PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 10036154. This proceeding, IPR2025-01339, resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, meaning no claims were invalidated. This gives a defendant a stronger defensive posture regarding the patent's claims, as they have withstood a challenge at the institution stage.

IPR2025-01339 — FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC v. Jeffrey Scott Crevier

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-07-23
• Status: Discretionary Denial. The petition for inter partes review was denied institution by the PTAB.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from the provided search results.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 10,036,154. The grounds included obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over combinations of various prior art references, such as U.S. Patent No. 8,856,977 (Ramirez) and U.S. Patent No. 8,056,153 (Ruedas).
• Institution decision: Denied on 2025-12-23. The Board exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) to deny institution. The Board's reasoning was based on an analysis of factors related to parallel district court litigation, specifically under Fintiv factors. The Board found that a parallel district court case was sufficiently advanced such that it would reach a final decision before the PTAB's final written decision, weighing against institution.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated by discretionary denial. No settlement information is publicly available from the provided search results.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied and no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: The patent owner prevailed at the institution stage of this IPR. An IPR-based defense on the same grounds (obviousness over the cited art) against this patent would be significantly harder due to the Fintiv-based discretionary denial, especially if parallel district court litigation is ongoing.

Strategic summary

All twenty claims (1-20) of US patent 10036154 remain SUSTAINED and UNTESTED on the merits at the PTAB. The sole IPR proceeding, IPR2025-01339, was denied institution, meaning the PTAB did not reach the merits of the obviousness challenge. The patent has not been narrowed through IPR.

The estoppel landscape is a critical consideration. While Fresh Products, LLC (and its privies) are likely estopped from raising the same grounds that were actually litigated or could have been raised in the denied IPR, the denial was discretionary and based on parallel litigation, not on the merits of the prior art challenge itself. This might leave room for a new petitioner, or even Fresh Products under different circumstances, to potentially pursue new or adjusted challenges, though future Fintiv considerations would remain.

There are no clear pattern signals of aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner, as the only proceeding was denied at institution. The petitioner, Fresh Products, LLC, is a known entity in the urinal screen market and has been involved in other patent litigation and IPRs related to this product space (e.g., being cited in other patents by Jeffrey Scott Crevier). Unified Patents, an aggregator, filed a case in Ohio Northern District Court related to this patent, and also reports the IPR on their portal.

Recommended next steps

Given the discretionary denial of IPR2025-01339, a defendant facing assertion of US10036154 should carefully review the PTAB's institution decision (IPR2025-01339) for the precise reasoning behind the Fintiv denial. This will help understand if a future IPR attempt could overcome similar discretionary hurdles. The decision document can typically be found on the USPTO PTAB E2E portal by searching for the proceeding number. Understanding the specifics of the parallel district court litigation that led to the Fintiv denial would also be crucial to assess the patent's overall strength and the potential for future PTAB challenges.