PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There are three AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 11031677. One IPR is currently at the "Trial Instituted" stage, another is "Pending," and one has been "Terminated-Settled." This gives a defendant a mixed defensive posture; while no claims have been formally invalidated by a Final Written Decision, the instituted trial presents a live challenge, and the settled case suggests a resolution was reached, though the terms are confidential.

IPR2025-01026 — Geotab Inc. et al. v. Fractus, S.A.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-06-06
• Status: Trial Instituted (as of 2026-05-20). This means the PTAB has determined that the petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, and the trial phase has begun.
• Judge panel: Information not explicitly found in search results.
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims are 1-20. The petition referenced a decision where the Board denied the Patent Owner's request for discretionary denial based on Fintiv factors.
• Institution decision: Instituted. The Board denied Fractus's request for discretionary denial. The institution decision was issued on February 4, 2026.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not yet issued, as the case is in the "Trial Instituted" status. The statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision is typically one year from institution.
• Settlement / termination: Not terminated or settled.
• Appeal: Not applicable yet, as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This is an active proceeding challenging all claims (1-20) of the patent. If the petitioner prevails, these claims could be invalidated. A defendant currently facing assertion of this patent should monitor this IPR closely, as a successful outcome for the petitioner could significantly weaken the patent owner's position. The denial of discretionary denial means the PTAB proceeded to examine the merits despite parallel district court litigation.

IPR2026-00191 — Resmed Corp. v. Fractus, S.A.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-01-02
• Status: Pending. This indicates the petition has been filed and is awaiting a decision on institution. The last modification was 2026-05-14.
• Judge panel: Information not explicitly found in search results.
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims are not explicitly stated in the provided snippets for this specific IPR, but ResMed is involved in a patent infringement suit filed by Fractus in the Southern District of California, alleging infringement of multiple Fractus patents, including US11031677.
• Institution decision: Not yet issued. The Board typically has six months from the petition filing date to decide on institution.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable yet, as institution has not occurred.
• Settlement / termination: Not terminated or settled.
• Appeal: Not applicable yet.
• Defensive value: This is a pending IPR, meaning the patent claims are currently under review for a potential trial. Given the ongoing infringement litigation between Fractus and ResMed, this IPR is a key defensive move by ResMed. A favorable institution decision for ResMed could provide significant leverage.

IPR2026-00196 — [Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Cellco%20Partnership%20d%2Fb%2Fa%20Verizon%20Wireless) et al. v. Fractus, S.A.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-01-05
• Status: Terminated-Settled (as of 2026-04-16). This means the parties reached a settlement agreement, leading to the termination of the IPR before a final decision on the merits.
• Judge panel: Information not explicitly found in search results.
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims are 1-20. Grounds included obviousness over Dou in view of Ciais-Quadband for claims 1-9, and adding Nakano for claims requiring a third antenna. The petition asserted calculated complexity factors F21=1.31 and F32=1.57 for claim 1, and F21=1.49 and F32=1.46 for claims requiring a third antenna.
• Institution decision: The petition referenced a decision in the related Geotab IPR (IPR2025-01026) where the Board denied the Patent Owner's request for discretionary denial. This suggests the Fintiv factors were considered, and institution was likely.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued due to settlement.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated-Settled on 2026-04-16. Fractus and Verizon settled their patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, leading to a joint motion to dismiss the case with prejudice. The specific terms of the settlement are confidential, but Fractus CEO Jordi Ilario stated the company was "pleased to have reached a resolution with Verizon."
• Appeal: Not applicable, as the case was settled.
• Defensive value: While this IPR was terminated due to a confidential settlement between Verizon and Fractus, it indicates that Verizon found it strategically advantageous to settle rather than pursue the IPR to a Final Written Decision. The fact that the IPR challenged claims 1-20 provides insight into the scope of claims asserted against Verizon. The settlement suggests that Fractus, S.A. is actively licensing its technology. For other defendants, this means the claims were not invalidated, but it also removes Verizon as a potential co-litigant or IPR participant on these specific grounds.

Strategic summary

Currently, no claims of US11031677 have been formally CANCELED by a Final Written Decision from the PTAB. One IPR (IPR2025-01026) is in the "Trial Instituted" phase, challenging claims 1-20, meaning these claims are currently under active review for patentability. Another IPR (IPR2026-00191) is "Pending" for an institution decision, also posing a live threat to the patent. The third IPR (IPR2026-00196) was "Terminated-Settled," meaning the claims (1-20 were challenged) were not adjudicated by the PTAB but resolved through a private agreement, likely a license. This suggests that the patent owner, Fractus, S.A., is successfully enforcing and licensing its patent portfolio.

The estoppel landscape is evolving. For IPR2026-00196, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (and its privies) would be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting invalidity grounds in district court or the ITC that it raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR. However, since the IPR was settled, the exact scope of estoppel might be nuanced and could depend on the terms of the settlement agreement. For IPR2025-01026, if a Final Written Decision is issued, Geotab Inc. et al. (and their privies) will be similarly estopped regarding the challenged claims and grounds. For the "Pending" IPR2026-00191, no estoppel has yet attached. New USPTO policies effective March 11, 2026, direct the PTAB to weigh U.S. manufacturing activity when deciding whether to institute an AIA trial, and also encourage petitioners to stipulate that they will not pursue §102/103 invalidity in district court if they seek institution. This could make future IPRs more difficult to institute, particularly for petitioners without a U.S. manufacturing footprint.

A clear pattern signal is that Fractus, S.A. is actively asserting this patent in district court litigation, which has led to these IPR filings. The settlements (like with Verizon) indicate a strategy of licensing and enforcement. There is no indication of a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents being the petitioner for these specific IPRs on this patent, though Unified Patents does track the litigation.

Recommended next steps

• For IPR2025-01026 (Geotab Inc. et al. v. Fractus, S.A.): This IPR is in the trial phase. Defendants should actively monitor the PTAB's docket for upcoming milestones, including the oral hearing (if scheduled) and the statutory deadline for the Final Written Decision, which is approximately one year from the institution date (early February 2027). The institution decision for this IPR denied Fractus's request for discretionary denial, indicating the Board found sufficient merit to proceed.
• For IPR2026-00191 (Resmed Corp. v. Fractus, S.A.): This IPR is currently pending an institution decision. The Board has until July 2, 2026 (six months from the filing date) to decide whether to institute a trial. Monitoring the institution decision for this proceeding is critical, as it will determine if the patent faces a second active PTAB challenge.
• For IPR2026-00196 (Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v. Fractus, S.A.): This IPR has been terminated due to a settlement. While the terms are confidential, it suggests a license agreement was reached for the challenged claims (1-20). This outcome means these claims were not invalidated by the PTAB in this specific proceeding. However, the prior art grounds raised by Verizon could still be available to other defendants who are not in privity with Verizon and not estopped.
• Given the evolving PTAB landscape with new Director guidance regarding discretionary denials and potential stipulations, any new IPR petitions should carefully consider these factors.## Proceedings overview

There are three AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 11031677. One IPR is currently at the "Trial Instituted" stage, another is "Pending" an institution decision, and one has been "Terminated-Settled." This provides a defendant with a mixed defensive posture; no claims have been formally invalidated by a Final Written Decision from the PTAB, but the instituted trial presents a live challenge to all claims, and the settled case indicates a resolution was reached outside of a Board adjudication on the merits.

IPR2025-01026 — Geotab Inc. et al. v. Fractus, S.A.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-06-06
• Status: Trial Instituted (as of 2026-05-20). The PTAB has determined that the petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim, and the trial phase has commenced.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific judge panel was not explicitly found in the provided search results.
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-20 of US11031677 were challenged. The petition referenced a decision where the Board denied the Patent Owner's request for discretionary denial under Fintiv factors.
• Institution decision: Instituted. The institution decision was issued on February 4, 2026. The Board denied Fractus's request for discretionary denial, proceeding to a merits review.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not yet issued. The case is in the "Trial Instituted" status, meaning the trial is ongoing. A Final Written Decision is typically due within one year of institution.
• Settlement / termination: Not terminated or settled.
• Appeal: Not applicable yet, as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This is a critical ongoing proceeding that challenges all claims (1-20) of the patent. A defendant currently facing assertion of this patent should monitor this IPR closely, as a successful outcome for the petitioner could lead to the invalidation of all claims, significantly impacting the patent owner's enforcement capabilities.

IPR2026-00191 — Resmed Corp. v. Fractus, S.A.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-01-02
• Status: Pending. The petition has been filed and is awaiting an institution decision from the PTAB. The last modification was on 2026-05-14.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific judge panel was not explicitly found in the provided search results.
• Petition grounds: While specific challenged claims are not detailed in the provided snippets for this IPR, Resmed Corp. is involved in parallel district court litigation with Fractus, S.A. concerning alleged infringement of multiple Fractus patents, including US11031677.
• Institution decision: Not yet issued. The PTAB generally has six months from the petition filing date to render a decision on institution.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as the IPR has not yet been instituted.
• Settlement / termination: Not terminated or settled.
• Appeal: Not applicable yet.
• Defensive value: This is a live IPR petition that could lead to another trial challenging the patent's claims. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, the outcome of the institution decision is significant. If instituted, it would represent a second active IPR challenging the patent.

IPR2026-00196 — Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v. Fractus, S.A.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-01-05
• Status: Terminated-Settled (as of 2026-04-16). This IPR concluded due to a settlement agreement between the parties before a Final Written Decision was reached.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific judge panel was not explicitly found in the provided search results.
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-20 were challenged. Grounds included obviousness over prior art references such as Dou in view of Ciais-Quadband for claims 1-9, and further in view of Nakano for claims requiring a third antenna. The petition included calculations of the complexity factors (F21=1.31, F32=1.57 for claim 1; F21=1.49, F32=1.46 for claims with a third antenna). The petition referenced the Board's denial of a Fintiv discretionary denial request in the related Geotab IPR (IPR2025-01026).
• Institution decision: Although not explicitly stated as "instituted," the reference to the Fintiv denial in IPR2025-01026 suggests the PTAB was inclined to proceed to the merits. However, the case settled before a formal institution decision for IPR2026-00196 was publicly available.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued, as the proceeding was terminated due to settlement.
• Settlement / termination: The IPR was terminated due to a settlement reached between Fractus, S.A. and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless. This settlement also resolved parallel patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, resulting in a joint motion to dismiss the court case with prejudice. The specific terms of the settlement are confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as the case was settled prior to a Final Written Decision.
• Defensive value: This settlement indicates that Verizon, facing infringement allegations on claims 1-20, chose to resolve the matter through agreement rather than PTAB adjudication. While the claims were not invalidated, the settlement suggests a successful outcome for the patent owner in terms of securing a license or other resolution. For other defendants, the prior art and arguments raised by Verizon in its petition may still be available as a defense, provided they are not in privity with Verizon and not otherwise estopped.

Strategic summary

As of today, May 28, 2026, no claims of US11031677 have been formally CANCELED or SUSTAINED by a Final Written Decision from the PTAB. All three "Inferred Claims" (which align with the general scope of claims 1-20 challenged in the IPRs) remain UNTESTED by a final PTAB verdict.

• IPR2025-01026, challenging claims 1-20, is currently in the "Trial Instituted" phase, meaning these claims are under active review and could potentially be invalidated.
• IPR2026-00191 is "Pending" an institution decision, which could lead to a second active trial.
• IPR2026-00196, which also challenged claims 1-20, was "Terminated-Settled," meaning the claims were not adjudicated by the PTAB on the merits but resolved through a private agreement. This suggests a successful licensing or settlement outcome for the patent owner.

The estoppel landscape is currently limited. For IPR2026-00196, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (and its privies) would be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting invalidity grounds in district court or the ITC that it raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR. However, the precise scope of this estoppel, given a settlement rather than a Final Written Decision, might be governed by the confidential settlement terms. For IPR2025-01026, if a Final Written Decision is issued, Geotab Inc. et al. (and their privies) will be similarly estopped. Given new USPTO policies in early 2026, which emphasize considerations like U.S. manufacturing activity and petitioner stipulations against parallel litigation, instituting future IPRs may become more challenging.

A clear pattern signal is Fractus, S.A.'s active enforcement of this patent through district court litigation, which has prompted these IPR filings. The settlements (such as with Verizon) reinforce Fractus's strategy of pursuing licensing agreements. There is no evidence from the provided data that a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents is the petitioner in these specific proceedings against US11031677, although Unified Patents does track related litigation.

Recommended next steps

• For IPR2025-01026 (Geotab Inc. et al. v. Fractus, S.A.): This proceeding is in the trial phase. A defendant should actively monitor the PTAB's docket for all upcoming filings, particularly those related to claim construction, expert testimony, oral arguments, and the statutory deadline for the Final Written Decision (approximately early February 2027, one year from institution). The institution decision for this IPR denied Fractus's request for discretionary denial, indicating the Board found sufficient merit to proceed.
• For IPR2026-00191 (Resmed Corp. v. Fractus, S.A.): This IPR is pending an institution decision. The Board has until early July 2026 (six months from the filing date) to decide whether to institute a trial. A defendant should monitor for this institution decision, as its outcome will significantly influence the defensive landscape for US11031677.
• General Recommendation: Given the ongoing litigation and Fractus's apparent success in reaching settlements, any defendant being asserted against should carefully evaluate the prior art grounds raised in IPR2026-00196 (Verizon's settled IPR) and IPR2025-01026 (Geotab's active IPR) to determine if any of these unadjudicated grounds could form the basis of a strong independent invalidity defense, provided no estoppel applies. Defendants should also consider the implications of the recently enacted USPTO discretionary denial policies when planning any new PTAB challenges.