Untitled case

This Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) case, IPR2026-00275, involves a challenge to U.S. Patent No. 11,715,457 owned by Sanas Ai Inc. (Sanas). The petitioner, Krisp Technologies, Inc. (Krisp), is likely seeking to invalidate this patent, which Sanas has asserted against Krisp in a parallel patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:25-cv-05666).

Sanas Ai Inc. is an operating company based in Palo Alto, California, known as a pioneer and market leader in real-time Speech AI platforms. Their technology focuses on accent translation, noise cancellation, speech enhancement, and language translation, aiming to improve communication for global enterprises and call centers. Krisp Technologies, Inc., based in Berkeley, California, is a competitor in the real-time speech assistance technology market, with a focus on noise cancellation software and accent conversion technology. The core of the dispute revolves around Krisp's "AI Accent Conversion" product, which Sanas alleges infringes its patented technology and was developed using confidential information stolen from Sanas after partnership discussions failed.

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 11,715,457, broadly covers aspects of accent translation and speech processing. While specific claims are not detailed in the search results, it has been described as a patent involving "gather-analyze-display" functionality in Krisp's unsuccessful Section 101 challenge in the district court, which the court determined recites "concrete technical methods" rather than abstract ideas for real-time speech modification. The procedural posture of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) before the PTAB is a specialized administrative proceeding where the patentability of claims can be challenged based on prior art patents and printed publications. This IPR is ongoing and comes after Krisp's attempt to invalidate the '457 patent, among others, under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in district court was denied in February 2026. This case is notable as it represents a vigorous intellectual property battle between two direct competitors in the rapidly growing and impactful field of AI-driven real-time speech technology. The IPR serves as a secondary front in Krisp's challenge to Sanas' foundational patents, following a district court ruling that upheld the patent eligibility of Sanas' technology. Recent changes in PTAB discretionary denial practices and limitations on parallel challenges add a layer of strategic complexity for petitioners like Krisp.

The patent infringement litigation, Sanas.AI Inc. v. Krisp Technologies Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-05666, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, involves a dispute over real-time AI-powered accent translation and speech enhancement technology. The case has seen several key legal developments since its filing.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

July 7, 2025: Complaint Filing & Initial Pleadings
Sanas.AI Inc. initiated the lawsuit by filing a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The original complaint alleged that Krisp Technologies Inc. infringed six of Sanas's U.S. patents, misappropriated trade secrets, and improperly filed patent applications using Sanas's confidential information.

September 8, 2025: Krisp's Answer and Counterclaims
Krisp Technologies Inc. filed its answer, denying Sanas's allegations. Concurrently, Krisp filed counterclaims, asserting that Sanas engaged in unfair competition by offering free noise cancellation software as an illegal "loss leader" under California's Unfair Practices Act. Krisp also disputed the inventorship of the patents at issue.

September 23, 2025: Amended Complaint by Sanas
Sanas.AI Inc. filed an amended complaint, adding new claims of infringement for two recently awarded patents, U.S. Patent Numbers 12,417,756 and 12,412,561, and including false advertising claims against Krisp.

September 29, 2025: Sanas's Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims
Sanas.AI Inc. filed a motion to dismiss Krisp's counterclaims, arguing that offering a free product to gain market share constitutes a legitimate business strategy rather than an illegal act of unfair competition.

December 1, 2025: Motion to Dismiss Trade Secret Claims Denied
The court denied a motion to dismiss Sanas's trade secret claims, concluding that the complaint sufficiently alleged the existence of protectable trade secrets and their misappropriation by Krisp.

February 23, 2026: Denial of Krisp's Section 101 Motion
Chief Judge Richard Seeborg denied Krisp's Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, which sought to invalidate five of Sanas's patents (including U.S. Patent No. 11,715,457, and U.S. Patent Nos. 12,125,550, 12,125,496, 12,417,756, and 12,412,561) under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to abstract ideas. The court found that the asserted claims recite concrete technical methods for improving speech processing technology, allowing Sanas's patent claims to proceed.

March 18, 2026: Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings Initiated
Krisp Technologies Inc. filed multiple petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of Sanas's patents:

• IPR2026-00275 was filed against U.S. Patent No. 11,715,457.
• IPR2026-00274 was filed against U.S. Patent No. 12,131,745.
• PGR2026-00032 was filed against U.S. Patent No. 12,412,561.

All these IPR and PGR petitions are currently listed as "Pending," meaning the PTAB has not yet decided whether to institute the reviews. The PTAB typically issues an institution decision within one year of a petition filing.

Present Posture:
The district court litigation is ongoing, with Sanas's patent claims, trade secret claims, and false advertising claims proceeding. The denial of Krisp's Section 101 motion was a significant victory for Sanas, allowing its patents to remain in the litigation. Meanwhile, Krisp is pursuing validity challenges at the PTAB, which could potentially impact the district court case if the PTAB decides to institute and subsequently invalidate any of the challenged patent claims. No information is available regarding claim construction (Markman) outcomes, specific discovery milestones, trial events, or a final disposition such as settlement or judgment. The case remains active in the Northern District of California.

As of May 30, 2026, the specific counsel of record representing the petitioner, Krisp Technologies Inc., in IPR2026-00275 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is not publicly available through web search.

Krisp Technologies Inc. is the petitioner in IPR2026-00275, challenging patent 11715457, which is owned by Sanas Ai Inc. While there is related district court litigation between Sanas.AI Inc. and Krisp Technologies, Inc. (Case No. 3:25-cv-05666 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California), where Kobre & Kim LLP is listed as representing Sanas.AI Inc., this information pertains to the patent owner's representation in a separate court and not the petitioner in the IPR.

Despite comprehensive searches for Krisp Technologies Inc.'s PTAB counsel, specific attorneys or firms for IPR2026-00275 could not be identified from the available public records and search results. PTAB docket information, particularly for pending cases, may require direct access to the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) for the most detailed and up-to-date representation information.

Krisp Technologies Inc. (the petitioner in IPR2026-00275 and defendant in the parallel district court case) is represented by attorneys from Perkins Coie LLP and Greenberg Traurig LLP.

Here are the details for the identified counsel:

• Gene Lee

  • Role: Lead Counsel (for IPR and likely district court)
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified in snippets, but Perkins Coie has multiple offices.
  • Relevant Experience: An experienced IP litigator who handles disputes involving patents, trade secrets, technology agreements, trademarks, and copyrights in federal courts, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). He has experience with computer systems and software, telecommunications, and AI technologies. He is also a Board Member of the PTAB Bar Association (2025-present) and served as Director and Treasurer from 2019-2023.

• Kristopher Reichlen

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified in snippets, but Greenberg Traurig has multiple offices.
  • Relevant Experience: A registered patent attorney experienced in patent application drafting and prosecution, as well as freedom-to-operate opinions for various software technologies, including networking, wireless communications, computer programming, machine learning, and artificial intelligence. He argues appeals before the PTAB regarding patent eligibility and patentability. Prior to practicing law, he was a patent examiner with the USPTO.