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

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

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.