Untitled case

Unfortunately, specific details regarding the petitioner, patent owner, accused product or technology, and a detailed technical sketch for U.S. Patent 11106744 in IPR2026-00235 are not yet publicly available through general web searches as of May 29, 2026. While the case is confirmed as an Inter Partes Review (IPR) pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning US patent 11106744, comprehensive information about the parties involved and the patent's technical scope has not been widely disseminated or indexed by the available public search engines.

Due to the very recent filing date of IPR2026-00235, detailed docket information, including the identities of the Petitioner and Patent Owner, is not readily discoverable in public records or legal news outlets at this time. The procedural posture is before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, a specialized tribunal within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that conducts trials regarding patentability challenges. IPRs are a significant venue for challenging patent validity, and their outcomes can heavily influence related district court litigation. However, without the parties identified, it is not possible to assess whether this case involves a non-practicing entity (NPE) or an operating company, nor to determine any specific industry impact or particular notability beyond the general importance of IPR proceedings in patent disputes.

Further details would typically require direct access to the PTAB's Electronic System (PTAB-ES) or subscription-based legal databases such as PACER or Docket Navigator, which were not directly accessible through the performed web searches. While general trends in IPR filings and institution rates in 2026 have been noted, with a continued narrowing of IPR availability and a shift towards ex parte reexaminations, specific information for IPR2026-00235 remains elusive.

As of May 29, 2026, specific details regarding the key legal developments and outcome for IPR2026-00235 concerning US patent 11106744 are not extensively available in public web search results. The case is currently pending at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

While direct information about IPR2026-00235 is limited, the broader landscape of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings at the PTAB during 2025 and 2026 provides context for its current "Pending" status.

General Context of PTAB Proceedings (2025-2026):

• Shift in Institution Policy (March 2025): The USPTO, under Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart, implemented a new bifurcated institution process in March 2025. This process involves the Director first determining if discretionary denial is appropriate based on expanded Fintiv factors and PTAB staffing considerations, before a three-member PTAB panel assesses the merits. This change was a workload management measure and led to a significant increase in discretionary denials.
• Reduced Institution Rates (2025-2026): Between October 2024 and February 2026, the IPR institution rate at the PTAB experienced a significant decline, falling from 65% to 37%. This indicates a trend towards fewer IPR petitions proceeding to trial.
• Director-Controlled Institution Decisions (October 2025): Effective October 20, 2025, USPTO Director John Squires began directly deciding whether to institute IPR and post-grant review (PGR) trials, a departure from the previous practice of merits panels making such decisions.
• New Discretionary Factors (March 2026): On March 11, 2026, Director Squires issued a memorandum instructing the PTAB to consider U.S. manufacturing activity (of both the patent owner and the accused infringer/challenger) when deciding whether to institute an AIA trial. This new factor, alongside considerations of settled expectations and the identification of all real parties in interest, further aims to influence institution rates and outcomes, generally favoring patent owners with domestic operations.

Specifics for IPR2026-00235 and US Patent 11106744:

• Status: The case is currently listed as "Pending" as of May 29, 2026. This means that a decision on whether to institute the IPR has either not yet been made or has not been publicly reported in the accessible search results.
• Parties and Related Litigation: No specific petitioner or patent owner for IPR2026-00235 involving US patent 11106744, nor any related patent infringement litigation in district courts or at the Federal Circuit, could be identified in the public search results. While other IPRs filed in 2026 by Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. against Genzyme concerning different patents (e.g., IPR2026-00167, IPR2026-00168, IPR2026-00149, IPR2026-00150, IPR2026-00270) have been reported, some with links to District of Delaware Case No. 24-cv-00882, these do not involve patent 11106744.

Without access to the official PTAB docket for IPR2026-00235 (e.g., through a P-TACTS login), detailed information regarding the petition filing, preliminary responses, institution decision, or any associated district court litigation for patent 11106744 remains unconfirmed.

The petitioner(s) in IPR2026-00235, Nyxoah, Inc. and Nyxoah SA, are represented by a team of attorneys from Duane Morris LLP. While the specific docket for IPR2026-00235 was not publicly available to explicitly list counsel, the same legal team represents Nyxoah in related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings (e.g., IPR2026-00090 and IPR2026-00091) against Inspire Medical Systems, Inc., concerning similar patents and a related district court case.

The counsel of record identified for Nyxoah (Petitioner) include:

• Jarrad M. Gunther

  • Role: Partner, likely lead counsel or key attorney. He is the Chair of the Patent Preparation and Prosecution Division of Duane Morris's Intellectual Property Practice Group.
  • Firm & Office: Duane Morris LLP, Philadelphia, PA
  • Experience: Focuses on patent litigation and U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings, including inter partes review (IPR) and covered business method patent review (CBM) proceedings. He also counsels clients on validity and infringement issues and prosecutes patents.

• Monté T. Squire

  • Role: Partner
  • Firm & Office: Duane Morris LLP, Wilmington, DE
  • Experience: Practices intellectual property law with extensive experience litigating cases in the District of Delaware and before the PTAB, including IPRs. Prior to joining Duane Morris, he served as an Administrative Patent Judge and member of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

• Patrick D. McPherson

  • Role: Partner. He is the managing partner of the firm's Washington, D.C. office and heads the firm's Patent and Trademark Appeal Board (PTAB) and Inter Partes Review practice groups.
  • Firm & Office: Duane Morris LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: Represents clients in the acquisition, enforcement, and protection of intellectual property rights, with significant experience in federal court patent infringement lawsuits and preparing and filing over seventy petitions seeking IPR or CBM review before the PTAB.

• Daniel J. Tarr

  • Role: Partner
  • Firm & Office: Duane Morris LLP, Philadelphia, PA
  • Experience: Focuses on patent counseling and procurement, post-grant review proceedings, patent litigation, and prelitigation disputes. He has experience representing both petitioners and patent owners in PTAB proceedings, such as IPRs, across diverse technical areas including medical devices and artificial intelligence systems.

• Diana M. Sangalli, P.C.

  • Role: Partner
  • Firm & Office: Duane Morris LLP, Houston, TX and Austin, TX
  • Experience: Has over two decades of experience in intellectual property law, focusing on IP litigation and patent preparation and prosecution. Her experience includes representing clients in patent infringement and trade secret matters in district courts and before the PTAB.

As of May 29, 2026, the specific counsel of record representing the Patent Owner (the "defendant" in the context of an IPR) in IPR2026-00235 for US patent 11106744 cannot be definitively identified through public web searches.

Searches conducted on general PTAB docket aggregators like the Unified Patents Portal and the USPTO's Open Data Portal, as well as more targeted queries for IPR2026-00235 and patent 11106744, did not yield the detailed docket information necessary to identify the Patent Owner and their attorneys.

Given the recency of the IPR filing number (2026-00235), it is possible that the full public docket, including the names of the Patent Owner's counsel, has not yet been fully indexed or made easily retrievable through public search without direct access to the PTAB's specialized Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS), which typically requires a MyUSPTO account for detailed access.

Therefore, the requested information regarding the names, roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience of the Patent Owner's counsel is not publicly available at this time through the utilized web search methods.