Microsoft Corporation v. Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Holding
The Director denied institution of IPR2026-00190 (Microsoft v. Sandpiper CDN, U.S. Patent 9,456,053, a content delivery network technology) on discretionary grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), finding that Petitioner's challenges relied on prior art previously considered by the Office: Lewin was actually applied by the examiner during prosecution requiring claim amendment, and Liu and Devanneaux were submitted in IDS filings that the examiner had a meaningful opportunity to consider. The Director also credited Patent Owner's settled expectations argument given the patent's nine-plus years in force, and concluded that Microsoft failed to demonstrate material error by the examiner sufficient to overcome § 325(d) denial.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that a petitioner's disagreement with how an examiner mapped prior art to claims is insufficient to establish 'material error' under the Advanced Bionics framework, and that IDS-submitted references—even among voluminous filings—will not be treated as unconsidered art unless the petitioner affirmatively shows the volume impaired the examiner's ability to review them. Practitioners should also note the Director's continued reliance on 'settled expectations' as an independent factor favoring discretionary denial for long-issued patents.
- PTAB Director Review · Oct. 8, 2026Notice of Decisions on Institution — 2026-10-08
- PTAB Director Review · Sept. 24, 2026Biocon Biologics Limited et al. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- PTAB Director Review · Sept. 23, 2026Notice of Decisions on Institution — 2026-09-23
- PTAB Director Review · Sept. 23, 2026Nearmap US, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc.
- PTAB Director Review · Aug. 25, 2026Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC and Aesthetic Management Partners, Inc. v. HydraFacial LLC