Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v. Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.

The Director, acting after sua sponte Director Review, granted Patent Owner's motion, vacated the institution decisions, and terminated the three IPRs. Petitioner had stipulated in the parallel litigation that it would not pursue the IPR grounds or any ground that could reasonably have been raised in an IPR, yet after institution it served invalidity contentions expressly incorporating each IPR Petition. That conduct undermines the stipulation's purpose and the role of IPR as a true alternative to district court, and so warrants reconsideration of institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). A Sotera-style stipulation filed to avoid discretionary denial is enforceable by the Office after institution. Incorporating IPR grounds into district court invalidity contentions can lead the Director to reconsider institution and terminate the trial, even if the grounds are only disclosed and not pressed at trial. Decision under review: the Board's October and November 2025 institution decisions in three IPRs. After the Director initiated sua sponte Director Review, Patent Owner moved to vacate and terminate, arguing that Petitioner violated its stipulation in the Parallel Litigation. Facts: Petitioner stipulated that, if the Board instituted, it would not pursue the IPR grounds or any other ground that was raised or could have been reasonably raised in an IPR. On February 13, 2026, it served invalidity contentions that expressly incorporated each IPR Petition (Ex. 3103). Forum argument rejected: the Stipulation was filed with the Office to avoid discretionary denial, so the Office may decide whether it was violated. Stipulations as conditions of institution would be meaningless if ignored after institution, and non-precedential Board decisions do not bind the Director. Merits of violation: Petitioner's claims that it only disclosed the grounds conditionally, or followed the district court's Patent Local Rules, did not excuse the violation. Its reading would let petitioners keep duplicative grounds in district court until the eve of trial. Compliance with the local rules is for the district court to decide. Order: Patent Owner's Motion to Vacate and Terminate (Paper 27) is granted and the IPRs are terminated. KEY QUOTE: "Petitioner’s action of incorporating the IPR grounds into its invalidity contentions violates the Stipulation it filed with the Office." (Paper 32, p. 4)