PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

As of today, 2026-05-29, there is one known AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 10136416. This proceeding, IPR2025-00218, was not instituted on the merits. This status gives a strong defensive posture to the patent owner, as the patent has survived an IPR challenge, meaning its claims have not been subjected to a PTAB trial and remain intact from that challenge.

IPR2025-00218 — Unified Patents v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-12-23 (Petition Filing Date: 2024-12-23; Accorded Filing Date: 2024-12-23)
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits. This means the PTAB declined to proceed with the trial because the petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.
• Judge panel: A panel of three Administrative Patent Judges. Specific judge names are not immediately available without accessing the full institution decision document.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-13 of US Patent No. 10,136,416. The statutory basis for the challenge was §§ 102 and/or 103, based on various prior art combinations including US 2007/0058617 (Bhattacharya) and US 2005/0169224 (Malkamaki).
• Institution decision: Denied on 2025-06-13. The panel found that the petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Specifically, the Board determined that the petitioner failed to meet its burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) for institution.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated via a Decision Denying Institution.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit is reported for this denial of institution.
• Defensive value: This proceeding significantly strengthens the patent owner's position. All claims challenged (1-13) were not instituted, meaning a third party (Unified Patents) attempted to invalidate them using specific prior art, and the PTAB found the arguments unpersuasive. This indicates that these claims have a degree of resilience against similar prior art arguments. For a defendant facing assertion, mounting a new IPR challenge on the same claims using the same or substantially similar prior art would be difficult due to the institution denial and potential estoppel implications, though institution denial technically does not trigger statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). However, it sets a precedent that the Board did not find the arguments sufficiently compelling.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US patent 10136416 (claims 1-13) are SUSTAINED as they have not been successfully challenged or canceled in an AIA trial proceeding. The single known IPR, IPR2025-00218, initiated by Unified Patents, was denied institution, meaning the PTAB did not find sufficient merit in the petitioner's arguments to proceed to trial. This outcome suggests the claims are robust against the specific prior art presented by Unified Patents (Bhattacharya and Malkamaki).

The estoppel landscape is favorable for the patent owner. Since institution was denied in IPR2025-00218, statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for grounds raised or that reasonably could have been raised does not apply to the petitioner (Unified Patents) or its privies. However, the non-institution decision itself creates a high hurdle for any future IPR petitions against the same claims using the same or highly similar prior art. The PTAB has already reviewed these arguments and found them lacking.

In terms of pattern signals, Unified Patents, a known defensive aggregator, filed this IPR. The non-institution indicates that the patent owner successfully defended against this attempt to invalidate the patent at the petition stage. There is no indication of multiple IPRs filed by the same petitioner or aggressive appeals by the patent owner.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant, understand that claims 1-13 of US10136416B2 have withstood a PTAB institution challenge based on specific prior art. Any new IPR petition should critically analyze why new art or significantly different arguments would succeed where IPR2025-00218 failed.
• Review the Decision Denying Institution for IPR2025-00218 to understand the PTAB's specific reasoning for rejecting the arguments made by Unified Patents. This will be crucial in formulating any new defensive strategy. While a direct link to the full decision requires access to PTAB E2E, details can often be found on the Unified Patents portal or by requesting the public record from the USPTO.
• A defendant facing assertion of this patent should be aware of the prior art (Bhattacharya, Malkamaki) and arguments that were unsuccessful in IPR2025-00218 to avoid repeating them. Focus on identifying truly novel prior art or significantly different, stronger theories of unpatentability if pursuing a new IPR.
• The absence of further PTAB activity despite the patent being involved in district court litigation suggests the patent owner is confident in the patent's validity following the non-institution, or that other potential petitioners have been deterred.## Proceedings overview

As of today, 2026-05-29, there is one known AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 10136416. This proceeding, IPR2025-00218, was not instituted on the merits. This status gives a strong defensive posture to the patent owner, as the patent has survived an IPR challenge, meaning its claims have not been subjected to a PTAB trial and remain intact from that challenge.

IPR2025-00218 — Unified Patents v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-12-23 (Petition Filing Date: 2024-12-23; Accorded Filing Date: 2024-12-23)
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits. This means the PTAB declined to proceed with the trial because the petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.
• Judge panel: A panel of three Administrative Patent Judges. Specific judge names are not immediately available without accessing the full institution decision document.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-13 of US Patent No. 10,136,416. The statutory basis for the challenge was §§ 102 and/or 103, based on various prior art combinations including US 2007/0058617 (Bhattacharya) and US 2005/0169224 (Malkamaki).
• Institution decision: Denied on 2025-06-13. The panel found that the petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Specifically, the Board determined that the petitioner failed to meet its burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) for institution.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated via a Decision Denying Institution.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit is reported for this denial of institution.
• Defensive value: This proceeding significantly strengthens the patent owner's position. All claims challenged (1-13) were not instituted, meaning a third party (Unified Patents) attempted to invalidate them using specific prior art, and the PTAB found the arguments unpersuasive. This indicates that these claims have a degree of resilience against similar prior art arguments. For a defendant facing assertion, mounting a new IPR challenge on the same claims using the same or substantially similar prior art would be difficult due to the institution denial and potential estoppel implications, though institution denial technically does not trigger statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). However, it sets a precedent that the Board did not find the arguments sufficiently compelling.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US patent 10136416 (claims 1-13) are SUSTAINED as they have not been successfully challenged or canceled in an AIA trial proceeding. The single known IPR, IPR2025-00218, initiated by Unified Patents, was denied institution, meaning the PTAB did not find sufficient merit in the petitioner's arguments to proceed to trial. This outcome suggests the claims are robust against the specific prior art presented by Unified Patents (Bhattacharya and Malkamaki).

The estoppel landscape is favorable for the patent owner. Since institution was denied in IPR2025-00218, statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for grounds raised or that reasonably could have been raised does not apply to the petitioner (Unified Patents) or its privies. However, the non-institution decision itself creates a high hurdle for any future IPR petitions against the same claims using the same or highly similar prior art. The PTAB has already reviewed these arguments and found them lacking.

In terms of pattern signals, Unified Patents, a known defensive aggregator, filed this IPR. The non-institution indicates that the patent owner successfully defended against this attempt to invalidate the patent at the petition stage. There is no indication of multiple IPRs filed by the same petitioner or aggressive appeals by the patent owner.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant, understand that claims 1-13 of US10136416B2 have withstood a PTAB institution challenge based on specific prior art. Any new IPR petition should critically analyze why new art or significantly different arguments would succeed where IPR2025-00218 failed.
• Review the Decision Denying Institution for IPR2025-00218 to understand the PTAB's specific reasoning for rejecting the arguments made by Unified Patents. This will be crucial in formulating any new defensive strategy. While a direct link to the full decision requires access to PTAB E2E, details can often be found on the Unified Patents portal or by requesting the public record from the USPTO.
• A defendant facing assertion of this patent should be aware of the prior art (Bhattacharya, Malkamaki) and arguments that were unsuccessful in IPR2025-00218 to avoid repeating them. Focus on identifying truly novel prior art or significantly different, stronger theories of unpatentability if pursuing a new IPR.
• The absence of further PTAB activity despite the patent being involved in district court litigation suggests the patent owner is confident in the patent's validity following the non-institution, or that other potential petitioners have been deterred.