PTAB Precedential Decision: Compelling Merits Assessment Not at Play Unless Fintiv Factors 1-5 Favor Discretionary Denial

April 7, 2023

Reading Time : 3 min

USPTO Director Katherine Vidal recently issued a precedential decision making clear that the PTAB must first determine whether Fintiv factors 1-5 favor discretionary denial of a petition before considering whether the unpatentability challenge satisfies the compelling-merits standard. This decision further clarifies certain instructions set forth in a June 21, 2022, USPTO Memorandum titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceeding with Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Guidance Memo”).

In this case, the Board instituted inter partes review of a patent disclosing a distributed antenna system that assigns subsets of radio resources. In its decision, the Board declined to exercise its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution. The Board explained that its refusal was based on the petition satisfying the compelling-merits standard for institution. This consideration is reflected in Fintiv factor 6. To support its determination, the Board pointed to the analysis earlier in its decision regarding each of the petitioner’s asserted grounds. The Board did not address any of the other Fintiv factors, relying on an instruction in the Guidance Memo stating that when the PTAB “determines that the information presented at the institution stage presents a compelling unpatentability challenge, that determination alone demonstrates that the PTAB should not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv.” The Director then ordered sua sponte review of the Board’s institution decision.

Director review was initiated to address how the Board arrived at its compelling-merits conclusion and the sufficiency of its reasoning. To begin, the Director recognized that the Guidance Memo’s instruction could be read to allow the PTAB to substitute a compelling-merits determination for a Fintiv analysis. But, as the Director explained, that was not her intention. Rather, the intended procedure was for the PTAB to first analyze Fintiv factors 1-5 before considering whether the petition meets the compelling-merits standard. The Director clarified that the PTAB shall apply the compelling-merits standard if its analysis of the other Fintiv factors favor discretionary denial. Here, the Board had skipped the first five factors altogether.

Citing her October 4, 2022, precedential OpenSky decision (summarized here), the Director reiterated that the compelling-merits standard is higher than the reasonable likelihood standard for IPR institution, and the PTAB must provide sufficient reasoning for its determination. The Board in this case had merely pointed to its analysis under the lower institution threshold to demonstrate that the petition had satisfied the compelling-merits standard. The Director found that to be insufficient. Therefore, she vacated the Board’s institution decision and remanded the proceeding for the Board to revisit its Fintiv analysis and reasoning in view of the Director’s guidance.

On remand, the Board updated its institution decision to include a 25-page analysis of its findings with respect to each of the Fintiv factors. The Board began by explaining that factor 1 was neutral while factors 2-5 favored or somewhat favored discretionary denial. Because the Board found that the first five Fintiv factors favored denial, it then assessed whether the petition met the compelling-merits requirement for institution. In its assessment, the Board explained that the petitioner had set forth a compelling unpatentability challenge to claim 1 under Ground 1. The Board detailed how it determined limitation-by-limitation that it was highly likely that the petitioner would prevail in its challenge.

Practice Tips: The Director has made clear that the PTAB shall not apply the compelling-merits standard for institution if Fintiv factors 1-5 do not favor discretionary denial. And if the PTAB reaches the compelling-merits question, it must then sufficiently explain the reasoning for its determination. Petitioners should expect to receive a more thorough assessment of all six factors in institution decisions as panels comply with the Director’s Guidance Memo and recent precedential decisions. This case serves as a reminder that Fintiv remains an important consideration in whether panels institute review, and parties should consider carefully the extent to which they argue the Fintiv factors in their papers moving forward.

CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v. Dali Wireless, Inc., IPR2022-01242, Paper 23 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2023); CommScope Technologies LLC et al v. Dali Wireless, Inc., IPR2022-01242, Paper 24 (PTAB Mar. 17, 2023).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

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

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

© 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.