USPTO Withdraws Fintiv Memo on Discretionary Denials in Post-Grant Proceedings

March 4, 2025

Reading Time : 3 min

On February 28, 2025, the USPTO announced that it was rescinding former Director Vidal’s 2022 memorandum on discretionary denials by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The 2022 memorandum effectively narrowed the application of discretionary denials in cases with parallel district court litigation by specifying instances where discretionary denial could not be issued. With the withdrawal of the memorandum, individual PTAB panels will regain flexibility in weighing discretionary denials. While the long-term effect of that increased flexibility is not yet known, the immediate effect is likely to be a shift towards the discretionary analysis applied by PTAB panels before the issuance of the memorandum.

Under the America Invents Act, the Board has discretion to deny institution of post-grant proceedings, but the Act does not specify standards or guidelines for the exercise of that discretion. Before the 2022 memorandum, two precedential opinions governed the Board’s discretionary denial analysis in the face of a co-pending district court litigation. In Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020), the Board identified six nonexclusive factors for evaluating whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits supported declining an IPR in favor of a co-pending district court litigation. In Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020), the Board further established that entering a stipulation limiting the invalidity grounds the petitioner could pursue in district court would weigh strongly against denial of institution.

The 2022 memorandum established how the Board would apply Fintiv and Sotera going forward, with the stated goal of minimizing inefficiency, gamesmanship, and the risk of conflicts between PTAB and district court decisions. In particular, the 2022 memorandum explained that the Board would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv in the following circumstances:

  • When the petition presents “compelling evidence" of unpatentability;
  • When the parallel proceeding is at the International Trade Commission; and
  • When there is a stipulation that in the parallel proceeding, the petitioner will not pursue the same grounds of invalidity or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.

The 2022 memo further directed that, when the median time-to-trial for a district court case places trial around the same time or after the deadline for the PTAB’s final written decision, the Board would treat that as a factor weighing against denial. These guidelines, however, were not codified into official rules, and Director Vidal resigned in December 2024.  

The February 28, 2025 announcement rescinded Director Vidal’s 2022 memorandum, in full, without explaining the reasons for doing so, and the memorandum can no longer be found on the USPTO website. With the 2022 memo rescinded, the bulletin directs parties to Fintiv and Sotera for guidance and expressly states that decisions relying on the 2022 memo will be neither binding nor persuasive on future Board decisions. In other words, facts that were dispositive under the 2022 memo have returned to being mere factors for the Board to consider. This policy means that PTAB panels will have more flexibility in exercising their discretion to deny petitions based on co-pending litigation, but less guidance on how that discretion should be implemented.  

It is not clear whether the Board intends to issue any further guidance on discretionary denials, or whether it intends for Fintiv and Sotera to remain the final word on the subject. And it remains to be seen whether this will result in an increase in discretionary denials.

Practice Tip: The PTAB’s discretionary denial practices are back in flux, with fewer bright lines dictating outcomes, a development likely to favor patent owners over patent challengers. These practices are likely to remain in flux until a new USPTO Director is nominated and confirmed, and potentially longer. In the meantime, practitioners should look to Fintiv and Sotera and make all credible arguments in seeking or opposing discretionary denials.

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.