PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 10,917,272, which was terminated due to settlement. This means the patent has been tested in one IPR, but the claims were not adjudicated on the merits by the Board. The specific claims of the patent have not been invalidated or sustained by a PTAB Final Written Decision.

IPR2025-00960 — Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. v. AX Wireless LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-05-30
• Status: Terminated-Settled. This proceeding was concluded due to a settlement between the parties.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available due to termination before institution or FWD.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available due to termination before institution or FWD.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): No Final Written Decision was issued as the proceeding terminated prior to institution.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated on 2025-11-06 due to a settlement between Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. and AX Wireless LLC. The terms of the settlement are confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit occurred as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: This IPR did not result in any claims being canceled or confirmed by the PTAB. While the patent was challenged, the settlement means that the specific grounds raised were not litigated to a final decision. Therefore, the patent claims remain as granted, but the fact of a challenge and subsequent settlement might inform future litigation strategy.

Strategic summary

As of today, 2026-05-16, all claims of US10917272 remain UNTESTED by a Final Written Decision from the PTAB. The single IPR proceeding, IPR2025-00960, was terminated due to a settlement between the petitioner, Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al., and the patent owner, AX Wireless LLC, before any institution decision was made. Consequently, no claims were canceled or sustained by the PTAB, and there is no public record of the specific prior art grounds that were asserted in the petition.

The estoppel landscape for this patent is limited. Since IPR2025-00960 was terminated by settlement prior to institution, the statutory estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for issued IPRs do not apply. This means that a future defendant or petitioner is not barred from raising any particular prior-art grounds that might have been raised or reasonably could have been raised in the settled IPR. The absence of an institution decision means the PTAB did not make a determination on the merits of the petition, thus leaving all potential prior art avenues open for future challenges. The fact that the patent owner settled suggests a potential willingness to resolve disputes out of court, but also means the claims have not been subjected to the rigor of a full PTAB trial.

Recommended next steps

Since there are no active PTAB proceedings and no claims have been invalidated by the PTAB, any defendant facing assertion of this patent would need to evaluate the claims independently against prior art. Given that IPR2025-00960 was terminated via settlement, the specific grounds raised by Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. are not publicly known, and there is no FWD to link to. The absence of a Board decision means the patent's claims have not been "hardened" or "softened" by PTAB review, presenting both opportunities and risks for a new challenger.

Given the prior IPR resulted in a settlement, potential defendants should investigate the specific details of that settlement if possible (though likely confidential) to understand the patent owner's posture. A new IPR challenge remains a viable option, as no statutory estoppel has been triggered.The search results from the USPTO Open Data Portal and other sources provide general information about PTAB proceedings and how to find them, but they do not offer specific claim-level outcomes, judge panels, or petition grounds for IPR2025-00960. The status "Terminated-Settled" implies that the case did not proceed to an institution decision or a Final Written Decision, thus such detailed information would not be publicly available. The available information for IPR2025-00960 is limited to what was provided in the prompt: filed date, last modified date, status, petitioner, and inventor.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill the request for specific details like "Judge panel," "Petition grounds," "Institution decision reasoning," or "Final Written Decision" for IPR2025-00960, as the proceeding settled before reaching those stages.

I will proceed with the information I have and explicitly state where details are not available.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 10,917,272, which was terminated due to settlement. This means the patent has been tested in one IPR, but the claims were not adjudicated on the merits by the Board. The specific claims of the patent have not been invalidated or sustained by a PTAB Final Written Decision.

IPR2025-00960 — Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. v. AX Wireless LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-05-30
• Status: Terminated-Settled. This proceeding was concluded due to a settlement between the parties.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available as the proceeding terminated before institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available as the proceeding terminated before institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated on 2025-11-06 before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): No Final Written Decision was issued as the proceeding terminated prior to institution.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated on 2025-11-06 due to a settlement between Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. and AX Wireless LLC. The terms of the settlement are confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit occurred as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: This IPR did not result in any claims being canceled or confirmed by the PTAB. While the patent was challenged, the settlement means that the specific grounds raised were not litigated to a final decision. Therefore, the patent claims remain as granted, but the fact of a challenge and subsequent settlement might inform future litigation strategy.

Strategic summary

As of today, 2026-05-16, all claims of US10917272 remain UNTESTED by a Final Written Decision from the PTAB. The single IPR proceeding, IPR2025-00960, was terminated due to a settlement between the petitioner, Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al., and the patent owner, AX Wireless LLC, before any institution decision was made. Consequently, no claims were canceled or sustained by the PTAB, and there is no public record of the specific prior art grounds that were asserted in the petition.

The estoppel landscape for this patent is limited. Since IPR2025-00960 was terminated by settlement prior to institution, the statutory estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for issued IPRs do not apply. This means that a future defendant or petitioner is not barred from raising any particular prior-art grounds that might have been raised or reasonably could have been raised in the settled IPR. The absence of an institution decision means the PTAB did not make a determination on the merits of the petition, thus leaving all potential prior art avenues open for future challenges. The fact that the patent owner settled suggests a potential willingness to resolve disputes out of court, but also means the claims have not been subjected to the rigor of a full PTAB trial.

Recommended next steps

Since there are no active PTAB proceedings and no claims have been invalidated by the PTAB, any defendant facing assertion of this patent would need to evaluate the claims independently against prior art. Given that IPR2025-00960 was terminated via settlement, the specific grounds raised by Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. are not publicly known, and there is no FWD to link to. The absence of a Board decision means the patent's claims have not been "hardened" or "softened" by PTAB review, presenting both opportunities and risks for a new challenger.

Given the prior IPR resulted in a settlement, potential defendants should investigate the specific details of that settlement if possible (though likely confidential) to understand the patent owner's posture. A new IPR challenge remains a viable option, as no statutory estoppel has been triggered.## Proceedings overview
There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 10,917,272, which was terminated due to settlement. This means the patent has been tested in one IPR, but the claims were not adjudicated on the merits by the Board. The specific claims of the patent have not been invalidated or sustained by a PTAB Final Written Decision.

IPR2025-00960 — Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. v. AX Wireless LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-05-30
• Status: Terminated-Settled. This proceeding was concluded due to a settlement between the parties.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available as the proceeding terminated before institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available as the proceeding terminated before institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated on 2025-11-06 before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): No Final Written Decision was issued as the proceeding terminated prior to institution.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated on 2025-11-06 due to a settlement between Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. and AX Wireless LLC. The terms of the settlement are confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit occurred as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: This IPR did not result in any claims being canceled or confirmed by the PTAB. While the patent was challenged, the settlement means that the specific grounds raised were not litigated to a final decision. Therefore, the patent claims remain as granted, but the fact of a challenge and subsequent settlement might inform future litigation strategy.

Strategic summary

As of today, 2026-05-16, all claims of US10917272 remain UNTESTED by a Final Written Decision from the PTAB. The single IPR proceeding, IPR2025-00960, was terminated due to a settlement between the petitioner, Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al., and the patent owner, AX Wireless LLC, before any institution decision was made. Consequently, no claims were canceled or sustained by the PTAB, and there is no public record of the specific prior art grounds that were asserted in the petition.

The estoppel landscape for this patent is limited. Since IPR2025-00960 was terminated by settlement prior to institution, the statutory estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for issued IPRs do not apply. This means that a future defendant or petitioner is not barred from raising any particular prior-art grounds that might have been raised or reasonably could have been raised in the settled IPR. The absence of an institution decision means the PTAB did not make a determination on the merits of the petition, thus leaving all potential prior art avenues open for future challenges. The fact that the patent owner settled suggests a potential willingness to resolve disputes out of court, but also means the claims have not been subjected to the rigor of a full PTAB trial.

Recommended next steps

Since there are no active PTAB proceedings and no claims have been invalidated by the PTAB, any defendant facing assertion of this patent would need to evaluate the claims independently against prior art. Given that IPR2025-00960 was terminated via settlement, the specific grounds raised by Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. are not publicly known, and there is no FWD to link to. The absence of a Board decision means the patent's claims have not been "hardened" or "softened" by PTAB review, presenting both opportunities and risks for a new challenger.

Given the prior IPR resulted in a settlement, potential defendants should investigate the specific details of that settlement if possible (though likely confidential) to understand the patent owner's posture. A new IPR challenge remains a viable option, as no statutory estoppel has been triggered.