- PTAB · Jan 14, 2026 · IPR2025-00632 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board reinstituted review of all challenged claims on all grounds after finding Petitioner sufficiently explained its differing claim-construction positions.
RulingsRemand decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Id. The Director neither addressed the merits of Petitioner’s challenges nor found that our prior consideration of those merits was faulty. Accordingly, we understand that we need not reconsider our conclusion that Petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving that claims 1, 2, 7–9, 11, 12, and 20–24 were unpatentable or that the merits of patentability set forth in the Petition warranted institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 5
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“The question before us, therefore, is whether the Petitioner’s proffered explanation that it has proposed a different claim interpretation before the Board because the District Court may decline to adopt the narrower claim interpretations it advocates there is sufficient. We find that Petitioner’s explanation is sufficient because it follows the Director’s exemplary logic. Whether a district court has already or might in the future decline to adopt constructions that a petitioner proposes in related district court litigation merely reflects the timing of when a dispute over claim interpretation will be resolved. The Director and Patent Owner both recognize that, to resolve the dispute over claim interpretation that exists here, a decision-maker must determine “a single claim construction that best captures the true meaning of the patent claim.” Remand 4; PO Remand Br. 3. Based on the record presented by the parties to date in this proceeding, no dispute exists that the disputed claim terms mean what Patent Owner says they mean in the Litigation. Accordingly, we find that, at this stage of the proceeding, it is undisputed that Patent Owner’s interpretations of the claim terms represent the “single claim construction that best captures the true meaning of the patent claim.”8 Under that claim interpretation, we” slip op. at 8
NonePatents in suitUS 11,835,421 - PTAB · May 7, 2025 · IPR2021-00906 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board denied the motion to amend with proposed substitute claims 69, 70, 77, and 78 because the ’872 application did not provide written-description support.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“for the Federal Circuit. Papers 75–78. On February 3, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in which it stated: “We vacate and remand the Board’s decision with regard to claims 69 and 77, and their dependent claims, but otherwise affirm.” Paper 80.3 The formal mandate from the Federal Circuit was issued on March 12, 2025. Paper 79.” slip op. at 3
- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“Per the Federal Circuit’s instruction, the “first message” must come before the “another message” and “message preceding the another message.” However, the “first message” identified by Patent Owner, i.e., the RRC Connection Setup message, occurs after what Patent Owner identifies as the “another message,” i.e., the RRC Connection Request message. That mismatching sequence is evident from Figure 15 reproduced above.” slip op. at 8
NonePatents in suitUS 7,580,388 - PTAB · Oct 30, 2014 · IPR2014-01171 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion to terminate the proceeding and the request to keep the settlement agreement confidential; no trial had been instituted.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“The parties have requested that this trial proceeding be terminated pursuant to a settlement. On October 28, 2014, we authorized the parties via e-mail to file a joint request to terminate this proceeding and to file the settlement agreement as business confidential information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The parties filed their joint motion on October 29, 2014. Paper 15. With their motion to terminate, the parties also filed a copy of a” slip op. at 1
NonePatents in suitUS 7,021,594 - PTAB · Jul 8, 2014 · IPR2014-00112 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion to terminate the instituted proceeding based on their settlement.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“On June 27, 2014, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate the proceeding. Paper 19. Accompanying the motion, the parties filed a true copy of (1) a Settlement Agreement resolving the dispute that is the subject of this proceeding (Ex. 1017); and (2) a License Agreement between Patent Owner and its licensee, AngleFix (Ex. 1018). The parties request that both documents be treated as business confidential information, to be kept separate from the patent file pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74. Paper 20. We authorized the filing of those papers in a telephonic conference conducted June 24, 2014. Paper 18. A Decision to Institute an inter partes review in this case was entered by the Board on April 8, 2014. Paper 15. An initial conference call was conducted on May 12, 2014. Paper 17. This case is in a preliminary stage; no significant activity has occurred since entry of our Decision to Institute. Based on the facts of the case, it is appropriate to terminate the proceeding. Therefore, the joint motion to terminate the proceeding is granted.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,955,677 - PTAB · Apr 30, 2014 · IPR2013-00628 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated the trial concerning claims 1 and 4-7 after settlement, without a final written decision on patentability.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“On April 18, 2014, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate this proceeding (Paper 12), as well as a joint request (Paper 13) to have their settlement agreement treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The parties also filed a true copy of their written settlement agreement. Ex. 4001. The parties indicated in their joint motion that termination of this proceeding is appropriate because they have reached an agreement regarding their dispute with respect to U.S. Patent No. 5,527,343(“the ’343 patent”). Paper 12, 2. The parties indicated that the related district court litigation involving the ’343 patent was dismissed without prejudice. Id. The parties identified one other related district court litigation involving the ’343 patent that is still pending. Id. at 3.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 5,527,343 - PTAB · Apr 23, 2014 · CBM2014-00058 · APJ Trenton A Ward · CBM · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated the proceeding without a final written decision because it remained in the preliminary stages.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“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.” The parties stated in their motion that they “have reached a settlement agreement that requires the parties to terminate all current disputes between them.” Paper 7, 2. The joint motion indicates that concurrent with the filing of this Joint Motion to Terminate, the parties filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice the related district court litigation between the parties involving the patents at issue in this proceeding, U.S. Patent No. 7,653,572 and U.S. Patent No. 7,899,704. Paper 7, 2-3. Furthermore, a trial has not been instituted in this proceeding.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,653,572 - PTAB · Apr 23, 2014 · CBM2014-00059 · APJ Trenton A Ward · CBM · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated the proceeding without a final written decision because it remained in the preliminary stages.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“The parties are reminded that the Board is not a party to the settlement, and may independently identify any question of patentability. 37 C.F.R § 42.74(a). Generally, however, 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). These proceedings are still in the preliminary stages, as the time period for filing the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response has not yet expired. The Board is persuaded that, under these circumstances, it is appropriate to terminate this proceeding without rendering a final written decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate this proceeding is GRANTED and this proceeding is hereby terminated;” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,899,704 - PTAB · Feb 20, 2014 · CBM2014-00042 · APJ Trenton A Ward · CBM · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motion and terminated CBM2014-00042, CBM2014-00043, and CBM2014-00044 without a final written decision.
RulingsOther- 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. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012). This proceeding is still in the preliminary stages, as the Board has not instituted a trial. The Board is persuaded that, under these circumstances, it is appropriate to terminate these proceedings without rendering a final written decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate these proceedings, CBM2014- 00042, CBM2014-00043, and CBM2014-00044, is GRANTED and each proceeding is hereby terminated;” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,499,872 - PTAB · Feb 19, 2014 · IPR2014-00194 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motions to terminate the proceedings before deciding whether to institute trial.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Board. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(b). Once parties enter into a settlement agreement, authorization to file a joint motion to terminate may be sought. See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012). In these cases, the parties failed to follow the correct procedure and filed the joint motions without prior authorization. However, based on the particular facts of the cases, we discern no prejudice to either party, or the public. We therefore exercise our discretion to consider the filing of the joint motions to include a request for authorization to file, and hereby grant such authorization. Turning the merits of the motions, we note that these cases are in the preliminary proceeding2 stage; no decision whether to institute a trial has been made. Based on the facts of the cases, it is appropriate to terminate the proceedings. Therefore, the joint motions to terminate the proceedings are granted.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,335,157 - PTAB · Feb 19, 2014 · IPR2014-00232 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Order
The Board granted the parties’ joint motions, treated the settlement agreement as confidential, and terminated the proceedings before deciding whether to institute trial.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Board. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(b). Once parties enter into a settlement agreement, authorization to file a joint motion to terminate may be sought. See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012). In these cases, the parties failed to follow the correct procedure and filed the joint motions without prior authorization. However, based on the particular facts of the cases, we discern no prejudice to either party, or the public. We therefore exercise our discretion to consider the filing of the joint motions to include a request for authorization to file, and hereby grant such authorization. Turning the merits of the motions, we note that these cases are in the preliminary proceeding2 stage; no decision whether to institute a trial has been made. Based on the facts of the cases, it is appropriate to terminate the proceedings. Therefore, the joint motions to terminate the proceedings are granted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the parties’ request that the settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information, to be kept separate from the patent file, is granted; 2 A preliminary proceeding begins with the filing of a petition for instituting a trial and ends with a written decision as to whether trial will be instituted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.2. FURTHER ORDERED that the joint motions to terminate the proceedings are granted; FURTHER ORDERED that the proceedings are terminated.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,345,402
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.