Latest Posts › Denial of Institution

Share:

Precedential: Time-Barred Copycat Petitions Only In Exceptional Circumstances

The PTAB’s recently designated precedential decision in Realtek Semiconductor Corp., v. ParkerVision, Inc., Nos. IPR2025-00324 and IPR2025-00325, Paper No. 11 (June 25, 2025), makes clear that an otherwise time-barred...more

Claim Construction Stipulation Avoids Discretionary Denial

USPTO Director John Squires issued a decision on October 3, 2025, denying a request to discretionarily deny institution in Caption Health, Inc. v. The University of British Columbia, IPR2025-01422, Paper 15 at 3 (Dec. 18,...more

USPTO Designates New Precedents on PTAB Discretionary Denial

On January 9, 2026, USPTO Director John A. Squires designated four recent discretionary-denial rulings as precedential and nine more as informative, formalizing a developing framework for how and when the Office will exercise...more

PTAB Statistics Through Two Months of FY 2026

The institution rate for post-grant petitions in FY 2026 through the end of November (the period from Oct. 1, 2025 through November 30, 2025) stands at 37% (118 instituted, 197 denied). As expected, this rate is...more

Prosecution Error Evidence & Timing Considerations Sends IPR Forward

The USPTO’s Acting Deputy Director, Coke Morgan Stewart, issued a decision on October 3, 2025, declining to exercise discretion to deny institution in Carbyne, Inc. v. Tritech Software Systems, IPR2025-00959, Paper 11 (Oct. 3...more

Discretionary Decision Statistics Update

The October 17 Memo from Director Squires marked the end of a distinct discretionary denial era, the Interim Era. Per the memo, as of October 20, all institution decisions (discretionary, non-discretionary, and merits-based)...more

PTAB Issues First Summary Institution (Denial) Decisions

On October 31st, the Director issued his first set of summary decisions on IPR institutions, denying institution of 13 cases without comment in a single document....more

Divergent Claim Construction Results in Discretionary Denial

In a recent decision, Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial in Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Inc. v. Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., IPR2025-00893. While some factors...more

PTAB Issues Notice of Discretionary Denial Rulemaking

On October 17th, the PTAB issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding criteria for the Office to apply when making discretionary denial determinations....more

Navigating the New Discretionary Denial Bifurcated Framework

The USPTO recently published a new webpage on the Interim Director Discretionary Process, which provides information regarding the bifurcated process for consideration of discretionary denial issues announced in the March 26,...more

Subsequent Challenge Does Not Justify Discretionary Denial

In a recent decision, Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart denied a Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial in LifeVac, LLC v. DCSTAR, Inc., IPR2025-00454. Even though Petitioner had previously challenged the same...more

“Settled-Expectations” Analysis May Leave Some Petitioners Feeling Unsettled

As discretionary denials are on the rise and institution rates are declining at the PTAB (link), recent decisions from the PTAB have introduced the notion of a patent owner’s “settled expectations” as another reason for the...more

Discretionary Denial of IPR Institution Due to Advanced Hatch-Waxman Litigation

In a recent decision, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of an inter partes review (“IPR”) after applying the Fintiv factors, despite Petitioner’s...more

Similar Claims in Prior IPR Petition Leads to Denial

The PTAB recently denied institution of inter partes review of a patent directed to deep packet inspection in software defined networks in Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Orckit Corporation, IPR2024-00895. Applying the General...more

Two Many IPRs: Different References Insufficient for Parallel IPRs

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently denied institution in an inter partes review (“IPR”) where Petitioner later filed a parallel petition against the same claims of the same patent.   Shenzhen Root Tech. Co.,...more

Expert Testimony That Does Not Disclose Underlying Facts Or Data Entitled To Little Weight

“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). With that principle in mind, the PTAB recently denied institution...more

Director Vacates Decision Based on Improper Claim Construction

The PTAB denied institution of inter partes review reasoning that Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. The...more

Director Vidal Reels In Discretionary Denials Under Section 314(a)

Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the PTAB has discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review. In certain circumstances, the PTAB will discretionarily deny a petition because another petition challenging the same patent...more

Institution Denied For Lack of Sufficient Structure

The Board declined to institute inter partes review because Petitioner failed to identify adequate corresponding structure in the challenged patent that performed the function of claim limitation that was to be construed...more

Institution Denial Vacated to Reconsider Prior Art Drawing

On April 5, 2024, Director Vidal vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) denial of institution of inter partes review (IPR) where the Petitioner relied on a drawing in a prior art patent document to...more

Failure to Make Full Sotera-Stipulation Contributes to Denial

In an increasingly rare exercise of discretion, the PTAB denied institution of inter partes review under Fintiv in Zhuhai Cosmx Battery Co., Ltd. v. Ningde Amperex Technology Limited, IPR2023-00587. The PTAB reasoned that...more

Common Inventorship And Technology Insufficient For 325(d) Denial

The PTAB recently declined to apply Section 325(d) and instituted inter partes review after a patent owner unsuccessfully argued that the petition relied on substantially the same prior art as that which the Office had...more

Healthy Overlap Between PTAB And Trial Court Favors Denial

The PTAB recently denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) for claims 1 and 46 of U.S. 7,464,040 in eClinicalWorks, LLC et al. v. Decapolis Systems, LLC, IPR2022-0229, Paper 10 (PTAB April 13, 2022). The denial was...more

PTAB Declines to Exercise Discretion Post-Markman

Petitioner (Apple, Inc.) filed a petition to institute inter partes on a patent owned by Koss Corporation (Patent Owner). The PTAB considered six factors from Fintiv to assess whether to exercise authority to deny...more

Awkwardly Divided Petitions Triggers § 314(a) Denials

In Fantasia Trading LLC v. Cognipower LLC, IPR2021-00070, Paper 21 (May 20, 2021), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to institute inter partes review (IPR) where Petitioner Fantasia Trading LLC failed to...more

39 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide