PTAB Considers Discretionary Denial Based on Parallel ITC Investigation, After Withdrawal of Fintiv Memo

May 9, 2025

Reading Time : 2 min

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 The board noted it would not consider the now-rescinded June 2022 memo from then-director Vidal which instructed that the PTAB would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv when the request is based on a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.

The patent at issue was directed to a photosensitive device capable of detecting visible and infrared electromagnetic radiation. Petitioner filed a petition for IPR challenging the patentability of several claims. Prior to the IPR, patent owner had asserted the patent against petitioner at the ITC and in district court. The ITC investigation was ongoing, but, as is customary, the district court case was stayed pending the conclusion of the ITC investigation. Patent owner argued in the IPR that the board should deny the petition under Fintiv because institution would incur significant inefficiencies and risk inconsistent outcomes. The board analyzed each of the six Fintiv factors in turn.

The board determined that factors two, three, and five weighed in favor of discretionary denial.  In reaching that finding, the board noted that the ITC investigation had a target completion date more than three months before the statutory deadline for a final written decision in the IPR, the ITC had already completed substantial work, and the parties were the same in the IPR and the ITC investigation. Factor one—whether there is a stay in the parallel proceedings—was neutral. Although there was a stay in the district court, there was no stay for the ITC investigation. The board noted that the lack of a stay for the ITC investigation elevated the importance of factor four, which concerns overlap between issues raised in the petition and parallel proceedings.

Regarding factor four, patent owner initially argued that the validity issues presented were nearly identical at the PTAB and in the ITC. Petitioner responded by withdrawing a ground from the IPR petition that overlapped with the ITC investigation and stipulating that “if the [b]oard institutes this IPR on the two remaining applicable grounds, petitioner will not assert invalidity in parallel litigation using as primary or combination references any of the references asserted in those grounds.” The board thereafter determined that the record no longer supported that the ITC would adjudicate the invalidity grounds raised in the petition and therefore factor four weighed against discretionary denial. The board also determined that “other considerations” under factor six weighed against denial, including that the petition’s merits were strong and that the narrowing of the petition minimized the burden on the parties and the board. 

In considering the factors as a whole, the board ultimately concluded that the strength of the merits and lack of overlap in proceedings outweighed any potential inefficiencies and declined to exercise its discretion in this situation.

Practice Tip:

In light of the withdrawal of the June 21, 2022 Fintiv Memo, patent owners faced with an IPR should now consider arguing for discretionary denial under Fintiv where there is a parallel ITC investigation.  Conversely, petitioners seeking to avoid discretionary denial should consider taking steps to minimize overlap between unpatentability grounds in a petition and invalidity positions taken in parallel proceedings.


Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Sionyx, LLC, IPR2024-01431, Paper 21 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2025)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

August 11, 2025

In considering a motion to dismiss infringement claims for two related patents, the District of Massachusetts recently held that pre-suit knowledge of a “parent” patent, without more, is insufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge of the “child” patent for purposes of indirect and willful infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 8, 2025

Following a jury verdict finding trade secret misappropriation, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted-in-part a plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction to prohibit defendants from using plaintiff’s trade secrets. The district court further required defendants to reassign to plaintiff patents and patent applications that disclosed or were derived from plaintiff’s trade secrets as part of its equitable relief.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 6, 2025

In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the “entire market value rule.”

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the original ruling, the judge adopted the broader rule that IPR estoppel applies to device art that is “materially identical” to patents or printed publications that petitioners raised, or could have raised, in an IPR. Following that ruling, however, the Federal Circuit issued its Ingenico decision adopting the narrower view that IPR estoppel applies only to “grounds” based on patents and printed publications and not to device-based grounds. Citing Ingenico as a “change of law,” defendant moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling, and the court granted the motion.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 25, 2025

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Qualcomm II) raised questions about the extent to which petitioners can rely on applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in inter partes review proceedings.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. largely cabins the Qualcomm II decision to its particular facts and makes clear that AAPA can be used as evidence of background knowledge as part of an obviousness argument.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

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.