PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

A single AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 11025573. This proceeding, IPR2025-01388, was denied institution, meaning the PTAB did not proceed to a full review of the challenged claims. This outcome strengthens the patent's defensive posture, as no claims were invalidated, and the patent's validity has not been substantively challenged and upheld at the PTAB.

IPR2025-01388 — [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) v. Ginko LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-28
• Status: Institution Denied — The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to initiate an inter partes review trial.
• Judge panel: John A. Squires, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
• Petition grounds: Apple Inc. challenged claims 1, 3, 4, 6–12, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,025,573. The statutory basis for IPRs is typically novelty (§ 102) and/or obviousness (§ 103). Specific prior art references were not explicitly detailed in the public decision, though the decision noted the necessity for an understandable explanation of element-by-element specifics and identification of particular portions of prior art.
• Institution decision: Denied on March 2, 2026. The Director, John A. Squires, determined that denial of institution was "appropriate in this proceeding" based on "the totality of the evidence and arguments presented." The decision emphasized the requirement for petitioners to provide a clear explanation of element-by-element specifics for patentability challenges, including identifying specific portions of prior art relied upon, referencing Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution decisions are generally not appealable under the AIA.
• Defensive value: The denial of institution means that claims 1, 3, 4, 6–12, 14, and 15 of US11025573 have not been substantively reviewed or invalidated by the PTAB. This makes an IPR-based defense harder for future challengers on these specific grounds, as the PTAB has already found the petition lacking.

Strategic summary

All claims (1-15) of US patent 11025573 are currently UNTESTED on their merits by the PTAB. While claims 1, 3, 4, 6–12, 14, and 15 were challenged in IPR2025-01388, the petition for institution was denied. Claims 2, 5, and 13 were not challenged in this particular IPR. Therefore, no claims of US11025573 have been canceled or formally sustained by a PTAB Final Written Decision.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since institution of IPR2025-01388 was denied, statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) does not apply to Apple Inc. (or its privies). This means that Apple Inc. is not barred from asserting the same prior art grounds, or any grounds that it reasonably could have raised in the IPR petition, in a parallel district court litigation or a future PTAB proceeding, subject to other procedural requirements and the evolving discretionary denial policies of the Director.

The sole PTAB proceeding on file shows Apple Inc. as the petitioner against Ginko LLC, with the institution decision made by the Director of the USPTO, John A. Squires. This falls within a period (October 2025 onwards) where Director Squires assumed direct control over institution determinations and frequently issued denials, sometimes without detailed explanations. The reasoning provided for this specific denial, citing the need for detailed element-by-element explanations and prior art identification, suggests the petition itself may have been substantively deficient rather than a purely discretionary denial based on factors like "settled expectations" or parallel litigation, though the overall climate during this time period generally favored discretionary denials.

Recommended next steps

Given that the IPR petition IPR2025-01388 was denied institution and no claims of US11025573 have been invalidated by the PTAB, a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent should note that the patent's claims remain robust from a PTAB perspective.

• The decision denying institution for IPR2025-01388 can be found through the USPTO PTAB E2E system (using the proceeding number IPR2025-01388) or linked resources provided by entities like Unified Patents. The decision, Paper 14, dated March 2, 2026, states: "After considering the arguments presented and the record, and in view of all relevant considerations, denial of institution was appropriate in this proceeding."
• As there are no active PTAB proceedings on file for this patent, there are no immediate trial-stage milestones (e.g., institution decision deadline, oral hearing, FWD due date) to track. The absence of further PTAB challenges after this denial could signal a perception of strength or a strategic shift by potential petitioners.