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

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

IP Newsflash

March 21, 2025

Under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff who prevails on a trademark infringement claim may be entitled to recover the “defendant’s profits” as damages. The Supreme Court in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. unanimously construed “defendant’s profits” in 35 USC § 1117(a) to mean that only the named defendant’s profits can be awarded, not the profits of other related corporate entities. The Court, however, left open the possibility that other language in § 1117(a) may allow for damages linked to the profits of related entities, if properly raised and supported.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 13, 2025

In a series of rulings on a motion in limine, the District of Delaware recently distinguished between what qualifies as being incorporated by reference and what does not for the purposes of an anticipation defense. In short, a parenthetical citation was held to be insufficient, while three passages discussing a cited reference met the test.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 4, 2025

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.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 3, 2025

A District of Delaware judge recently granted a defendant’s motion to include a patent prosecution bar in its proposed protective order after determining that litigation counsel’s ability to practice before the Patent Office—without ever having represented the plaintiffs at the Patent Office in the past—weighed heavily in favor of the bar.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 12, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court decision that found a patent that did not describe after-arising technology failed to satisfy the written description requirement. In so doing, the Federal Circuit explained that written description and enablement are evaluated based on the subject matter that is claimed, not the products that practice those claims. As a result, the patentee was not required to describe unclaimed, later-discovered features of the accused products despite the broad language in the claims that undisputedly covered the products.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

January 24, 2025

The District of Delaware recently rejected a patentee’s argument that non-production of an opinion letter from counsel, combined with knowledge of the patent, warranted a finding that defendant induced infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

January 17, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied a motion to dismiss a patent infringement complaint involving gene editing technology that sought relief under the Safe Harbor Provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act. Specifically, the court found the patentee’s complaint sufficiently alleged at least some uses of the claimed technology that, when taken as true, were not solely uses of a “patented invention” that were “reasonably related” to an FDA submission.

...

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.