Alliance Laundry Sys., LLC v. PayRange LLC

Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a patent owner presents evidence that it has licensed the challenged patent, the Director may treat that licensing as creating "some settled expectations" favoring the patent owner, even though the patent issued only recently (2021) and "has not been in force for a significant period of time." That consideration is weighed with others in a holistic assessment under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), and here, together with road mapping concerns, it outweighed the stayed district court litigation and supported denying institution. No prior precedent directly addressed this issue in the text; the decision cites no earlier authority on licensing and settled expectations. For petitioners, a patent's relatively young age does not by itself defeat a settled-expectations argument, because evidence of licensing can add weight to the patent owner's side, so petitioners must be ready to rebut licensing evidence and cannot rely on a stay or on a fast final written decision alone. For patent owners, evidence of licensing the challenged patent, presented in the discretionary denial request, can support denial even for a patent issued in 2021. The decision cites Amazon Web Servs., Inc. v. Croga Innovations, Ltd., IPR2025-00884, Paper 9 (Director Sept. 3, 2025) on road mapping, and it cites no Federal Circuit, CCPA or Supreme Court authority. LEGAL TEST OR STANDARD: The Director weighed all relevant considerations in a holistic assessment under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and found that the considerations favoring discretionary denial outweighed those counseling against it. No numbered or lettered factors are listed. The considerations discussed were the district court stay, prior petitions on the same patent, road mapping, and settled expectations. TRIGGERING FACTS: The challenged patent issued in 2021 and had not been in force for a significant period. Patent Owner presented evidence that it had licensed the patent (DD Req. 3). This was the third petition on the patent, and both prior petitions were denied on the merits. Petitioner admitted it relied on the same primary reference, Breitenbach, and added Brown and Kaspar to cure deficiencies. The district court case was stayed on September 10, 2025, so a final written decision would likely issue before trial. KEY QUOTE: "In addition, although the challenged patent has not been in force for a significant period of time (issued in 2021), Patent Owner presents evidence that it has licensed the challenged patent, which creates some settled expectations favoring Patent Owner." (Paper 11, p. 3) PRIOR PRECEDENT AFFECTED: The decision follows Amazon Web Servs., Inc. v. Croga Innovations, Ltd., IPR2025-00884, Paper 9, at 2 (Director Sept. 3, 2025), on road mapping. It also refers to the prior denied petitions Kiosoft Techs., LLC v. PayRange Inc., PGR2021-00084, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 16, 2021) and CSC ServiceWorks, Inc. v. PayRange Inc., IPR2023-01188 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2024). It does not modify or overrule any decision. PRACTICE TIP: Patent owners should put concrete evidence of licensing the challenged patent into the discretionary denial request. Petitioners should expect a licensing record to be weighed even for a recently issued patent. They should also avoid statements in the opposition that concede reliance on a primary reference from an earlier denied petition, because such statements can raise road mapping concerns.