August 6, 2025
Authored and Edited by P. Michael Nielsen; Jameson K. Gardner, Ph.D.; Forrest A. Jones
In Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Concurrent Ventures, LLC, IPR2025-00486, Paper 9 (PTAB July 17, 2025), USPTO Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart incorporated by reference an earlier referral in Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., v. Concurrent Ventures LLC, IPR2025-00479, Paper 10 (PTAB Jul. 10, 2025). That case, and subsequently this one, were referred because ongoing district court litigation had stalled and the patent owner had not yet developed strong settled expectations.
Pointing to an earlier IPR involving the same parties—IPR2025-00479—the Acting Director explained that this later decision involved “the same discretionary considerations” as the earlier proceeding. This later decision is noteworthy in that the reasoning for referral to the board is not explicitly given. Instead, the opinion incorporates by reference the earlier decision’s reasoning stating “[t]his proceeding presents the same discretionary considerations as those presented in IPR2025-00479.” The Director has used this same procedure to handle other, later filed IPRs facing similar facts.[1]
This decision illustrates that when undertaking multiple related IPRs both patent owners and petitioners should make their best arguments and highlight their most favorable discretionary considerations in the first IPR since the discretionary denial reasoning for that first IPR may be adopted in subsequent related IPRs.
[1] See, e.g., Sportradar AG v. SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive), IPR2025-00634, -00635, Paper 16 (PTAB Jul. 24, 2025; Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company, Interstate Power & Light Company, MidAmerican Energy Company, PacifiCorp, WEC Energy Group, Inc., and Wisconsin Power & Light Company v. Birchtech Corp. IPR2025-00422-00423 (PTAB Jul. 17, 2025); Coretronic Corporation and Optoma Corporation v. Maxell, Ltd. IPR2025-00475 (PTAB Jul. 17, 2025); Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Barco N.V. IPR2025-00597, IPR2025-00598 (PTAB Jul. 17, 2025).
Copyright © 2025 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
At the PTAB Blog
IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026
May 26, 2026
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.