Krisp Technologies Inc. v. Sanas Ai Inc.

Case Overview and Background: Krisp Technologies Inc. v. Sanas Ai Inc.

This Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), case number PGR2026-00032, involves Krisp Technologies Inc. challenging the validity of US patent 12412561 owned by Sanas Ai Inc. Krisp Technologies Inc. is an operating company specializing in AI-powered audio processing software, offering real-time noise and voice suppression, accent conversion, transcription, and summarization solutions for remote communication. Their flagship products include AI Meeting Assistant and AI Noise Cancellation technology. Sanas Ai Inc., also an operating company, develops real-time Speech AI platforms primarily focused on accent translation, speech enhancement, and noise cancellation, particularly for enterprise and contact center environments.

The accused technology, in the broader context of the ongoing dispute, is Sanas Ai Inc.'s noise cancellation software, which Krisp alleges infringes its patented technology. Specifically, Krisp's countersuit in a related district court case claims Sanas reproduced Krisp's patented noise cancellation technology and offered it for free to attract customers. The asserted patent, US 12412561, is generally understood to relate to systems and methods for noise cancellation or speech processing, forming part of the intellectual property at the core of the competitive landscape between these two AI voice technology companies. A precise one-line technical sketch from the patent abstract itself would offer further detail; however, the ongoing dispute broadly covers noise cancellation.

This PGR was filed with the PTAB on March 18, 2026, and is currently pending. The PTAB is an administrative tribunal within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that offers a faster and more specialized forum for challenging patent validity compared to federal court litigation. PGR proceedings are particularly significant as they allow a third party to challenge a patent's validity on virtually any grounds available in federal court, including anticipation, obviousness, written description, enablement, definiteness, or ineligible subject matter, provided the petition is filed within nine months of the patent's issuance. The PTAB's decision is comprehensive and, if instituted, must address all challenged claims, with estoppel provisions preventing the petitioner from raising the same grounds in future proceedings.

This case is notable as it is part of a larger, contentious intellectual property dispute between two significant players in the burgeoning real-time Voice AI and communication enhancement industry. Sanas Ai Inc. initiated a lawsuit in July 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Sanas.AI Inc. v. Krisp Technologies Inc., No. 3:25-cv-05666), accusing Krisp of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and false advertising related to accent translation technology. Krisp subsequently filed counterclaims in that district court case, alleging Sanas's unfair competition and patent infringement regarding noise cancellation technology. The district court case has already seen significant activity, including Krisp's unsuccessful challenge to the patent eligibility of several Sanas patents in March 2026. This PGR at the PTAB represents Krisp's attempt to invalidate one of Sanas's patents through an administrative review, highlighting the intense competition and strategic use of both federal court litigation and PTAB proceedings to assert and challenge intellectual property rights in this rapidly evolving tech market.The case Krisp Technologies Inc. v. Sanas Ai Inc. (PGR2026-00032) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) involves Krisp Technologies Inc. challenging the validity of US patent 12412561, owned by Sanas Ai Inc. Krisp Technologies Inc. is an operating company that develops AI-powered audio processing software, offering products like real-time noise cancellation, accent conversion, transcription, and summarization for enhanced communication. Sanas Ai Inc. is also an operating company, specializing in real-time Speech AI platforms that provide accent translation, speech enhancement, and noise cancellation solutions, primarily for enterprise and contact center applications.

The accused technology, within the context of the broader dispute, is Sanas Ai Inc.'s noise cancellation software and related products. Krisp's counterclaims in a parallel district court case assert that Sanas reproduced Krisp's patented noise cancellation technology and offered it for free to attract customers, thereby alleging patent infringement and unfair competition. US patent 12412561, the subject of this PGR, generally pertains to systems and methods for noise cancellation or speech processing.

This PGR was filed on March 18, 2026, and is pending before the PTAB, an administrative body within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The PTAB offers a specialized and generally faster forum than federal courts for evaluating patent validity. A Post-Grant Review allows a third party to challenge a patent's claims on nearly any ground of patentability, including novelty, obviousness, written description, enablement, and definiteness, provided the petition is filed within nine months of the patent's issuance. The PTAB's decision on an instituted PGR is comprehensive and carries estoppel effects for future proceedings.

The case is notable as part of an intense, multi-forum intellectual property conflict between two direct competitors in the Voice AI market. Sanas Ai Inc. previously initiated a lawsuit against Krisp in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Sanas.AI Inc. v. Krisp Technologies Inc., No. 3:25-cv-05666) in July 2025, alleging patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and false advertising related to accent translation technology. Krisp responded with counterclaims of patent infringement and unfair competition concerning noise cancellation. This PGR signifies Krisp's strategic use of the PTAB to challenge Sanas's patent, underscoring the high stakes in the rapidly evolving and competitive real-time speech AI industry where both companies vie for market leadership in communication enhancement technologies.

The case of Krisp Technologies Inc. v. Sanas Ai Inc. involves parallel proceedings in both a U.S. District Court and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While the specific case number provided (PGR2026-00032) refers to a Post-Grant Review (PGR) at the PTAB, it is a direct consequence of an earlier-filed patent infringement lawsuit in district court.

Here is a chronological summary of the key legal developments:

District Court Litigation: Sanas.AI Inc. v. Krisp Technologies Inc. (N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:25-cv-05666)

• 2025-07-07 – Complaint Filed: Sanas.AI Inc. initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Krisp Technologies Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Sanas alleged that Krisp stole confidential information, used it to develop a competing product, improperly filed patent applications, and infringed several of Sanas's U.S. patents.
• 2025-09-08 – Krisp's Motion to Dismiss and Counterclaims: Krisp Technologies Inc. responded by filing a motion to dismiss key claims in Sanas's complaint, including those for trade secret misappropriation and co-inventorship. Concurrently, Krisp filed a countersuit, asserting claims of patent infringement against Sanas for allegedly reproducing Krisp's patented noise cancellation technology and unfair competition.
• 2025-09-23 – Sanas's Amended Complaint: Sanas amended its complaint, adding new claims for patent infringement of recently issued patents, including U.S. Patent No. 12,412,561 (the patent at issue in PGR2026-00032) and 12,417,756, and also included false advertising claims.
• 2025-09-29 – Sanas's Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims: Sanas.AI Inc. moved to dismiss Krisp's counterclaims of unfair competition, arguing that offering a free product to gain market share constitutes a legitimate business strategy rather than an illegal act.
• 2025-12-19 – Krisp's Successive Motion to Dismiss Denied: The District Court denied Krisp's motion to dismiss Sanas's patent infringement claims on procedural grounds under Rule 12(g)(2).
• 2026-02-23 – Krisp's Rule 12(c) Motion Denied (Patent Eligibility): 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 the '561 patent, under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as abstract ideas. The court found that the asserted claims recited concrete technical methods, allowing Sanas's patent infringement claims to proceed.

PTAB Proceedings: Krisp Technologies Inc. v. Sanas Ai Inc. (PGR2026-00032 and others)

• 2026-03-18 – PGR Petition Filed (PGR2026-00032): Krisp Technologies Inc. filed a Post-Grant Review petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,412,561, owned by Sanas Ai Inc. This PGR is currently listed as "Pending."
• 2026-03-18 to 2026-03-30 – Multiple IPR and PGR Petitions Filed: In parallel with PGR2026-00032, Krisp Technologies Inc. filed several other Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Post-Grant Review (PGR) petitions against Sanas Ai Inc. on various patents, all of which are currently "Pending." These include:
  • IPR2026-00275 challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,715,457 (filed 2026-03-18).
  • IPR2026-00274 challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,131,745 (filed 2026-03-18).
  • IPR2026-00273 challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,125,496 (filed 2026-03-26).
  • IPR2026-00272 challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,948,550 (filed 2026-03-27).
  • PGR2026-00033 challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,417,756 (filed 2026-03-30).

Present Posture:

As of May 30, 2026, the district court litigation (Sanas.AI Inc. v. Krisp Technologies Inc.) is ongoing, with Sanas's patent claims having survived a challenge to their eligibility under Section 101. The PTAB proceedings, including PGR2026-00032, are in the early stages and are currently "Pending," meaning the PTAB has not yet made institution decisions on these petitions.

Krisp Technologies Inc., as the Petitioner in this Post-Grant Review (PGR) case (PGR2026-00032), is represented by attorneys from Erise IP PA. This firm has also represented Krisp in the parallel district court litigation against Sanas Ai Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:25-cv-05666).

While specific attorney names for the PGR at the PTAB are not yet clearly delineated in publicly available summaries, in the related district court case, the following attorneys from Erise IP PA were identified as representing Krisp Technologies Inc.:

• Daniel Amon Zaheer (Lead Counsel) - Kobre & Kim LLP (This appears to be a contradiction in the search result, which lists Kobre & Kim LLP for Daniel Amon Zaheer while also stating Erise IP, P.A. represents Krisp. Given the direct statement that Erise IP PA represents Krisp, it is likely Daniel Zaheer is associated with Erise IP PA for this representation or the search result has conflated counsel for different parties or cases).
• Zachary Ritz (Counsel) - Kobre & Kim LLP (Similar to Daniel Zaheer, this may be a misattribution in the search result).
• Michael Kai Ng (Counsel) - Kobre & Kim LLP (Similar to Daniel Zaheer, this may be a misattribution in the search result).
• Victoria Fordin (Counsel) - Kobre & Kim LLP (Similar to Daniel Zaheer, this may be a misattribution in the search result).
• Tammy Su (Counsel) - Kobre & Kim LLP (Similar to Daniel Zaheer, this may be a misattribution in the search result).
• Jessica Kelly Fender (Counsel) - Kobre & Kim LLP (Similar to Daniel Zaheer, this may be a misattribution in the search result).

It is important to note that the search results for the district court case (Sanas.AI Inc. v. Krisp Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-05666) explicitly state that attorneys from Kobre & Kim LLP represent Sanas.AI, while attorneys from Erise IP PA represent Krisp. Therefore, the listing of Daniel Amon Zaheer, Zachary Ritz, Michael Kai Ng, Victoria Fordin, Tammy Su, and Jessica Kelly Fender from Kobre & Kim LLP as counsel for Krisp Technologies Inc. appears to be an error in the initial search result. It is highly probable that these individuals represent Sanas Ai Inc., not Krisp Technologies Inc.

To date, specific attorneys from Erise IP PA directly associated with the PGR2026-00032 case at the PTAB have not been explicitly identified in the provided search results. However, Erise IP PA is confirmed as Krisp's counsel in the related district court litigation.

Based on available information, Sanas Ai Inc., as the Patent Owner (respondent) in this Post-Grant Review (PGR) case, is represented by Kobre & Kim LLP. While specific docket entries for PGR2026-00032 detailing counsel appearances were not directly found, the firm represents Sanas.AI Inc. in the related district court patent infringement case, Sanas.AI Inc. v. Krisp Technologies Inc. (N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:25-cv-05666), which involves the same patent, 12412561. It is common for the same legal team to handle parallel district court and PTAB proceedings.

The following attorneys from Kobre & Kim LLP were identified as representing Sanas.AI Inc. in the parallel district court litigation, and it is inferred that some or all of them, or other attorneys from the firm with PTAB experience, would be involved in the PGR:

• Michael Kai Ng
  • Role: Lead Counsel, Partner
  • Firm & Office: Kobre & Kim LLP, San Francisco, California
  • Experience Note: Leads Kobre & Kim's IP and Technology Disputes practice, serving as lead trial counsel in high-stakes trade secret, intellectual property, and business litigation. He has secured nine-figure recoveries for clients in patent and trade secret disputes.
• Daniel Amon Zaheer
  • Role: Counsel, Partner
  • Firm & Office: Kobre & Kim LLP, San Francisco, California
  • Experience Note: A respected litigator experienced in large-scale, complex intellectual property and patent disputes, known for achieving favorable results for clients.
• Zachary Ritz
  • Role: Counsel, Partner
  • Firm & Office: Kobre & Kim LLP, Miami, Florida
  • Experience Note: Advises clients in high-stakes litigation, focusing on patent infringement, trade secret, and other intellectual property disputes, with a track record of favorable jury verdicts.
• Tammy Su
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Kobre & Kim LLP, San Francisco, California
  • Experience Note: Represents clients in high-stakes intellectual property disputes, including patent infringement, trademark infringement, copyright infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and unfair competition litigation.
• Kim Kennedy
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Kobre & Kim LLP, San Francisco, California
  • Experience Note: An experienced litigator focused on patent disputes in U.S. federal courts and in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
• Victoria Fordin
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Kobre & Kim LLP, Miami, Florida
  • Experience Note: An experienced trial lawyer in complex commercial litigation, involved in all phases of litigation.
• Jessica Kelly Fender
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Kobre & Kim LLP, New York, New York
  • Experience Note: An experienced trial lawyer providing strategic advice on high-stakes international government investigations and enforcement actions, as well as intellectual property litigation.

Kobre & Kim LLP is an international firm specializing in disputes and investigations, known for its litigation-only approach and its focus on high-stakes intellectual property and technology disputes.