Judge Profile

Coke Morgan Stewart

15 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.

Cases Presided Over

15 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1

patent

Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC

· IPR2024-00772

The Director granted review in multiple IPRs involving Texas Instruments and Greenthread, vacating the FWDs. The cases are remanded to allow discovery on privity issues across related proceedings.

patent denied

Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC

· IPR2024-01252

The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Hulu against Piranha, citing a prior district court ruling that the patent claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

patent denied

Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC

· IPR2024-01253

The PTAB granted Director Review and denied institution of IPR for Hulu against Piranha Media. The denial was based on a prior district court finding that the challenged patent claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

patent

POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL

· IPR2024-01376

The Director denied review requests in the POSCO v. ArcelorMittal IPR proceedings and remanded the case to the PTAB to manage multiple parallel petitions.

patent

POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL

· IPR2024-01377

The Director denied review of institution decisions in the POSCO v. ArcelorMittal IPRs and remanded the case to the PTAB to manage multiple parallel challenges.

patent denied

Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01400

The Director denied institution of IPR for Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. against Klein Tools, citing the Fintiv factors and the parallel ITC investigation.

patent denied

Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01401

The Director denied the Inter Partes Review (IPR) for Klein Tools against Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation, vacating the prior decision to grant institution. The denial was based on a holistic review of Fintiv factors favoring system efficiency.

patent denied

Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.

· IPR2024-01463

The Director denied institution of Inter Partes Review in a dispute between Solus Advanced Materials and SK Nexilis, citing the Fintiv holistic assessment.

patent denied

TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00120

The Director vacated the institution decision in a dispute involving TCL and Maxell, denying the IPR based on an error in weighing discretionary factors. The denial relates to patent 10375341.

patent denied

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development

· IPR2025-00188

The Director denied the institution of an Inter Partes Review in a Cisco Systems case, vacating the initial decision. The denial was based on procedural efficiency due to the proximity of a parallel district court trial.

patent denied

Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.

· IPR2025-00298

The Director denied institution of an IPR in the Tessell v. Nutanix case, citing administrative inefficiency because the petitioner includes nearly all inventors of the challenged patent.

patent instituted

Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association

· IPR2025-01356

Institution of inter partes review (IPR2025-01356) was granted after a merits review, confirming the petitioner's reasonable likelihood of prevailing.

patent denied

Docker Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

· IPR2025-00840

The USPTO Board denied the institution of IPR2025-00840, favoring Intellectual Ventures II LLC's request for discretionary denial. The decision cited parallel district court and IPR proceedings as reasons to conserve resources.

patent

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00057

The Director granted review and vacated the denial of institution in an Amazon v. B.S.D. Crown IPR, remanding the case for further proceedings to resolve a disputed claim term.

patent denied

Coretronic Corporation et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-00941

The Director denied institution of the IPR against Maxell's patent 7159988, citing settled expectations and potential duplication with a parallel district court case.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Facing a similar IP matter?

Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.

Consult our team →