosecution are not persuasive. See DD Opp. 7–12.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“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
- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“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 9,832,708
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.