Untitled case

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) case, IPR2025-01084, centered on a challenge to US Patent No. 11,929,896 before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO. While the specific petitioner and patent owner for IPR2025-01084 are not explicitly detailed in publicly available summaries of this specific IPR, the case metadata indicates Wiz Inc. as a "defendant," suggesting they were likely the petitioner challenging the patent's validity in response to an infringement allegation. Wiz Inc. is a prominent Israeli-American cloud security company, founded in January 2020 and acquired by Alphabet Inc. in March 2026 for $32 billion. Their platform provides cloud visibility and helps secure computing infrastructure across major cloud providers like Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud Platform, identifying security risks, vulnerabilities, and misconfigurations. The patent at issue, US Patent No. 11,929,896, generally relates to methods and systems for securing data and computing environments, consistent with the cybersecurity domain.

The procedural posture of this case involved a challenge to patent validity before the PTAB, an administrative body within the USPTO. IPRs serve as an alternative to district court litigation for challenging patentability, aiming for an efficient review of patents based on prior art. The case's status as "settled" indicates that the parties reached an agreement outside of a full PTAB trial and final written decision. Such settlements in IPRs often occur in conjunction with settlements of parallel district court infringement cases, where a petitioner (often an accused infringer) agrees to resolve both the validity challenge and the infringement allegations.

This case is notable primarily due to Wiz Inc.'s significant standing in the technology industry and its recent acquisition by Alphabet Inc. As a rapidly growing cloud security firm, any litigation impacting its products or services, especially patent challenges, draws attention. The settlement of this IPR suggests a strategic resolution, potentially avoiding the cost and uncertainty of a full PTAB proceeding and any associated district court litigation. While the underlying district court action leading to this IPR is not specified in the available information, the involvement of a major tech player like Wiz Inc. in a patent dispute, particularly one that settled, highlights the ongoing strategic use of IPRs in the broader patent litigation landscape, often in conjunction with efforts by non-practicing entities (NPEs) or other operating companies to assert intellectual property rights.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for IPR2025-01084

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) case, IPR2025-01084, challenging US patent 11929896 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), concluded by settlement. Due to the early settlement, the proceeding did not reach the stages of an institution decision, discovery, claim construction, trial, or a final written decision.

Chronological Developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings: The specific petition filing date for IPR2025-01084 was not readily available in the conducted searches. However, IPR petitions are typically filed by a petitioner (an entity challenging the patent's validity) against a patent owner (Wiz Inc., in this case, as the defendant in the overarching context).
• Pre-trial Motions of Substance: On January 8, 2026, the parties involved in IPR2025-01084, along with parallel IPRs IPR2025-01085 and IPR2025-01087, requested authorization to file a joint motion to terminate the proceedings. This request was based on a settlement agreement reached between the parties. The PTAB granted this authorization on the same day.
• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes: Not applicable. In IPRs, the PTAB typically interprets claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard, though recent changes can involve a Phillips construction standard in certain circumstances. This case settled before such a determination was required.
• Discovery Milestones: Not applicable. Discovery in IPRs is generally limited, focusing on routine discovery and the production of evidence relevant to patentability. The case settled before any significant discovery milestones.
• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions: Not applicable. The case was resolved through settlement and termination before reaching the trial stage or requiring a final written decision.
• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal: The IPR was concluded by a settlement agreement. On January 8, 2026, the parties received authorization from the PTAB to file a joint motion to terminate the proceeding due to this settlement. This effectively ended the IPR without a decision on the merits of the patentability challenge. The settlement also encompassed parallel IPRs, IPR2025-01085 and IPR2025-01087, which suggests a broader resolution involving the same parties and potentially related patents. The official termination date would follow the filing and acceptance of the joint motion to terminate.
• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings: IPR2025-01084 was one of at least three parallel IPRs (including IPR2025-01085 and IPR2025-01087) involving the same parties that were collectively terminated due to a single settlement agreement. The settlement resolved disputes across these proceedings, indicating a comprehensive resolution strategy by the parties. These parallel proceedings were terminated by settlement before reaching an institution decision or final written decision.

The available information on IPR2025-01084 does not explicitly name the plaintiff's counsel. In an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, the party challenging the patent is the "petitioner," and the patent owner is the "respondent." Given that Wiz Inc. is listed as a "defendant" in the overarching context and the IPR was challenging patent 11929896, Wiz Inc. was likely the petitioner in this IPR.

While direct counsel information for IPR2025-01084 is not immediately available, general searches for Wiz Inc.'s patent litigation counsel and related PTAB cases provide some potential insights. It's noted that Wiz Inc. has been involved in other patent disputes, including a countersuit against Orca Security. In that context, Wiz Inc. was represented by counsel, and there were allegations made regarding Wiz Inc. hiring Orca's former patent prosecution counsel.

Without specific docket entries detailing the petitioner's counsel for IPR2025-01084, it's not possible to definitively list the attorneys and their firms. PTAB docket information, especially for settled cases, may not always be fully public or easily accessible without a direct PACER search for the specific case.

Therefore, at this time, the specific counsel of record representing the petitioner (likely Wiz Inc.) in IPR2025-01084 cannot be definitively identified from the public information readily available.

In IPR2025-01084, Wiz Inc. was the Patent Owner (the "defendant" in the overarching context of the patent challenge) and was represented by attorneys from Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

The counsel of record for Wiz Inc. included:

• Matthew A. Argenti (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Palo Alto, CA
  • Note: Matthew A. Argenti is identified as counsel for Patent Owner Wiz, Inc. in the communication regarding the joint motion to terminate the IPR proceedings. He also represented Wiz Inc. as Petitioner Counsel in IPR2025-00441 against Orca Security Ltd.

• Michael Rosato (Counsel)

  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
  • Note: Michael Rosato was listed in the CC of the email requesting authorization to terminate the IPR, indicating his involvement as counsel for Wiz Inc.

• Joseph M. Baillargeon (Counsel)

  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
  • Note: Joseph M. Baillargeon was listed in the CC of the email requesting authorization to terminate the IPR, indicating his involvement as counsel for Wiz Inc.

• Wesley Derryberry (Counsel)

  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
  • Note: Wesley Derryberry was listed in the CC of the email requesting authorization to terminate the IPR, indicating his involvement as counsel for Wiz Inc.