PTAB Denies IPR Based on Patent Age and Settled Expectations

In a recent decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings requested by Sandisk Technologies, Inc. and Western Digital Technologies, Inc. against Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC. The denial was issued under the Board’s discretionary authority pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), signaling the continuing relevance of equitable considerations in post-grant proceedings.

The Patent Owner, Polaris PowerLED, argued that institution should be denied on discretionary grounds. The Board agreed, finding that while some factors weighed against denial, such as the stay of parallel district court litigation, other factors favored it more strongly. In particular, the PTAB emphasized that the challenged patents had been in force for approximately nine to twelve years, creating “strong settled expectations” of validity. The petitioners failed to offer a compelling reason why IPR review was still warranted in light of that history.

Citing Dabico Airport Sols. Inc. v. AXA Power ApS, IPR2025-00408, the Board underscored the importance of protecting settled expectations when patents have been in force for a significant period without challenge. In the absence of any persuasive justification for reopening validity, the Office was “disinclined to disturb” the longstanding rights of the patent owner.

This decision adds to a growing line of cases where the PTAB exercises its discretion to deny institution, particularly when the equities weigh against disturbing older patents or where parallel litigation no longer provides a rationale for PTAB review. While factors such as the Fintiv framework continue to dominate discretionary denial discourse, this case is a reminder that longevity of patent rights and lack of compelling rationale for review can independently justify denial.

Practitioners should remain mindful that even strong merits may not guarantee institution if the surrounding circumstances—including patent age, litigation posture, and strategic delay—support denial under § 314(a).

About Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP

Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP is a nationally-recognized boutique law firm known for its sophisticated legal counsel and strategic litigation services. With a strong presence in both intellectual property prosecution and litigation, PKH serves clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies to emerging start-ups. The firm’s commitment to excellence, innovation, and results has established it as a leader in delivering legal solutions across industries.