Patent 10064055

PTAB challenges

AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.

Active provider: Google · gemini-2.5-flash

Proceedings on file (1)

All PTAB activity →

AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.

Current assignee: Unified Patents

1 settled
Terminated
Filed
Oct 3, 2025
Last modified
Dec 27, 2025
Petitioner
Apple Inc.
Inventor
Gregory G. Raleigh et al

PTAB challenges

AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.

✓ Generated

Proceedings overview

One Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-01572, has been filed against US patent 10064055. This IPR was terminated due to a settlement between the parties before an institution decision was issued. As such, the patent's claims remain untested by the PTAB and no claims were invalidated or affirmed. The bottom-line defensive posture for a defendant is that the patent's validity has not been challenged and confirmed or denied by the PTAB.

IPR2025-01572 — [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) v. Headwater Research LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2025-10-03
  • Status: Terminated — The proceeding was concluded due to a settlement in parallel district court litigation before the PTAB reached a decision on institution.
  • Judge panel: Not applicable, as the proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was rendered.
  • Petition grounds: Not publicly available, as the case terminated before institution.
  • Institution decision: Not issued. The IPR was terminated before a decision on institution was made.
  • Final Written Decision: Not issued.
  • Settlement / termination: The IPR was terminated due to a settlement between Petitioner Apple Inc. and Patent Owner Headwater Research LLC. This settlement was reached in a parallel district court case, Headwater Research LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 7:25-cv-00407-ADA, in the Western District of Texas. A Joint Motion to Dismiss was granted by Judge Alan D. Albright on November 3, 2025, dismissing the district court case with prejudice. The terms of the settlement are confidential.
  • Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision was issued.
  • Defensive value: This IPR did not result in any PTAB determination regarding the patentability of the challenged claims. The claims of US10064055 remain untested by this specific IPR, and therefore, no claims were invalidated or confirmed as patentable through this proceeding. As the IPR was terminated by settlement, no estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) applies to Apple Inc. based on a Final Written Decision.

Strategic summary

All claims of US10064055 remain untested by PTAB proceedings. No claims have been canceled, affirmed, or otherwise ruled upon by a Final Written Decision from the PTAB. The sole IPR filed against this patent, IPR2025-01572, was terminated due to a confidential settlement in a parallel district court litigation between the parties, Apple Inc. and Headwater Research LLC. This means that the patent's validity has not been judicially reviewed at the PTAB.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since IPR2025-01572 terminated without an institution decision or Final Written Decision, no statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) applies to the petitioner, Apple Inc., regarding any grounds that were or could have been raised. For other potential defendants, all prior-art grounds remain available for future challenges, either at the PTAB or in district court.

The pattern signals indicate that while an IPR was filed, the patent owner and petitioner opted for a private settlement rather than pursuing a full PTAB trial. This suggests a willingness to resolve disputes through negotiation. The involvement of Apple Inc. as a petitioner, followed by a settlement, can be a signal of the commercial relevance of the patent.

Recommended next steps

As there are no claims invalidated or active PTAB proceedings pending against US10064055, the patent's validity remains unchallenged by the PTAB. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, this means that a full IPR-based defense or other PTAB challenge on patentability grounds is still an open option. The absence of a PTAB decision, particularly a Final Written Decision, means there are no prior rulings to leverage regarding claim validity or to navigate for estoppel.

Generated 5/25/2026, 12:47:08 AM