Untitled case

Case Overview and Background: IPR2025-00016

This case, IPR2025-00016, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,876,108. While the provided search results confirm the existence and the general procedural landscape of IPRs in 2025 and 2026, specific details regarding the petitioner, patent owner, and any accused products directly associated with IPR2025-00016 are not readily available in the publicly accessible snippets. The case has reached a Final Written Decision, indicating that the PTAB has issued a final ruling on the patentability of the challenged claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,876,108's technical details, such as its abstract or a concise technical sketch, could not be found directly within the provided search results. This information would typically describe the invention covered by the patent, including its primary function or innovative aspects. Without access to the patent document itself, or specific database entries, a precise technical overview remains unavailable.

The procedural posture of this case is before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), an administrative body within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The PTAB conducts trials, such as IPRs, to review the patentability of claims in an issued patent. IPRs are a significant venue in patent litigation because they offer an alternative, often faster, and less expensive mechanism than district court litigation to challenge patent validity based on prior art patents or printed publications. The PTAB's decisions can significantly impact parallel district court infringement cases, as a patent found unpatentable in an IPR can effectively end an infringement claim. The PTAB's discretionary denial framework, which was a significant topic in 2025 and 2026, can also play a crucial role in whether a petition is even instituted, considering factors like parallel litigation, "settled expectations" based on patent age, and inconsistencies in claim construction arguments. The PTAB's role as a parallel forum for validity challenges makes its decisions and operational policies particularly notable in the broader patent litigation landscape.

The PTAB case IPR2025-00016, involving US patent 10876108, has reached a Final Written Decision. However, specific details regarding the petitioners, patent owners, a detailed chronological docket of events, and the precise outcome of the Final Written Decision for this particular case are not publicly available through general web searches.

While the general process for an Inter Partes Review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is well-defined, the specific procedural history for IPR2025-00016 could not be located in publicly accessible databases.

General IPR Process and Potential Milestones (not specific to IPR2025-00016):

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings: An IPR proceeding begins with a third party (Petitioner) filing a petition challenging the patentability of one or more claims in a patent. This typically occurs after 9 months of the patent's grant or reissue. The patent owner may then file a preliminary response to the petition.
2. Institution Decision: The PTAB decides whether to institute the IPR. Institution requires a showing that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. This decision typically occurs within three months of the petition filing. The Director of the USPTO has discretion in instituting IPRs, considering factors such as "settled expectations" of the patent owner, particularly for older patents, and parallel litigation in district courts (Fintiv factors).
3. Claim Construction: In IPRs, the PTAB construes claims using the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and prosecution history, or, for patents challenged in district court, may use the Phillips standard. Issues can arise if petitioners take inconsistent claim construction positions in district court and before the PTAB.
4. Discovery: Discovery in IPRs is generally limited compared to district court litigation.
5. Trial Phase & Final Written Decision (FWD): If the IPR is instituted, the case proceeds to a trial phase where both parties present arguments and evidence, including prior art. An oral hearing may be held. The PTAB is mandated to issue a Final Written Decision (FWD) within one year of institution, which can be extended by six months for good cause. The FWD determines the patentability of the challenged claims.
6. Post-Trial Motions & Appeal: After a Final Written Decision, parties may request rehearing by the PTAB. Decisions of the PTAB in IPRs can be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

As of the current date (2026-06-16), information directly detailing the parties, institution date, or the specific findings of the Final Written Decision for IPR2025-00016 on patent 10876108 is not available in the public search results. While general information about PTAB decisions is tracked, a specific listing for IPR2025-00016 with its full history could not be found.

This case, IPR2025-00016, is an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a patent infringement case. In IPR proceedings, there is a "Petitioner" who challenges the patent and a "Patent Owner" who defends it. The user's request for "plaintiff(s)" counsel is therefore interpreted as a request for counsel representing the Petitioner.

The provided case information, IPR2025-00016, refers to an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a patent infringement case. In IPRs, the party challenging the patent is the "Petitioner," and the party defending the patent is the "Patent Owner." Therefore, the request for "plaintiff(s)" counsel is interpreted as counsel for the Petitioner.

Without direct docket access for IPR2025-00016, identifying the specific Petitioner and their counsel can be challenging. However, publicly available information often refers to IPRs in general terms or provides examples from other IPRs in the same series or from the same time period.

Based on general PTAB practice and information about IPRs from 2025-2026, here are potential firms and attorneys frequently involved in IPR petitioner representation:

While the specific petitioner and counsel for IPR2025-00016 are not directly identified in the search results, several firms are consistently active and highly regarded in representing petitioners in PTAB proceedings. These firms often have attorneys with extensive patent litigation and PTAB experience.

Commonly active firms in PTAB IPRs include:

• Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP: This firm is frequently seen representing petitioners in IPRs. For instance, in IPR2025-00820, a "Petitioner's Updated Mandatory Notices" filing lists several Finnegan attorneys as counsel for Petitioner ClearCorrect Operating, LLC.
  • Charles Collins-Chase: Lead Counsel, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC. He is listed as lead counsel for Petitioner ClearCorrect Operating, LLC in IPR2025-00820.
  • Luke McCammon: Back-Up Counsel, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC. He is listed as back-up counsel for Petitioner ClearCorrect Operating, LLC in IPR2025-00820.
  • Melanie Magdun: Back-Up Counsel, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC. She is listed as back-up counsel for Petitioner ClearCorrect Operating, LLC in IPR2025-00820.
  • Kyle Howarth: Back-Up Counsel, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Reston, VA. He is listed as back-up counsel for Petitioner ClearCorrect Operating, LLC in IPR2025-00820.
• Knobbe Martens: This firm has a strong PTAB litigation practice, representing both patent owners and petitioners. They are known for handling complex PTAB proceedings across various industries and have a track record of successful outcomes. Their attorneys are experienced in IPR and post-grant review (PGR) matters.
• Latham & Watkins: Latham's PTAB lawyers are noted for their innovative approaches and high success rates for both patent owners and petitioners in IPR, PGR, and Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings. They leverage strong litigation, deposition, and oral advocacy skills.
• Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP: Consistently ranked among the top firms at the PTAB, Quinn Emanuel attorneys are highly experienced in IPRs, often combining litigation and PTAB experience for successful outcomes. Their expertise spans a broad range of technologies.
• Greenberg Traurig, LLP: This firm is also identified as active petitioner's counsel in PTAB cases.

To identify the specific counsel for IPR2025-00016, one would typically need access to the official PTAB P-TACTS docket system, which allows parties to submit and view filings. Without such specific access, the exact counsel cannot be definitively stated.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) case IPR2025-00016, involving US patent 10876108, has reached a Final Written Decision. In IPR proceedings, the party defending the patent is referred to as the "Patent Owner."

As of the current date (2026-06-17), specific details regarding the Patent Owner and their counsel of record for IPR2025-00016 are not publicly available through general web searches. Access to the official PTAB P-TACTS docket system would typically be required to definitively identify the parties and their legal representation.

However, based on contemporaneous IPR proceedings and general PTAB practice in 2025-2026, several law firms and attorneys are known for frequently representing patent owners in such matters. For illustrative purposes, here are examples of counsel who have represented Patent Owners in other IPRs around the same time period:

• Michael D. Specht: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC, Washington, DC
  • Note: Mr. Specht is listed as lead counsel for Patent Owner Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc. in IPR2025-00492, which involves US Patent No. 7,593,458.
• Bjorn A. Blomquist: Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm: Caldwell Cassidy & Curry, Dallas, Texas
  • Note: Mr. Blomquist is listed as back-up counsel for Patent Owner Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc. in IPR2025-00492.

Other firms frequently involved in representing Patent Owners in PTAB IPRs, based on their general activity in the patent litigation landscape, include:

• Knobbe Martens: This firm has a strong PTAB litigation practice, representing both patent owners and petitioners, and is known for handling complex PTAB proceedings.
• Latham & Watkins: Latham's PTAB lawyers are noted for their high success rates for both patent owners and petitioners in IPR, PGR, and CBM proceedings.

Without direct access to the docket for IPR2025-00016, the precise counsel of record for the Patent Owner in this specific case cannot be identified.