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

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

Read More

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

© 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.