PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There are two AIA trial proceedings on file for US patent 10536714. One proceeding resulted in a trial institution, and the other was discretionarily denied. This indicates that some claims are currently undergoing examination at the PTAB, while a separate attempt to challenge the patent was unsuccessful, potentially hardening the patent against similar future challenges from that petitioner.

IPR2025-01153 — ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v. Nokia Technologies Oy

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-06-16
• Status: Trial Instituted (as of 2026-05-14)
• Judge panel: Not publicly available yet from the search results for the institution decision.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,536,714, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of prior art, including but not limited to U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0255598 (Mukai), U.S. Patent No. 9,137,532 (Yoo), and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0080940 (Chen). The petition argued these combinations rendered certain claims obvious in the context of video coding motion vector prediction.
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2026-04-12. The PTAB found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claims 1-20.
• Defensive value: This proceeding is active, with all claims (1-20) currently undergoing IPR trial. A defendant can monitor this proceeding closely as any claim invalidation would significantly impact the patent's enforceability. The institution of trial on all claims suggests the Petitioner presented a strong initial case.

IPR2025-01263 — Snap Inc. et al. v. Nokia Technologies Oy

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-07-23
• Status: Discretionary Denial (as of 2026-02-13)
• Judge panel: Not publicly available yet from the search results for the denial decision.
• Petition grounds: The petition by Snap Inc. et al. challenged claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,536,714. The grounds asserted were primarily obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on prior art references such as U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0255598 (Mukai) and U.S. Patent No. 9,137,532 (Yoo).
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-02-13. The PTAB issued a discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. The denial was based on factors weighing against institution, specifically applying the Fintiv factors (or similar considerations) which assess whether to deny institution when a parallel district court litigation is further advanced.
• Defensive value: The discretionary denial means the claims were not addressed on the merits in this IPR. While the patent owner prevailed in preventing this specific IPR, the grounds were not tested, meaning this does not "harden" the patent on the merits. However, it does indicate that the PTAB may deny institution if parallel litigation is advanced, which could be a factor for future potential petitioners. Snap Inc. and its privies may be estopped from raising these specific grounds in future PTAB proceedings or district court litigation.

Strategic summary

Currently, claims 1-20 of US10536714 are UNTESTED on the merits by a Final Written Decision, but are undergoing an active IPR trial (IPR2025-01153). No claims have been CANCELED or SUSTAINED by a Final Written Decision from the PTAB.

Regarding estoppel, under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. (and their privies) will be estopped from asserting in district court or future PTAB proceedings any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2025-01153, for the claims that were part of the instituted trial. Similarly, Snap Inc. et al. (and their privies) would face estoppel for the grounds raised in IPR2025-01263, despite the discretionary denial, concerning the claims challenged in that petition. For a new defendant facing assertion, the prior art grounds that were central to these IPR petitions (e.g., combinations involving Mukai, Yoo, and Chen) might still be available if they are not privy to the petitioners and if those grounds have not been fully litigated and upheld in district court.

The pattern of proceedings shows two IPRs initiated within a short period. The fact that ASUSTeK's petition led to institution on all claims, while Snap's was discretionarily denied, signals that the PTAB evaluates IPR petitions on both their merits and procedural factors (like parallel litigation). Nokia Technologies Oy is the Patent Owner in both cases.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US10536714:

• Closely monitor IPR2025-01153 (ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v. Nokia Technologies Oy). The institution decision was issued on 2026-04-12, starting the 1-year statutory trial clock. A Final Written Decision is expected by 2027-04-12. Significant developments, such as claim invalidations, would be highly beneficial.
• Review the institution decision for IPR2025-01153 to understand the PTAB's initial assessment of the prior art and arguments against claims 1-20. The decision can be found on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal by searching for IPR2025-01153.
• Understand the reasoning for the discretionary denial in IPR2025-01263. This decision may indicate potential pitfalls if considering filing an IPR while engaged in parallel district court litigation. The decision for IPR2025-01263 can also be found on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal.
• If considering filing a new IPR, analyze the prior art grounds and arguments made in both IPRs to identify any distinct prior art or new arguments that would not be subject to estoppel for a non-privy defendant.

Proceedings overview

There are two AIA trial proceedings on file for US patent 10536714. One proceeding, IPR2025-01153, resulted in a trial being instituted for all challenged claims. The other, IPR2025-01263, received a discretionary denial. This gives a defendant a mixed defensive posture: while one attempt to challenge the patent was denied on procedural grounds, all claims of the patent are currently undergoing a substantive review at the PTAB.

IPR2025-01153 — ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v. Nokia Technologies Oy

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-06-16
• Status: Trial Instituted (as of 2026-05-14)
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from the provided search results for the institution decision.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,536,714. The grounds asserted were primarily obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, leveraging combinations of prior art references. These included, but were not limited to, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0255598 (Mukai), U.S. Patent No. 9,137,532 (Yoo), and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0080940 (Chen). The Petitioner argued these combinations rendered the challenged claims obvious in the context of video coding motion vector prediction.
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2026-04-12. The PTAB determined that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claims 1-20, thereby instituting an IPR trial on all challenged claims.
• Defensive value: This proceeding is highly significant. All 20 claims of the patent are currently in trial at the PTAB. A successful challenge resulting in claim invalidation would severely weaken the patent against any assertion. A defendant should closely monitor this proceeding for potential claim cancellations.

IPR2025-01263 — Snap Inc. et al. v. Nokia Technologies Oy

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-07-23
• Status: Discretionary Denial (as of 2026-02-13). The petition was denied institution on procedural grounds.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from the provided search results for the denial decision.
• Petition grounds: The petition filed by Snap Inc. et al. challenged claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,536,714, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Key prior art cited included U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0255598 (Mukai) and U.S. Patent No. 9,137,532 (Yoo).
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-02-13. The PTAB issued a discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. This denial was primarily based on the application of the Fintiv factors (or similar considerations), which allow the Board to deny institution when a parallel district court litigation involving the same patent is sufficiently advanced, to conserve judicial resources and avoid conflicting outcomes.
• Defensive value: While the petition was denied, it was on procedural grounds rather than a merits-based assessment of patentability. This means the claims were not upheld, nor were they invalidated. For Snap Inc. and its privies, estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) may apply to the specific grounds they raised or reasonably could have raised, potentially limiting their ability to challenge these claims in the future with the same arguments. For a new defendant, this denial highlights the PTAB's consideration of parallel litigation when deciding whether to institute an IPR.

Strategic summary

As of today, no claims of US10536714 have been CANCELED or SUSTAINED by a Final Written Decision from the PTAB. All claims (1-20) are currently TESTED in the active IPR2025-01153 proceeding. The patent's claims remain largely intact from a PTAB perspective, awaiting the outcome of the ongoing trial.

The estoppel landscape is important. ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. (and their privies) will be estopped under § 315(e)(2) from asserting in other forums any invalidity grounds they raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2025-01153 concerning claims 1-20, after the Final Written Decision is issued. Similarly, Snap Inc. et al. (and their privies) will face estoppel for the grounds raised in IPR2025-01263, despite the discretionary denial, concerning the claims challenged in that petition. For a defendant not privy to these petitioners, the prior art and arguments presented in both IPRs may still be available for a new challenge, provided they were not fully litigated and upheld in a separate court.

The pattern of two IPR filings within a relatively short period indicates that the patent is being actively challenged, likely in response to assertions of infringement. The differing outcomes (institution vs. discretionary denial) suggest the importance of both the merits of the invalidity arguments and the procedural context (e.g., parallel litigation) when filing an IPR. Unified Patents, a defensive aggregator, is listed as the source for the litigation data, indicating that the patent owner, Nokia Technologies Oy, is facing organized challenges.

Recommended next steps

• Monitor IPR2025-01153 closely: The trial was instituted on 2026-04-12, meaning a Final Written Decision is statutorily due by 2027-04-12. Keep track of the scheduling order, petitioner's reply, patent owner's response, oral hearing (if any), and the eventual Final Written Decision. The institution decision can be accessed via the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal using the proceeding number IPR2025-01153.
• Review the IPR2025-01263 denial decision: Understand the PTAB's reasoning for the discretionary denial to assess risks and strategies if considering filing your own IPR, particularly if parallel district court litigation is a factor. This decision can be accessed via the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal using the proceeding number IPR2025-01263.
• Evaluate prior art: If you are a defendant, analyze the prior art cited in both petitions (Mukai, Yoo, Chen, etc.) to determine if these or other art references could form the basis of a strong invalidity defense, either at the PTAB (if not estopped) or in district court.