Two recent memoranda from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) have sought to clarify the factors by which boards will evaluate discretionary denial under Fintiv. This guidance follows the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) rescission of its earlier June 2022 guidance regarding Fintiv. This post explores the new memoranda and their effect on discretionary denial before the PTAB.
美国专利审判和上诉委员会（PTAB，或简称委员会）最近发布的两份备忘录，试图阐明委员会将依据哪些因素来评估基于Fintiv规则的酌情驳回情况。这份指导意见是在美国专利商标局（USPTO）撤回其于2022年6月发布的关于Fintiv规则的早期指导意见之后出台的。本文将探讨这两份新备忘录及其对PTAB酌情驳回案件的影响。
1. Fintiv规则和酌情驳回的介绍
The America Invents Act (AIA) established the inter partes review (IPR) procedure as a mechanism for challenging patent validity before the PTAB. The PTAB maintains discretion, however, to deny institution of IPR proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which has resulted in significant uncertainty for IPR petitioners.
《美国发明法案》（AIA）确立了双方当事人之间的多方复审程序（IPR），作为在PTAB面前对专利有效性提出质疑的一种机制。然而，根据美国法典第35编第314（a）条，PTAB保留决定是否启动双方当事人之间的IPR程序的自由裁量权，这给IPR程序的请求人带来了很大的不确定性。
In Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019 (Mar. 20, 2020), the PTAB articulated a multifactor test for determining whether to deny an IPR petition when a parallel district court case was pending. The six factors the PTAB evaluates in Fintiv include:
在“苹果公司诉Fintiv公司”案（案号IPR2020-00019，2020年3月20日）中，PTAB明确了一套多因素测试标准，用于在平行的地区法院案件尚在审理中时，决定是否驳回一项双方当事人之间的IPR程序请求。PTAB在Fintiv案中评估的六个因素包括：
①法院是否批准了中止诉讼，或者是否有证据表明如果启动相关程序，中止诉讼有可能会被批准；
②地区法院的审判日期与PTAB预计的作出最终书面裁决的法定期限的接近程度；
③地区法院以及各方当事人在平行诉讼程序中的投入情况；
④在IPR程序请求中提出的问题与在平行诉讼程序中提出的问题之间的重叠程度；
⑤在平行诉讼程序中，IPR程序的请求人与被告是否为同一方当事人；
⑥包括案情在内的其他会影响PTAB自由裁量权行使的情形。
Petitioners argue that the six Fintiv factors support institution, while patent owners advocate for denial. Since its introduction, Fintiv has posed challenges for petitioners dealing with imminent trial dates, and the PTAB's use of Fintiv had been criticized as uneven.
IPR程序的请求人认为，Fintiv的六个因素支持启动该程序，而专利所有人则主张驳回请求。自Fintiv规则提出以来，它给那些面临临近审判日期的请求人带来了挑战，并且PTAB对Fintiv规则的运用也因缺乏一致性而受到批评。
In response to the unpredictability surrounding Fintiv denials, former USPTO Director Kathi Vidal issued a memorandum in June 2022 clarifying that the PTAB would not discretionarily deny institution when petitioners agreed to a broad Sotera stipulation (foregoing invalidity arguments in district court that could have been raised in an IPR) or when the petition presented a "compelling unpatentability challenge."
为应对围绕Fintiv规则驳回决定所存在的不可预测性问题，USPTO前局长Kathi Vidal于2022年6月发布了一份备忘录，其中阐明，当IPR程序请求人同意一项宽泛的Sotera约定（即放弃在地区法院提出那些本可在双方当事人之间的IPR程序中提出的专利无效论据）时，或者当IPR请求提出了“令人信服的专利不可授予性质疑”时，PTAB将不会酌情驳回IPR程序的启动申请。
The June 2022 guidance served to curtail the use of Fintiv-based discretionary denials and to resolve some of the uncertainties surrounding institution.
2022年6月的这份指导意见旨在限制基于Fintiv规则的酌情驳回的使用，并消除一些围绕IPR程序启动问题的不确定性。
2.撤销Vidal备忘录以及不确定性的回归
On Feb. 28, 2025, the USPTO rescinded the 2022 Fintiv memorandum, effectively reinstating the broader discretionary framework of the early Fintiv era. The rescission rendered the June 2022 memorandum no longer binding or persuasive, and petitioners must again navigate the original six-factor Fintiv test without the bright-line rules previously afforded to parties to post-grant proceedings.
2025年2月28日，USPTO撤销了2022年关于Fintiv规则的备忘录，这实际上恢复了Fintiv规则早期更为宽泛的自由裁量框架。该撤销决定使得2022年6月的备忘录不再具有约束力或说服力，并且IPR程序的请求人必须再次依据最初的Fintiv六因素测试标准来进行应对，而不再有先前给予专利授予后程序各方的明确规则可依循。
The PTAB now has wider latitude to deny IPR petitions based on Fintiv considerations, even if a petitioner offers a Sotera stipulation or presents strong invalidity arguments. This rollback renewed unpredictability in the IPR process.
PTAB现在拥有更广泛的自由裁量权，可以基于Fintiv规则的考量因素驳回双方当事人之间的IPR程序请求，即便请求人提供了Sotera约定，或者提出了有力的专利无效论据。这种倒退使得IPR程序再次充满了不确定性。
3. 新备忘录
(1) Chief Judge Boalick's Memo Further Reinforces Discretionary Denials
Boalick首席法官的备忘录进一步强化了酌情驳回权
On March 24, 2025, Chief Administrative Patent Judge Scott R. Boalick issued a memorandum reinforcing the PTAB's discretionary denial authority by reaffirming the Fintiv factors. The memorandum signaled a return to broader PTAB discretion when deciding whether to institute proceedings.
2025年3月24日，专利行政首席法官Scott R. Boalick发布了一份备忘录，通过重申Fintiv因素来强化PTAB的酌情驳回权。该备忘录标志着PTAB在决定是否启动程序时，重新拥有了更广泛的自由裁量权。
First, the memorandum states that a Sotera stipulation, which had previously been dispositive of the discretionary denial question, "is highly relevant, but will not be dispositive by itself."
首先，该备忘录指出，此前对于酌情驳回问题具有决定性作用的Sotera约定“极为相关，但本身并不能起决定性作用”。
Second, the memorandum states that the six Fintiv factors "considered in the exercise of discretion are part of a balanced assessment of all the relevant circumstances in the case, including the strength of the merits." Whereas the previous guidance put "compelling merits" at the forefront of the Fintiv analysis, the memorandum states that "compelling merits alone is not dispositive in making the assessment."
其次，该备忘录指出，“在行使自由裁量权时所考量的Fintiv六因素，是对案件中所有相关情况进行综合评估的一部分，其中包括案件实体方面的优势”。先前的指导意见将“极具说服力的案件实体优势”置于Fintiv分析的首要位置，而该备忘录则称，“仅靠极具说服力的案件实体优势，在进行评估时并不具有决定性作用”。
Third, the memorandum restores the PTAB's ability to defer to district court and International Trade Commission (ITC) schedules, making trial proximity a more significant factor in discretionary denials. It also states, however, that the PTAB will consider any evidence related to the trial date at the district court (or target date for the ITC's final determination). Such evidence includes median time-to-trial date statistics, which indicates that the PTAB will account for the likelihood that trial dates will move.
第三，该备忘录恢复了PTAB尊重地区法院和国际贸易委员会（ITC）日程安排的权力，这使得审判时间接近性成为酌情驳回决定中一个更为重要的因素。不过，备忘录也指出，PTAB会考虑与地区法院审判日期（或ITC最终裁决的目标日期）相关的任何证据。此类证据包括平均审判准备时长统计数据，这表明PTAB会考虑到审判日期可能变动的情况。
Fourth, the Feb. 28, 2025 rescission memorandum applies to any petition that has not yet reached an institution decision.
第四，2025年2月28日的撤销备忘录适用于任何尚未作出启动IPR程序决定的申请。
(2) Acting USPTO Director Stewart's New PTAB Workload Management Memo
USPTO代理局长Stewart关于PTAB工作量管理的新备忘录
Just two days later, on March 26, 2025, acting USPTO Director Coke M. Stewart issued a new memorandum outlining interim procedures for the PTAB when handling IPR and post-grant review (PGR) petitions. This memorandum introduces new briefing procedures for discretionary denials:
仅仅两天之后，即2025年3月26日，USPTO代理局长Coke M. Stewart发布了一份新的备忘录，概述了PTAB在处理双方当事人之间的多方复审程序（IPR）和授权后复审程序（PGR）申请时的临时程序。这份备忘录引入了针对酌情驳回的新的陈述程序：
①专利所有人可在收到PTAB关于IPR申请已提交的通知后的两个月内，提交一份关于酌情驳回的陈述书；
②IPR程序请求人可在专利所有人提交陈述书后的一个月内提交一份反对意见；
③酌情驳回陈述书的字数限制设定为14000字，支持性答复的字数限制为5600字。见《美国联邦法规汇编》第37编第42.24条。
Additionally, the March 26, 2025 memorandum establishes a novel bifurcated approach to institution decisions:
此外，2025年3月26日的备忘录确立了一种全新的分两阶段做出启动决定的方法：
Step 1: The USPTO Director, in consultation with at least three PTAB judges, will determine whether discretionary denial is appropriate based on existing Fintiv factors and other policy considerations.
第一步：USPTO局长将与至少三名PTAB的法官协商，根据现有的Fintiv因素以及其他政策考量因素，来判定酌情驳回是否恰当。
Step 2: If discretionary denial is not appropriate, then the case proceeds to a three-member PTAB panel, which will then assess the petition's merits and other nondiscretionary statutory considerations in deciding on institution.
第二步：如果酌情驳回不恰当，那么该案件将交由一个由三名成员组成的PTAB小组处理，该小组随后将评估该IPR申请的实体内容以及其他非自由裁量的法定考量因素，以决定是否启动IPR程序。
According to Stewart, this new process aims to balance PTAB's statutory obligations to review ex parte appeals while managing its IPR and PGR caseload more efficiently.
据Stewart称，这一新流程旨在平衡PTAB在审查单方上诉方面的法定职责，同时更高效地管理其双方当事人之间的IPR程序和PGR程序案件量。
4.要点总结及未来的战略考量
The rescission of the June 2022 memorandum marks a return to greater discretionary flexibility in PTAB institution decisions and revives the challenges that petitioners faced in the early Fintiv era. As a result of recent developments, petitioners should consider the following strategies moving forward:
2022年6月备忘录的撤销标志着PTAB在决定是否启动IPR程序方面重新恢复了更大的自由裁量灵活性，同时也让IPR程序请求人在Fintiv规则早期所面临的挑战再次出现。鉴于近期的这些变化，IPR程序请求人在未来应考虑以下策略：
①尽早提交申请。这样做将最大限度地降低因审判时间安排而导致酌情驳回的风险；
②评估约定策略。尽管Sotera约定不再是“避风港”，但它仍可能有助于减少因程序重叠而导致的驳回情况；
③强调申请的实质内容。有力的专利无效质疑仍可能成为反对驳回的依据；
④调整程序预期。专利所有人应积极主动地提交关于酌情驳回的陈述书，而IPR程序请求人则应做好回应的准备；
-
Engage with the New Briefing Process. Parties should consider discussing the factors enumerated in General Plastic and Advanced Bionics, in addition to the Fintiv factors, as well as the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019).
⑤参与新的陈述程序。除了Fintiv因素之外，各方当事人还应考虑讨论“General Plastic公司案”和“Advanced Bionics公司案”中列举的因素，以及《合并审判实践指南》（2019年11月版）中的相关内容。
In sum, Fintiv's reinstated influence alongside Stewart's new guidance means that petitioners and patent owners alike face renewed uncertainty in how the PTAB will apply the discretionary denial factors in IPR proceedings. Practitioners should closely monitor how the PTAB applies these changes to develop informed and effective strategies for both IPR and PGR proceedings.
总之，Fintiv规则影响力的恢复以及Stewart发布的新指导意见意味着，无论是IPR程序请求人还是专利所有人，都再次面临着PTAB在双方当事人之间的IPR程序中如何应用酌情驳回因素的不确定性。法律从业者应密切关注PTAB如何实施这些变化，以便为双方当事人之间的IPR和PGR程序制定出明智且有效的策略。