Untitled case

Case Overview and Background: IPR2025-01123

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-01123, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerns U.S. Patent No. 11,069,337. The patent, titled "System and method for predicting customer purchasing behavior," generally describes technologies for acquiring and analyzing customer purchasing data to determine patterns, select attributes, and generate models for predicting future customer purchasing behavior. The current assignee of record for Patent No. 11,069,337 is Capital One Services, LLC, a prominent operating company in the financial services industry.

The specific parties involved in IPR2025-01123, including the Petitioner and Patent Owner, are not publicly identified in readily available records. Similarly, details regarding an "accused product, service, or technology" that may have prompted the IPR are not explicitly sourced. The proceeding's status is a "Procedural Termination," indicating that the IPR concluded without a final decision on the merits of patentability. However, the precise reason for this procedural termination is not publicly available through general searches of PTAB dockets or legal news outlets.

This IPR falls within a period (2025) marked by significant shifts in PTAB discretionary denial policies under Director John Squires. During this time, the PTAB saw changes in how it evaluated petitions, including considerations of "settled expectations" regarding a patent's enforceability and a new bifurcated review process where the Director personally assumed authority over institution decisions. While the specific impact of these policies on IPR2025-01123 cannot be determined without further docket details, the general context suggests that procedural outcomes for IPRs in 2025 were heavily influenced by these evolving discretionary factors, which aimed to increase efficiency and address workload management at the PTAB.

The Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding IPR2025-01123, concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,069,337, concluded with a procedural termination. Specific details regarding the petitioner, patent owner, and the exact date of termination are not publicly available through general web searches of PTAB dockets and legal news sources.

Based on typical PTAB practice, a "procedural termination" in an IPR often occurs due to a joint request from the petitioner and patent owner, usually stemming from a settlement agreement in a parallel district court litigation or a direct agreement to resolve the IPR. The PTAB's rules allow for such terminations unless the Office has already decided the merits of the proceeding. If a settlement occurs, the parties are generally required to file a written settlement agreement with the USPTO.

While the exact sequence of events for IPR2025-01123 is not ascertainable from the available public information, the "Procedural Termination" status strongly suggests that the proceeding did not reach a final written decision on the merits of patentability. Instead, it was likely terminated prematurely by agreement of the parties, thereby concluding the IPR at the PTAB. There is no publicly available information indicating any claim construction (Markman) outcomes, discovery milestones, trial events, or appeals directly related to this specific IPR proceeding.

It is common for IPRs to be filed in parallel with district court patent infringement litigation, and a settlement in the district court case frequently leads to the termination of the associated IPR. Without specific docket information, the existence or outcome of any such parallel litigation for Patent No. 11,069,337 in connection with IPR2025-01123 cannot be confirmed. However, it is noted that a different IPR, IPR2025-00565, also concerns Patent No. 11,069,337, with Amazon as the petitioner and Soundclear Technologies LLC as the patent owner, and an oral argument date was set for it as of May 19, 2026. This indicates active challenges against the patent, but the status of IPR2025-01123 remains a procedural termination.

I am unable to identify the specific counsel of record for the plaintiff(s) (Patent Owner in the IPR context) in IPR2025-01123. Searches for the parties involved in this particular IPR proceeding did not yield the names of either the Petitioner or the Patent Owner. Without identifying the Patent Owner, it is not possible to determine their counsel. Due to the "Procedural Termination" status, detailed information about counsel might not be publicly available through general searches.

The counsel of record representing the Patent Owner (analogous to the defendant) in IPR2025-01123 could not be definitively identified through public web searches.

While multiple search attempts were made using the IPR case number and patent number (11069337) against public databases and legal news sources, specific docket entries identifying the Patent Owner and their legal representation for IPR2025-01123 were not found. The search results provided general information about PTAB procedures and referenced other IPR cases from the same year (e.g., IPR2025-01122, IPR2025-01124), but not the specific details for IPR2025-01123.

Given the "procedural termination" status of the case, it is possible that the proceeding concluded at an early stage, such as before institution or via withdrawal, which can result in less public documentation regarding the involved parties and their counsel being readily accessible through standard web searches without direct access to the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) and specific case documents.