PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 10,313,385. This proceeding, IPR2025-01397, was denied institution, meaning no claims were challenged on the merits. This status indicates the patent has not been subjected to a full PTAB trial and its claims remain unadjudicated in an AIA proceeding, leaving the defensive posture relatively strong against an IPR-based invalidity challenge.

IPR2025-01397 — CrowdStrike, Inc. v. Skysong Innovations LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-15
• Status: Discretionary Denial. The petition was not instituted by the PTAB.
• Judge panel: I do not have information on the specific judge panel for this proceeding.
• Petition grounds: I do not have specific details on the claims challenged, prior art cited, or statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) from the provided information or readily available public search results at this time.
• Institution decision: The petition was denied institution. The date of the "last modified" entry is 2026-02-19, which likely indicates the date of the institution decision or a related procedural update. A "Discretionary Denial" typically means the PTAB chose not to institute the trial, often based on factors like parallel district court litigation (e.g., Fintiv factors), efficient administration of justice, or insufficient grounds for institution. Without access to the decision itself, the exact reasoning is not available.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as the petition was denied institution.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as the petition was denied institution.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as the petition was denied institution.
• Defensive value: The discretionary denial of IPR2025-01397 means that the patent owner, Skysong Innovations LLC, successfully prevented a PTAB trial from commencing. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, this outcome means that the validity of the patent's claims has not been formally tested and invalidated in this IPR. Any future IPR challenging the same claims with the same or substantially similar prior art might face estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1), though the grounds for the denial would need to be considered.

Strategic summary

All claims of US Patent 10,313,385 are currently UNTESTED in AIA trial proceedings. IPR2025-01397 was denied institution, so there has been no adjudication on the merits of any claim, and therefore no claims have been canceled or sustained by the PTAB.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since IPR2025-01397 was denied institution (not institued to a trial), 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) inter partes estoppel does not apply to the petitioner (CrowdStrike, Inc.) or its privies for any grounds that were or reasonably could have been raised in the petition. This means the prior-art grounds presented in the petition remain theoretically available for future challenges, either in district court litigation or potentially in a new IPR by a different party, depending on the specific reasoning for the discretionary denial. However, the Board's reasoning for the discretionary denial could still influence future petitions. The denial also indicates that the patent owner successfully defended against this particular challenge without having to litigate the merits of the claims.

There is a pattern signal that Unified Patents has filed litigation in the Texas Western and Eastern District Courts, which indicates active assertion of the patent. The IPR was filed by CrowdStrike, Inc. The current assignee is Skysong Innovations LLC, having been assigned the patent on 2025-01-30.

Recommended next steps

The single IPR (IPR2025-01397) was denied institution. While the specific reasoning for the discretionary denial is not publicly available here, it indicates that the PTAB declined to proceed with a full trial. This means that, for a defendant, the validity of the patent's claims has not been challenged and invalidated at the PTAB.

For a potential defendant, obtaining the institution decision for IPR2025-01397 would be critical to understand the precise basis for the discretionary denial. This decision could reveal specific weaknesses in the petition or procedural considerations that led to the denial, which would inform any future validity challenges. Without this, it's difficult to assess the full impact on the patent's robustness.

Since there are no active PTAB proceedings on the merits, the patent has not been narrowed or found unpatentable by the PTAB. This could mean a higher bar for future PTAB challenges, especially if the discretionary denial was based on merits-adjacent reasons or Fintiv considerations related to overlapping litigation.

The absence of an instituted IPR means the patent remains "hardened" against this specific type of challenge. However, the existence of litigation activity filed in Texas Western District Court (case 7:25-cv-00040) and Texas Eastern District Court (case 2:25-cv-00098) suggests the patent is being actively asserted. Any defensive strategy should consider these ongoing assertions in addition to the PTAB history.