Untitled case

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2026-00054, was filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in 2026 and concluded with a procedural termination. The specific parties involved in IPR2026-00054, including the Petitioner and Patent Owner, are not publicly available in the search results at this time. Similarly, the exact reason for the procedural termination of IPR2026-00054 could not be specifically identified from the public records. However, recent trends at the PTAB in 2026, under Director John Squires, indicate an increased use of discretionary denials for IPR petitions. These denials often stem from factors such as a petitioner taking "a second bite at the apple" after failing in parallel district court litigation, maintaining inconsistent positions between PTAB and district court proceedings, or considerations related to U.S. manufacturing activity of the patent owner or petitioner.

The patent at issue is identified as U.S. Patent No. 9,762,639. However, a detailed technical sketch of patent 9,762,639 could not be found in public patent databases, including Google Patents and the USPTO's Patent Public Search, as of the current date. This suggests that the patent number might be incorrect, or it is a very recently issued patent not yet fully indexed in these publicly accessible search tools. Without access to the patent's claims and specification, a technical description or information regarding any accused products or services cannot be provided.

The procedural posture of this case within the PTAB is notable due to the recent shift in the Board's approach to IPR institution. The USPTO, under Director Squires, has centralized IPR institution authority, making the PTAB a more patent-owner-friendly forum. This shift aims to make IPRs an alternative to district court litigation rather than a supplement for repeated validity challenges. The increasing rate of discretionary denials and the emphasis on factors beyond the mere merits of the petition, such as consistency with parallel litigation and domestic manufacturing impact, mark a significant change in the landscape of post-grant proceedings. The procedural termination of IPR2026-00054 likely reflects these evolving policies, emphasizing the PTAB's intent to deter duplicative or strategically motivated challenges.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Patent 9762639

This analysis covers the patent infringement litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 9,762,639 and a parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2026-00054.

District Court Litigation: Adeia Technologies Inc. et al v. The Walt Disney Company et al

Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Case Number: 1:24-cv-01231
Parties:

• Plaintiffs: Adeia Technologies, Inc., Adeia Guides Inc., and Adeia Media Holdings LLC (collectively, "Adeia")
• Defendants: The Walt Disney Company, Disney Media And Entertainment Distribution LLC, Disney DTC LLC, Disney Streaming Services LLC, Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC, Disney Platform Distribution, Inc., BAMtech, LLC, Hulu, LLC, and ESPN, Inc. (collectively, "Disney")

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:
Adeia filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Disney, Hulu, and ESPN in the District of Delaware on November 7, 2024. The complaint alleged infringement of six patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,762,639, titled "Dynamic manifest generation based on client identity." The asserted patents broadly relate to various aspects of media technologies, such as content distribution, media streaming, and user interfaces.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:
On January 16, 2025, Disney filed a motion to dismiss Counts III and IV of Adeia's complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that claims of two of the asserted patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 9,860,595 and 10,165,324) were directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
On September 12, 2025, the District Court denied Disney's motion to dismiss without prejudice. The court, citing Federal Circuit guidance, found it inappropriate to address the patent eligibility of all claims at the motion to dismiss stage, particularly when the operative complaint only asserted "one or more claims" and no counterclaims of invalidity had been filed.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:
Information regarding any Markman hearing or claim construction outcomes for this specific case is not publicly available in the provided search results.

4. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:
Information regarding specific discovery milestones is not publicly available in the provided search results.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:
The case did not proceed to trial. The ip fray article from November 2024 indicated that a trial in the Delaware case would likely take a couple of years.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal – Final Disposition:
The district court case, Adeia Technologies Inc. et al v. The Walt Disney Company et al (1:24-cv-01231), was listed as "closed on 12/29/2025." This indicates a resolution of the litigation, most likely through a settlement or dismissal, prior to the IPR filing in 2026.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding: IPR2026-00054

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
Case Number: IPR2026-00054
Patent at Issue: U.S. Patent No. 9,762,639
Status: Procedural Termination

Any Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings and their Effect on the Litigation:
An IPR proceeding, IPR2026-00054, related to patent 9,762,639 was filed at the PTAB in 2026 and resulted in procedural termination. Specific details regarding the petitioner, patent owner, filing date, and the precise reason for the procedural termination for IPR2026-00054 are not publicly available in the provided search results.

However, the "procedural termination" of an IPR in 2026 should be viewed in the context of significant shifts in PTAB policy that began in late 2025 and continued into 2026. These changes include a move to Director-centric institution decisions, the implementation of hardened discretionary barriers, and the consideration of a U.S. manufacturing footprint as a discretionary factor when deciding whether to institute an IPR or Post-Grant Review (PGR). These policies have led to a higher rate of institution denials. It is plausible that the procedural termination of IPR2026-00054 was influenced by these new discretionary denial policies, or by a voluntary withdrawal following the resolution of the underlying district court litigation in late 2025. Given that the district court case was closed in December 2025, it is highly likely that any IPR filed in 2026 concerning the same patent would be affected by the prior resolution of the district court dispute.

Despite thorough searching of public PTAB dockets and related legal news, the specific petitioner (referred to as "plaintiff" in the prompt) and their counsel for IPR2026-00054, which is related to patent 9762639, could not be identified. The search results for IPR2026-00054 did not directly link it to patent 9762639, nor did they provide the names of the petitioner or patent owner for this specific IPR. Therefore, no counsel of record representing the petitioner can be provided at this time.

I am unable to identify the counsel of record representing the defendant(s) in IPR2026-00054. Despite extensive web searches using various PTAB-related search terms, including the IPR number and the patent at issue (9762639), I could not locate information regarding the specific parties (Petitioner and Patent Owner) involved in this particular Inter Partes Review proceeding, nor details about their legal representation.

The available search results primarily offer general updates on PTAB procedures, lists of other IPRs filed in 2026, and discussions on various reasons for IPR termination, but none directly name the Petitioner or Patent Owner for IPR2026-00054. Without identifying the Patent Owner (who would be defending the patent in an IPR, analogous to a defendant in a district court infringement case), it is not possible to identify their counsel.

The case status is "Procedural Termination," which might indicate an early resolution or dismissal of the IPR, potentially before detailed counsel information became widely publicized or readily accessible through public search platforms without direct access to the PTAB's docket system.