Director Vacates Decision to Institute: Investment in Parallel Proceeding Outweighed Petitioner’s Sotera Stipulation

May 9, 2025

Reading Time : 2 min

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied.

Petitioner sought IPR of patents asserted against it in the Eastern District of Texas. Patent owner argued that the board should deny institution based on the advanced stage of parallel litigation and the amount of time and resources invested in litigation.  But the board found that litigating invalidity of the patents would impose a substantial burden on the district court and relied on petitioner’s Sotera stipulation to institute IPR.

The Director granted patentee’s request for Director Review of the board’s institution decision.  According to the Director, the board failed to adequately consider the significant investments made by the parties in the parallel district court litigation. First, the board’s finding that trying invalidity issues along with patentee’s infringement case would create a substantial burden on the district court was misplaced—that analysis could apply in most, if not all district court cases. Second, the parties had invested significant resources in the case—they had already served infringement and invalidity contentions, expert reports, claim construction briefs, and they had conducted depositions. Third, the district court had already held a claim construction hearing and construed the claim terms. Finally, the trial date was set to occur eleven months before the board’s projected final written decision. Accordingly, the progression of the parallel proceeding and the parties’ investments in the parallel litigation weighed heavily against instituting IPR.

As to the overlap of issues between different proceedings, the Director found that petitioner’s invalidity arguments were broader in district court and included similar prior art arguments as those raised in the IPR, which petitioner’s Sotera stipulation was “not likely to moot.” Though petitioner’s stipulation was intended to mitigate duplicative efforts in both proceedings, the Director deemed it insufficient to outweigh the substantial overlap in invalidity arguments presented in both forums and the substantial investment in district court litigation that was set for trial well before the final written decision was expected.

Practice Tip: Patent owners seeking discretionary denial of an IPR petition should stress the investment the parties and court have already spent in co-pending litigation, the advanced stage of which may outweigh the purported efficiencies brought about by a Sotera stipulation. Both petitioners and patent owners should be cognizant of how the timing of an IPR filing and events in a particular district court may affect an IPR petition at the discretionary denial phase.

Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Stellar, LLC, IPR2024-01205, Paper 19 (Acting Director Stewart Mar. 28, 2025)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

In an institution decision following the USPTO’s withdrawal of its Fintiv Memo, the board addressed discretionary denial of an IPR under Fintiv in view of a parallel ITC investigation. The board noted it would not consider the now-rescinded June 2022 memo from then-director Vidal which instructed that the PTAB would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv when the request is based on a parallel ITC investigation. The board conducted a Fintiv analysis in view of the ITC investigation, but ultimately determined that discretionary denial was not warranted in this particular situation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 23, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same patent unpatentable because the PTAB applied a lower burden of proof than what is required to invalidate claims in district court.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgment action based on defendant’s later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely commercial.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 21, 2025

Under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff who prevails on a trademark infringement claim may be entitled to recover the “defendant’s profits” as damages. The Supreme Court in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. unanimously construed “defendant’s profits” in 35 USC § 1117(a) to mean that only the named defendant’s profits can be awarded, not the profits of other related corporate entities. The Court, however, left open the possibility that other language in § 1117(a) may allow for damages linked to the profits of related entities, if properly raised and supported.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 13, 2025

In a series of rulings on a motion in limine, the District of Delaware recently distinguished between what qualifies as being incorporated by reference and what does not for the purposes of an anticipation defense. In short, a parenthetical citation was held to be insufficient, while three passages discussing a cited reference met the test.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.