Patent Law University

155 decisions · PTAB

PTAB Discretionary Denial (§ 314(a), § 325(d) and Fintiv)

The USPTO may deny institution of an inter partes review even when the petition meets the statutory threshold: under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), including because of parallel litigation (the Fintiv factors), and under § 325(d) when the same or substantially the same art or arguments were already before the Office.

New decisions are added every weekday. Get the free daily digest by email.

  1. PTAB Director Review · Oct. 8, 2026Notice of Decisions on Institution — 2026-10-08Director's Notice of Decisions on Institution (2026-10-08): 7 proceedings. 4 Trial Instituted (IPR2026-00364, IPR2026-00325, PGR2026-00034, IPR2026-00339); 2 Discretionary Denial (IPR2026-00373, PGR2026-00055); 1 Institution Denied…
  2. PTAB Director Review · Sept. 24, 2026Biocon Biologics Limited et al. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.The Director denied institution of Biocon’s PGR challenging claims 1–38 of Regeneron’s biologics/pharmaceutical Patent No. 12,168,036 because the petition was filed more than nine months after patent issuance and therefore was barred by…
  3. PTAB Director Review · Sept. 23, 2026Notice of Decisions on Institution — 2026-09-23Director's Notice of Decisions on Institution (2026-09-23): 11 proceedings. 5 Trial Instituted (PGR2026-00042, IPR2026-00363, PGR2026-00043, IPR2026-00336, PGR2026-00037); 3 Discretionary Denial (IPR2026-00351, IPR2026-00371,…
  4. PTAB Director Review · Sept. 23, 2026Nearmap US, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc.On sua sponte Director Review, the Director vacated the Board's Final Written Decision and its institution decision and denied institution, exercising discretion to de-institute the IPR. The Director reasoned that, given a prior IPR on…
  5. PTAB Director Review · Aug. 25, 2026Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC and Aesthetic Management Partners, Inc. v. HydraFacial LLCThe Director concluded the sua sponte Director Review initiated to decide whether these instituted IPRs should be de-instituted and terminated in light of the ITC's findings on closely related claims. The Federal Circuit had since…
  6. PTAB Director Review · Aug. 25, 2026Notice of Decisions on Institution — 2026-08-25Director's Notice of Decisions on Institution (2026-08-25): 11 proceedings. 6 Trial Instituted (IPR2026-00289, IPR2026-00287, IPR2026-00286, IPR2026-00288, IPR2026-00291, IPR2026-00303); 2 Discretionary Denial (IPR2026-00342,…
  7. PTAB Director Review · Aug. 19, 2026Viance, LLC v. Koppers Performance Chemicals, Inc.The Director denied institution of PGR2026-00023 challenging Koppers’ U.S. Patent No. 12,370,716 B2 in the wood-treatment/performance-chemicals field because Viance failed to identify all real parties in interest, specifically majority…
  8. PTAB Director Review · Aug. 17, 2026Viance, LLC v. Koppers Performance Chemicals, Inc.The Director denied institution of Viance’s PGR challenging Koppers’ U.S. Patent No. 12,370,716 B2 in the chemical/wood-treatment technology area on discretionary grounds, applying NHK-Fintiv under § 314(a) and also invoking § 325(d). The…
  9. PTAB Director Review · Aug. 13, 2026Notice of Decisions on Institution — 2026-08-13Director's Notice of Decisions on Institution (2026-08-13): 4 proceedings. 1 Trial Instituted (PGR2026-00031); 2 Discretionary Denial (IPR2026-00268, IPR2026-00338); 1 Institution Denied (PGR2026-00036).
  10. PTAB Director Review · Aug. 6, 2026Notice of Decisions on Institution — 2026-08-06Director's Notice of Decisions on Institution (2026-08-06): 10 proceedings. 4 Trial Instituted (IPR2026-00213, PGR2026-00035, IPR2026-00214, IPR2026-00266); 6 Discretionary Denial (IPR2026-00297, IPR2026-00330, PGR2026-00039,…
  11. PTAB Director Review · July 29, 2026Biofrontera Inc., Biofrontera Bioscience GmbH, Biofrontera Pharma GmbH, and Biofrontera AG v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.The Director granted Patent Owner's request for review, vacated the Final Written Decision, and dismissed the Petition. The ITC had already decided, on the same claims, prior art and obviousness grounds, that the claims were not shown…
  12. PTAB Director Review · July 28, 2026Notice of Decisions on Institution — 2026-07-28Director's Notice of Decisions on Institution (2026-07-28): 10 proceedings. 6 Trial Instituted (IPR2026-00265, PGR2026-00026, PGR2026-00030, IPR2026-00285, IPR2026-00280, IPR2026-00298); 3 Discretionary Denial (IPR2026-00320,…
  13. PTAB Director Review · July 15, 2026Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Lionra Technologies Ltd.The Director granted Patent Owner's request, reversed the Final Written Decision finding claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-15, and 17-21 unpatentable as obvious, and held that Petitioner failed to prove unpatentability. The Board abused its discretion…
  14. PTAB Director Review · July 14, 2026Notice of Decisions on Institution — 2026-07-14Director's Notice of Decisions on Institution (2026-07-14): 24 proceedings. 10 Trial Instituted (PGR2026-00025, IPR2026-00235, IPR2026-00233, IPR2026-00138, IPR2026-00228, IPR2026-00222, IPR2026-00276, IPR2026-00137, IPR2026-00244,…
  15. PTAB Director Review · July 6, 2026Notice of Decisions on Institution — 2026-07-06Director's Notice of Decisions on Institution (2026-07-06): 2 proceedings. 2 Discretionary Denial (IPR2026-00246, IPR2026-00254).
  16. PTAB guidance · June 29, 2026Director Review processThe USPTO's Director Review process page explains how parties may seek Director review of Board decisions in part 42 proceedings under 37 C.F.R. § 42.75 (effective October 31, 2024). It sets out who may request review, the permitted…
  17. PTAB Director Review · June 24, 2026Apple Inc. v. WeCrevention, Inc.The Director denied institution of Apple’s IPR petition against the ’098 patent in the high-speed memory-module technology area under § 314(a) discretionary authority. The denial turned on Apple’s unexplained inconsistent…
  18. PTAB Director Review · June 24, 2026Apple Inc. v. WeCrevention, Inc.The Director denied institution under § 314(a) discretion for Apple’s IPR against WeCrevention’s memory-related Patent No. 10,998,017, finding Apple’s PTAB claim-construction position on “input/output unit” irreconcilable with its…
  19. PTAB Director Review · June 24, 2026Apple Inc. v. WeCrevention, Inc.The Director denied institution of Apple’s IPR petitions against WeCrevention’s high-speed memory chip module patents under discretionary § 314(a), applying Revvo and Infineon rather than reaching the prior-art merits. The denial rested…
  20. PTAB Director Review · June 24, 2026Apple Inc. v. WeCrevention, Inc.The Director denied institution of IPR2026-00243 challenging WeCrevention’s U.S. Patent No. 12,154,652 in the computer-memory module technology area under discretionary authority, effectively § 314(a), based on Apple’s inconsistent…
  21. PTAB Director Review · June 24, 2026Apple Inc. v. WeCrevention, Inc.The Director denied institution under § 314(a) discretion in Apple’s IPRs against WeCrevention’s high-speed memory module patents, including IPR2026-00240 challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,201,834. The core reason was claim-construction…
  22. PTAB Director Review · June 22, 2026Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. Pictiva Displays International Ltd.The Director granted Patent Owner's request, vacated the Final Written Decision as to claims 2 and 17, and remanded. A jury in parallel E.D. Tex. litigation had found claim 2 infringed and not invalid, yet the Board's decision found it…
  23. PTAB · June 22, 2026Light & Wonder, Inc. v. Evolution Malta Ltd.When exceptional circumstances affecting institution arise after institution but before trial has progressed meaningfully—such as a co-pending litigation ruling that all or substantially all challenged claims are invalid—the Director may…
  24. PTAB · June 15, 2026Tesla, Inc. v. Bulletproof Property Management, LLCInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. Under NHK-Fintiv, when the parallel district-court trial date has been vacated and petitioner gives a broad stipulation not to advance any ground that reasonably…
  25. PTAB Director Review · June 12, 2026Notice of Decisions on Institution — 2026-06-12Director's Notice of Decisions on Institution (2026-06-12): 12 proceedings. 5 Trial Instituted (IPR2026-00180, PGR2026-00020, IPR2026-00184, PGR2026-00017, IPR2026-00195); 5 Discretionary Denial (IPR2026-00240, IPR2026-00241,…
  26. PTAB Director Review · June 2, 2026Notice of Decisions on Institution — 2026-06-02Director's Notice of Decisions on Institution (2026-06-02): 6 proceedings. 3 Trial Instituted (IPR2026-00193, IPR2026-00191, IPR2026-00169); 2 Discretionary Denial (IPR2026-00212, IPR2026-00252); 1 Institution Denied (IPR2026-00192).
  27. PTAB Director Review · May 26, 2026Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v. Biofrontera Inc.The Director denied institution of the PGR challenging Biofrontera’s Patent 12,280,146 B2 in the pharmaceutical/biotech space because Sun failed to establish that it identified all real parties in interest. Applying Corning Optical,…
  28. PTAB Director Review · May 26, 2026Notice of Decisions on Institution — 2026-05-26Director's Notice of Decisions on Institution (2026-05-26): 5 proceedings. 3 Trial Instituted (IPR2026-00189, IPR2025-01582, IPR2026-00182); 1 Discretionary Denial (IPR2026-00181); 1 Institution Denied (IPR2026-00174).
  29. PTAB Director Review · May 26, 2026PacifiCorp et al. v. MES, Inc.The Board denied institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) in IPR2025-00425 challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,589,225, which concerns mercury-emissions control technology for power-plant flue gas. The denial was not based on evaluation…
  30. PTAB Director Review · May 20, 2026Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v. MES, Inc.The Board denied institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) for IPR2025-00423, a second-ranked parallel petition challenging claims 1–4 and 6–29 of the ’430 patent in chemical/process technology (TC 1700). The denial was not based on prior-art…
  31. PTAB Director Review · May 19, 2026Notice of Decisions on Institution — 2026-05-19Director's Notice of Decisions on Institution (2026-05-19): 12 proceedings. 5 Trial Instituted (PGR2026-00012, IPR2026-00162, IPR2026-00160, IPR2026-00159, IPR2026-00163); 6 Discretionary Denial (IPR2026-00201, PGR2026-00021,…
  32. PTAB Director Review · May 18, 2026Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v. MES, Inc.The Board denied institution of IPR2025-00278 against U.S. Patent No. 10,343,114 B2 (a chemical/environmental technology patent) not on the merits of the prior art grounds, but as a matter of docket management: because the Board…
  33. PTAB Director Review · May 18, 2026Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v. MES, Inc.The Board denied institution of IPR2025-00281 challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,596,517 (pollution/chemical treatment technology, Tech Center 1700) after separately instituting review in the companion proceeding IPR2025-00280 on the same…
  34. PTAB Director Review · May 15, 2026Microsoft Corporation v. Sandpiper CDN, LLCThe 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…
  35. PTAB Director Review · May 15, 2026Notice of Decisions on Institution — 2026-05-15Director's Notice of Decisions on Institution (2026-05-15): 10 proceedings. 6 Trial Instituted (IPR2026-00131, IPR2026-00061, IPR2026-00067, IPR2026-00158, IPR2026-00066, IPR2026-00143); 1 Discretionary Denial (PGR2025-00087); 3…
  36. PTAB Director Review · May 15, 2026Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation et al. v. Railware, Inc. et al.The Director denied institution in IPR2026-00133, IPR2026-00134, and IPR2026-00135 (covering Patents 9,517,782, RE47,835, and RE49,115, directed to railroad technology) on discretionary grounds under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) because…
  37. PTAB Director Review · May 15, 2026Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation et al. v. Railware, Inc. et al.The Director denied institution in IPR2026-00133, -00134, and -00135 (covering Patents 9,517,782 B2, RE47,835 E, and RE49,115 E, directed to railroad technology) because Petitioner Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies failed to present its…
  38. PTAB Director Review · May 15, 2026Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation et al. v. Railware, Inc. et al.The Director denied institution in IPR2026-00133, -00134, and -00135 (covering Patents 9,517,782, RE47,835, and RE49,115, directed to railroad technology) on discretionary grounds because Petitioner Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies…
  39. PTAB Director Review · May 15, 2026Google LLC v. Secure Communication Technologies, LLCThe Director denied institution of IPR2026-00099 (Google LLC v. Secure Communication Technologies, LLC, U.S. Patent 8,116,749, directed to wireless communication technology) on discretionary grounds under § 314(a), finding that Google had…
  40. PTAB Director Review · May 14, 2026Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Kurin, Inc.The Director denied institution of IPR2026-00097 (Magnolia Medical Technologies v. Kurin, Inc., U.S. Patent 12,138,052, medical device technology in Tech Center 3700) on discretionary grounds under § 314(a), concluding that the totality…
  41. PTAB Director Review · May 14, 2026SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v. OMNI MEDSCI, INC.The Director vacated the prior institution of IPR2025-01253 and denied the petition challenging claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790 (a wearable health-monitoring technology patent) because the '790 patent was determined to be an AIA…
  42. PTAB · May 14, 2026Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Kurin, Inc.When a petitioner previously contested validity of the challenged patent in completed district-court litigation on the same or similar § 102/§ 103 grounds that could have been presented to the Office, had a full and fair opportunity to…
  43. PTAB Director Review · May 13, 2026Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLCThe Director denied institution of IPR2026-00171 (and companion cases -00172 and -00173) under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because Ford Motor Company maintained inconsistent claim construction positions between its IPR petitions and the parallel…
  44. PTAB Director Review · May 13, 2026Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLCThe Director denied institution of IPR2026-00172 (and companion cases IPR2026-00171 and IPR2026-00173) under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because Ford Motor Company maintained inconsistent claim construction positions between its IPR petitions and…
  45. PTAB Director Review · May 13, 2026Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLCThe Director denied institution of IPR2026-00173 (and companion cases IPR2026-00171 and IPR2026-00172) under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because Ford Motor Company maintained claim construction positions in parallel district court litigation that…
  46. PTAB · May 12, 2026Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLCWhen a petitioner obtains institution on plain-and-ordinary-meaning unpatentability theories but then, in parallel district court litigation, advances broader indefiniteness positions affecting the challenged claims without having…
  47. PTAB Director Review · May 12, 2026Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLCThe Director granted Director Review, vacated the notices granting institution, and denied institution in three related IPRs (IPR2025-01342, IPR2025-01383, IPR2025-01524) involving automotive connectivity patents owned by AutoConnect…
  48. PTAB Director Review · May 12, 2026Terumo BCT, Inc. v. Haemonetics CorporationThe Director granted Patent Owner Haemonetics's request for Director Review, vacated the Board's institution notices, and denied institution of IPR2025-01374 (U.S. Patent 11,738,124) and IPR2025-01391 (U.S. Patent 10,758,652), both…
  49. PTAB Director Review · May 12, 2026FreightCar America, Inc. v. National Steel Car LimitedThe Director granted Patent Owner's request for Director Review, vacated the decision granting institution, and denied institution. After institution, Patent Owner disclaimed claim 24 and dependent claims 25-31, the only claims for which…
  50. PTAB · May 12, 2026Terumo BCT, Inc. v. Haemonetics CorpWhen a petitioner states in an IPR petition that challenged claims need no construction or should receive their plain and ordinary meaning, but advances a materially different district-court claim-construction/indefiniteness…
  51. PTAB Director Review · May 12, 2026Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLCThe Director granted Patent Owner AutoConnect Holdings LLC's request for Director Review, vacated the previously granted institution notices, and denied institution in all three IPRs (IPR2025-01342, IPR2025-01383, IPR2025-01524)…
  52. PTAB Director Review · May 12, 2026Terumo BCT, Inc. v. Haemonetics CorporationThe Director granted Patent Owner Haemonetics's request for Director Review, vacated the Board's institution notices, and denied institution of IPR2025-01374 (U.S. Patent 11,738,124) and IPR2025-01391 (U.S. Patent 10,758,652), both…
  53. PTAB Director Review · May 12, 2026Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLCThe Director reversed the Board's institution decisions in IPR2025-01342, IPR2025-01383, and IPR2025-01524 (Ford Motor Co. v. AutoConnect Holdings LLC, covering automotive connectivity patents), vacating the notices granting institution…
  54. PTAB Director Review · May 7, 2026Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Damaka, Inc.Institution of IPR2026-00211 was denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) based on discretionary and non-merits considerations, without reaching the merits of the petition filed by Cisco Systems against Damaka's U.S. Patent No. 12,279,116.
  55. PTAB · Mar. 18, 2026Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. v. LG Display Co., Ltd.A foreign government is not a "person" under 35 U.S.C. § 311(a) (and § 321(a)), so under Return Mail it cannot be a petitioner in an AIA proceeding, and the bar also applies when a foreign government is a real party in interest of a…
  56. PTAB guidance · Mar. 11, 2026Additional Discretionary Institution Considerations – U.S. Manufacturing and Small Business Use of AIA ProceedingsThe memorandum adds three factors the Director will weigh when deciding whether to institute IPR and PGR: U.S. manufacture of the accused products, U.S. manufacture of the patent owner's competing products, and whether the petitioner is a…
  57. PTAB · Feb. 25, 2026Curium US LLC v. Universität HeidelbergInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a petitioner, after filing, updates its mandatory notice before institution to identify additional real parties in interest, the Director will accord the…
  58. PTAB · Jan. 16, 2026TikTok, Inc. v. Shopsee, Inc.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a petitioner advances different claim construction positions before the Board and in district court (here, no express constructions in the petition but…
  59. PTAB · Jan. 15, 2026Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v. Micron Technology, Inc.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a patent owner produces some evidence that tends to show a particular third party should be named a real party in interest, the petitioner bears the burden to…
  60. PTAB · Jan. 12, 2026Top Glory Trading Group Inc. v. Cole Haan LLCInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a petitioner shows that a significant change in law (here, the Federal Circuit's change in the design patent obviousness standard in LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech.…
  61. PTAB · Jan. 12, 2026PacifiCorp v. Birchtech Corp.Absent exceptional circumstances, when a petitioner files multiple petitions challenging the same claims of a patent in a case where there is a dispute over priority date (for example, one petition under the earlier priority date and one…
  62. PTAB guidance · Dec. 12, 2025Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (December 2025, web)The consolidated Trial Practice Guide folds the August 2012 Practice Guide and the August 2018 and July 2019 updates into one statement of standard Board practice in AIA trials (IPR, PGR and derivation). It states that the Board will…
  63. PTAB guidance · Nov. 18, 2025Voluntary Search Disclosure Declaration FAQsThe FAQs explain the voluntary Search Disclosure Declaration (SDD) described in a USPTO memorandum issued November 17, 2025. A petitioner may submit a short explanation of how it located the asserted art, and the Office may treat that…
  64. PTAB guidance · Nov. 17, 2025Voluntary Search Disclosure Declarations as a Favorable Factor in Institution DecisionsThe memorandum lets IPR and PGR petitioners voluntarily submit a Search Disclosure Declaration (SDD) describing how they located the asserted prior art. The Office will treat a voluntary SDD as a non-exclusive, non-dispositive favorable…
  65. PTAB · Nov. 5, 2025Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a petitioner argues in district court that a claim limitation is indefinite but, in its IPR petition, adopts the plain and ordinary meaning, the petitioner's…
  66. PTAB · Nov. 3, 2025Revvo Technologies, Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.When a petitioner proposes claim constructions in an IPR petition that differ from the positions it took in parallel district court litigation, the petitioner should, at a minimum, sufficiently explain why the different positions are…
  67. PTAB guidance · Oct. 28, 2025Precedential designation of Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc., IPR2014-00440, Paper 68 (except § II.E.1)The memorandum designates Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband Inc., IPR2014-00440, Paper 68 (PTAB Aug. 18, 2015), as precedential, except for § II.E.1. It restores the Office's pre-SharkNinja practice of requiring…
  68. PTAB guidance · Oct. 17, 2025Director Institution of AIA Trial ProceedingsEffective October 20, 2025, the Director, in consultation with at least three PTAB judges, determines whether to institute trial in all IPR and PGR proceedings, considering discretionary considerations, the merits, and non-discretionary…
  69. PTAB guidance · Oct. 8, 2025Delegated Rehearing PanelThe page explains how the Director, within the Director Review process, may delegate review of a PTAB decision in an AIA proceeding to a Delegated Rehearing Panel (DRP) of three Board members drawn from the Chief Judge, Deputy Chief Judge…
  70. PTAB guidance · Oct. 3, 2025Interim Director Discretionary ProcessThe webpage sets out the Interim Director Discretionary Process, a bifurcated approach under the March 26, 2025 Process Memorandum in which the Director decides discretionary denial of IPR and PGR petitions before a Board panel addresses…
  71. PTAB · Sept. 19, 2025Sun Pharm. Indus., Inc. v. Nivagen Pharm., Inc.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a petitioner advances a narrower claim construction in parallel district court litigation than the broader (plain and ordinary meaning) construction it urges in…
  72. PTAB · Sept. 19, 2025Alliance Laundry Sys., LLC v. PayRange LLCInformative 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"…
  73. PTAB guidance · Sept. 16, 2025PTAB consideration of prior findings of fact and conclusions of lawWhen claims challenged in an AIA trial, or substantially similar claims, have already been adjudicated post-issuance by the Office, a district court, or the ITC, and the Board reaches an initial or final decision on a finding of fact or…
  74. PTAB · Sept. 5, 2025Apple Inc. v. Ferid AllaniInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a petitioner knew of the challenged patent from the patent owner's earlier letter but reasonably did not expect enforcement, because it concluded it needed no…
  75. PTAB · Sept. 4, 2025Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. H2 Intellect LLCInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a patent has been in force over twelve years and other considerations favor discretionary denial (a projected final written decision after the district court…
  76. PTAB · July 24, 2025Amgen Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a patent has been in force only about three years (here, issued in 2022), a patent owner may still have strong settled expectations that favor discretionary…
  77. PTAB · July 16, 2025Padagis US LLC v. Neurelis, Inc.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a petitioner shows an apparent material error by the Office, such as an examiner crediting a provisional priority date for claims that substantially overlap…
  78. PTAB · July 16, 2025Multi-Color Corp. v. Brook & Whittle Ltd.When a petition for post-grant review is filed within the nine-month window of 35 U.S.C. § 321(c), the Board (through the Director's discretionary-denial review) weighs that timing as a factor favoring institution, because PGR petitions…
  79. PTAB · July 11, 2025LifeVac LLC v. DCSTAR Inc.When a petitioner files an IPR after its earlier petition for post-grant review (PGR) on the same patent was not instituted, so that no final written decision issued, the Director will generally not discretionarily deny institution of the…
  80. PTAB · June 25, 2025CrowdStrike, Inc. v. GoSecure, Inc.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. Where a petitioner files two petitions against the same claims of the same patent chiefly to present two different constructions of a claim term (a broader and a…
  81. PTAB · June 25, 2025Elong Int’l USA Inc. v. Feit Electric Co., Inc.When a petitioner files a copycat petition together with a motion for joinder to an already-instituted IPR, the Director must first decide institution, because 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) has the Board determine institution before it considers…
  82. PTAB · June 25, 2025Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.When a petitioner is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because it filed after the one-year period from service of the complaint, the Office may consider the fairness of letting it join an ongoing proceeding in deciding whether to deny…
  83. PTAB · June 18, 2025Dabico Airport Sols. Inc. v. AXA Power ApSInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a challenged patent has been in force almost eight years and the petitioner offers no persuasive reasoning why inter partes review is an appropriate use of…
  84. PTAB · June 13, 2025Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a patent owner asserts, and the petitioner challenges, a large number of patents from different families involving diverse subject matter in the parallel…
  85. PTAB · June 12, 2025Savant Techs. LLC d/b/a GE Lighting v. Feit Electric Co., Inc.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a patent owner asserts additional claims in district court after the petitioner filed its first IPR, and the petitioner diligently files a second petition on…
  86. PTAB · May 19, 2025Ecto World, LLC v. RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc.When the only prior art a petition asserts was submitted on the applicant's IDS, the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied, and the petitioner must still provide its own part-two analysis explaining, with reference to…
  87. PTAB guidance · Apr. 25, 2025FAQs for Interim Processes for PTAB Workload ManagementSuperseded by Interim Director Discretionary Process (webpage). The FAQs explain how the bifurcated process under the March 26, 2025 Process Memorandum works for IPR and PGR institution. A patent owner may file a discretionary denial…
  88. PTAB · Apr. 17, 2025Hulu, LLC v. Piranha Media Distribution, LLCInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a district court has already entered a decision finding the challenged claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 before the Board's institution decision, the Director…
  89. PTAB guidance · Mar. 26, 2025Interim Processes for PTAB Workload ManagementThe memorandum sets up a temporary, bifurcated institution process for IPRs and PGRs. The Director, in consultation with at least three PTAB judges, first decides discretionary denial, and only if denial is not appropriate is the petition…
  90. PTAB guidance · Mar. 24, 2025Guidance on USPTO’s rescission of “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation”The memorandum explains that the USPTO rescinded the June 21, 2022 "Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation" on February 28, 2025, restoring the guidance in place…
  91. PTAB · Dec. 13, 2024Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v. Sfara, Inc.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a petitioner has argued in parallel district court litigation that claim terms are means-plus-function terms under § 112(f) (and called that issue dispositive),…
  92. PTAB · Feb. 27, 2023CommScope Techs. LLC. v. Dali Wireless, Inc.When deciding whether to discretionarily deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) in view of parallel district court litigation, the Board must first analyze Fintiv factors 1-5 and may reach the compelling merits question only if that…
  93. PTAB · Dec. 22, 2022Patent Quality Assurance, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLCWhen a petitioner has engaged in conduct that is an abuse of process under 37 C.F.R. § 42.12(a)(6), such as filing an IPR for the purpose of extracting payment, or has committed other sanctionable misconduct, the Director (and by…
  94. PTAB · Oct. 4, 2022OpenSky Industries, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLCWhen a petitioner uses an IPR for the primary purpose of extracting payment, is willing to forgo or sabotage the adversarial process, and fails to meaningfully pursue the patentability merits, that conduct is an abuse of process…
  95. PTAB · Sept. 7, 2022NXP USA, Inc. v. Impinj, Inc.De-designated: the USPTO de-designated this decision on April 25, 2025; it is no longer precedential. When a petitioner offers a stipulation related to Fintiv factor 4 (overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel…
  96. PTAB · Aug. 24, 2022Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc.When a petitioner's expert declaration merely repeats verbatim the petition's conclusory assertion and cites no additional supporting evidence and gives no technical reasoning, the Board may give the declaration little weight and may not…
  97. PTAB · Aug. 23, 2022Code200, UAB v. Bright Data, LtdWhen a first-filed petition by the same petitioner was discretionarily denied or otherwise not evaluated on the merits, the Board may not treat General Plastic factor 1 as weighing strongly toward denial of a second-filed petition because…
  98. PTAB guidance · June 21, 2022Interim procedure for discretionary denials in AIA post-grant proceedings with parallel district court litigationRescinded on February 28, 2025. The memorandum sets interim Board practice on discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors where there is parallel litigation. The PTAB will not deny institution under Fintiv (i) when the petition presents…
  99. PTAB · Jan. 14, 2022Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. v. Monument Peak Ventures, LLCWhen a petitioner pays the inter partes review fee by Fedwire transfer, following the USPTO's published wire instructions, a Fedwire confirmation of payment is sufficient evidence that the fee "accompanied" the petition under 35 U.S.C. §…
  100. PTAB · Dec. 1, 2020Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo CorporationWhen a petitioner files a district court stipulation that, if review is instituted, it will not pursue any ground raised or that could have been reasonably raised in an IPR (any §§ 102 or 103 ground based on patents or printed…
  101. PTAB · Oct. 28, 2020Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLCWhen a petitioner who previously filed an unsuccessful (denied) petition on the same patent files a follow-on "me-too" petition with a motion to join another party's instituted IPR under § 315(c), the Board applies the General Plastic…
  102. PTAB · Oct. 21, 2020Snap, Inc. v. SRK Technology LLCWhen the parallel district court proceeding is stayed, the Board applying the Fintiv factors may find that the stay allays concerns about inefficiency, duplication of effort and conflicting decisions, so that the first Fintiv factor…
  103. PTAB · Oct. 2, 2020RPX Corp. v. Applications in Internet Time, LLCWhen a membership organization that sells defensive patent aggregation and files IPRs for the benefit of its members files a petition against patents asserted against a member who is itself time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), and the…
  104. PTAB guidance · Aug. 18, 2020Applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) memorandumSuperseded on June 9, 2022 by Updated applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) memorandum (June 9, 2022). The memorandum sets the USPTO's binding interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) for statements of the applicant (AAPA) in the challenged…
  105. PTAB · June 16, 2020Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group – Trucking LLCInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a parallel district court trial date is uncertain because the schedule has repeatedly been extended and carries an "or as available" qualifier, the court and…
  106. PTAB · May 13, 2020Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a patent owner raises the advanced state of a parallel district court case, the Board may deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) after holistically weighing…
  107. PTAB · Mar. 20, 2020Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.When a patent owner argues under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) that institution should be denied because of an earlier trial date in a parallel district court case (NHK), the Board may authorize supplemental briefing and must weigh six factors…
  108. PTAB · Feb. 13, 2020Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbHWhen a petition relies on the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously presented to the Office in a proceeding pertaining to the challenged patent, the Board applies a two-part § 325(d) framework: (1) whether the…
  109. PTAB · Dec. 20, 2019Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLCWhen a petitioner relies on a reference as a "printed publication" under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), the petition must identify, with particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly…
  110. PTAB guidance · Nov. 20, 2019Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (November 2019)Superseded by Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (December 2025, web). The November 2019 Consolidated Trial Practice Guide folds the August 2012 Practice Guide and the August 2018 and July 2019 updates into one document describing AIA…
  111. PTAB · Oct. 31, 2019PUMA North America, Inc. v. NIKE, Inc.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a petition asserts the same prior art and the same rejection the examiner applied during prosecution, with substantially the same rationale, and the petitioner…
  112. PTAB · Oct. 16, 2019Oticon Medical AB v. Cochlear Limited (§ II.B and II.C)When a patent owner invokes 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and the petition relies on new, noncumulative prior art that the Office did not consider during prosecution (here, Choi), the Board may decline to deny institution under the Becton Dickinson…
  113. PTAB · Sept. 6, 2019In-Depth Geophysical, Inc. v. ConocoPhillips Company (§ I.E)Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a petitioner relies on a reference as a prior art "printed publication" under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 311(b) and offers only a vague website date and…
  114. PTAB · Aug. 23, 2019GoPro, Inc. v. 360Heros, Inc.When a party is served, in a manner prescribed by law, with a pleading (complaint or counterclaim) asserting a claim alleging infringement of the patent, the one-year period in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) begins on the date of service, and the…
  115. PTAB guidance · July 16, 2019Trial Practice Guide (July 2019 update)Superseded on November 20, 2019 by Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (November 2019). The July 2019 Trial Practice Guide update revises selected sections of the August 2012 Practice Guide on a rolling basis. It sets practices on ex parte…
  116. PTAB · May 1, 2019Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc.When a different petitioner has joined an ongoing, instituted inter partes review of the same claims of the same patent and then files its own follow-on petitions, the Board applies the first General Plastic factor ("whether the same…
  117. PTAB · Apr. 2, 2019Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc.When a different petitioner challenges the same claims of a patent already challenged in an earlier petition, the Board may apply the General Plastic factors under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and, in weighing them (including factor 1, "whether the…
  118. PTAB · Mar. 6, 2019Adaptics Ltd. v. Perfect Co.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a petition fails to identify its grounds "with particularity" under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), so that the grounds are voluminous and excessive (here, up to ten…
  119. PTAB · Jan. 31, 2019Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc.When a petitioner or real party in interest filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent before the date the petition was filed, the Board cannot institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1), which…
  120. PTAB · Jan. 24, 2019Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on only a small part of what it challenges (here two of twenty-three claims on…
  121. PTAB · Nov. 7, 2018Chevron Oronite Co. LLC v. Infineum USA L.P.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. Even when a petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on one or more claims, institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) remains discretionary, and the Board…
  122. PTAB · Oct. 16, 2018Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a petitioner under § 103 shows only that references are analogous art, in the same field, or merely compatible, and offers conclusory expert support, the Board…
  123. PTAB · Oct. 1, 2018Infiltrator Water Techs., LLC, v. Presby Patent TrustWhen a petitioner was served, including by waiver of service, with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent more than one year before the petition was filed, the Board cannot maintain an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §…
  124. PTAB · Sept. 12, 2018NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.When a petitioner asserts in an IPR the same prior art and arguments that it is asserting in a co-pending district court case, and that case is nearing its final stages and will be resolved (trial set March 25, 2019) before any Board…
  125. PTAB guidance · Aug. 13, 2018Trial Practice Guide (August 2018 update)Superseded on November 20, 2019 by Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (November 2019). The August 2018 update revises selected sections of the Trial Practice Guide on a rolling basis. It addresses expert testimony, word and page limits,…
  126. PTAB · June 5, 2018Sandoz Inc. v. AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd. (§ III.C.1)Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a petitioner relies on a web-posted reference as a "printed publication" under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), it need not prove public accessibility by a preponderance at…
  127. PTAB · Mar. 2, 2018Ex parte DitzikInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a prior district court judgment of invalidity for lack of written description is final and the applicant had a full and fair opportunity to litigate, the Board…
  128. PTAB · Feb. 27, 2018Colas Sols. Inc. v. Blacklidge Emulsions, Inc.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a petitioner filed a civil action challenging the validity of a patent claim before filing its petition, and that action has not been dismissed, 35 U.S.C. §…
  129. PTAB · Dec. 15, 2017Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AGWhen the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office, the Board may exercise discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ("the Director may take into account whether . . . the same or…
  130. PTAB · Sept. 6, 2017Gen. Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki KaishaWhen a petitioner files a follow-on petition challenging the same claims of the same patent after an earlier petition was denied, the Board may exercise its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) to deny institution…
  131. PTAB · Aug. 22, 2017Cultec, Inc. v. Stormtech LLCInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments in an IPR petition were previously presented to the Office, including through a third-party submission…
  132. PTAB · July 27, 2017Hospira, Inc. v. Genentech, IncInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When the examiner during prosecution expressly decided that the challenged claims were entitled to an earlier priority date and withdrew a rejection over a reference…
  133. PTAB · Dec. 15, 2016Kayak Software Corp. v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments were previously presented to the Office during a long, exhaustive prosecution, and the petitioner shows…
  134. PTAB · Dec. 14, 2016Unified Patents Inc. v. BermanInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a petition relies on the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously presented to the Office (35 U.S.C. § 325(d)), including art considered…
  135. PTAB · Oct. 6, 2016Seabery North America Inc. v. Lincoln Global, Inc.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a petitioner supports a reference's status as a printed publication with a declaration from the author's thesis advisor testifying to library deposit, public…
  136. PTAB · May 23, 2016Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Research Corporation Technologies, Inc.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a petitioner relies on a reference as a "printed publication" under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) and § 102, the Board requires a "threshold showing" of public…
  137. PTAB · Sept. 17, 2015LG Elecs., Inc. v. Mondis Tech. Ltd.When a petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent more than one year before the petition was filed, the Board cannot institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), even though a later complaint on…
  138. PTAB · May 14, 2015Westlake Servs., LLC v. Credit Acceptance Corp.When a covered business method patent review results in a final written decision addressing only the claims on which trial was instituted, estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(1) applies on a claim-by-claim basis,…
  139. PTAB · May 1, 2015Arris Grp., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLCInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a patent owner seeks additional discovery under 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2) on whether a petition is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) for privity, and an earlier…
  140. PTAB · Sept. 11, 2014Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a petition challenges the same claims of the same patent on the same prior art and nearly identical grounds as a previously denied petition, and the petitioner…
  141. PTAB · Aug. 29, 2014Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLCInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a petition uses footnotes to cite large portions of an expert declaration without sufficient explanation, cites claim charts in the declaration from its own…
  142. PTAB · July 24, 2014Unified Patents, Inc. v. PersonalWeb Techs., LLCInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a petition challenges claims on the same reference (Woodhill) that the Board already held unpatentable in one inter partes review (on appeal) and instituted…
  143. PTAB · July 8, 2014Prism Pharma Co. v. Choongwae Pharma Corp.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When the same prior art and substantially the same arguments that a petitioner relies on were previously presented to the Office during prosecution, including by a…
  144. PTAB · June 27, 2014Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a patent owner serves a motion for leave to amend its district court complaint with a proposed amended complaint attached, and the court has not yet granted…
  145. PTAB · June 27, 2014TRW Auto. U.S. LLC v. Magna Elecs., Inc.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a patent owner serves a motion for leave to file an amended complaint with the proposed complaint attached, and the court has not yet granted leave, the…
  146. PTAB · Apr. 25, 2014SecureBuy, LLC v. CardinalCommerce Corp.When a covered business method patent review petitioner (or real party in interest) filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent before the date the petition was filed, the Board may not institute review and must…
  147. PTAB · Nov. 21, 2013Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a petitioner files a later IPR petition on the same patent and claims that relies on prior art whose teachings are substantially the same as art and arguments…
  148. PTAB · Oct. 25, 2013Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd.When a patent owner argues in a preliminary response that the petitioner is barred by assignor estoppel because a named inventor is in privity with the petitioner, the Board cannot deny the petition on that basis. Section 311(a) provides…
  149. PTAB · Sept. 25, 2013ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings Inc.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a petitioner whose earlier timely petition on the same claims was not instituted files a second petition outside the one-year period of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) with a…
  150. PTAB · Jan. 30, 2013Motorola Mobility LLC v. Patent of Michael ArnouseInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a patent owner has filed an infringement complaint but has not served the accused infringer with a summons, the one-year period of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (a petition…
  151. PTAB guidance · Aug. 14, 2012Office Patent Trial Practice Guide (August 2012)Superseded on November 20, 2019 by Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (November 2019). The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide explains the general framework of the final trial rules in 37 CFR Part 42 for inter partes review, post-grant…
  152. PTAB · Mar. 18, 2010Ex parte Baxter Int’l, Inc . 2009-006493 (March 18, 2010) [considering expert testimony]Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When an appellant offers expert or witness testimony to show skepticism or lack of a reasonable expectation of success, the Board may give it little weight if the…
  153. PTAB · Dec. 8, 2000LeVeen v. EdwardsWhen a party files a preliminary motion for judgment under 37 CFR § 1.633(a) relying on a § 102(a) or § 102(e) reference and the opponent alleges in its preliminary statement a date of invention prior to the reference's prior art date,…
  154. PTAB · Nov. 17, 1999Anderson v. Dionex Corp.Under 37 CFR § 1.645(d), which provides that "[a]n administrative patent judge may stay proceedings in an interference," a stay pending a parallel district court infringement action is committed to the administrative patent judge's…
  155. PTAB · Apr. 13, 1999Wolf v. TomaliaWhen a patent involved in an interference is also the subject of a pending ex parte reexamination, the Board will not stay the interference, fold the reexamination into it, or let the opposing party contest the reexamined claims inter…

Other topics