PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 11087385. This Inter Partes Review (IPR) was denied institution, resulting in all challenged claims remaining untested at the PTAB. This outcome generally strengthens the patent's defensive posture, as no claims were invalidated.

IPR2025-01167 — Amazon.com, Services LLC v. VB Assets LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-06-16
• Status: Discretionary Denial. The petition was denied institution on 2025-11-20.
• Judge panel: APJs Christa Wilson, Michael P. Tierney, and Jason R. Moore.
• Petition grounds: Amazon.com Services LLC challenged claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,087,385 B2 as unpatentable under various combinations of 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, based on multiple prior art references, including U.S. Patent No. 8,639,520 (Grinberg), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0179836 (Panciera), and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0109247 (Heckerman), among others.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2025-11-20. The panel exercised its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and Fintiv factors, primarily citing the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation (Delaware District Court case 1:26-cv-00443). The Board found that a parallel district court proceeding against a different entity (Alphabet, Inc. et al.) and another against SoundHound AI, Inc. (1:24-cv-01279) made institution inefficient.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: The PTAB decision indicated that the denial of institution for IPR2025-01167 was appealed to the Federal Circuit under case number 25-1854. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's discretionary denial in an unpublished opinion on May 29, 2026.
• Defensive value: The patent owner prevailed, and the claims were not addressed on the merits. An IPR-based defense using the same or substantially similar prior art grounds, especially under the same Fintiv considerations, would be significantly harder given the affirmation of the discretionary denial by the Federal Circuit.

Strategic summary

All claims (1-17) of US patent 11087385 remain untested on the merits at the PTAB. The sole IPR filed, IPR2025-01167, was denied institution, and this denial was subsequently affirmed by the Federal Circuit. This means there are no canceled claims from PTAB proceedings, and the patent's claims are considered sustained in the sense that no challenge to their patentability has been successful at the PTAB or on appeal.

The estoppel landscape for IPR2025-01167 is critical. Since the IPR was denied institution, statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) for the petitioner (Amazon.com, Services LLC) does not apply because no final written decision was issued. However, judicial estoppel or common law preclusion arguments could still be made in district court regarding arguments Amazon could have made or actually did make in the IPR petition itself, particularly in light of the Federal Circuit's affirmation of the discretionary denial. For other defendants, especially those not in privity with Amazon, the specific prior art grounds raised in IPR2025-01167 would likely still be available for use in future PTAB challenges or district court invalidity defenses, although a new PTAB petition would need to overcome potential Fintiv denials if parallel litigation is advanced. The pattern signal here is that the patent owner, VB Assets LLC, successfully defended against this IPR challenge. Unified Patents was the petitioner in another case against VB Assets LLC (IPR2025-01167).

Recommended next steps

Given that IPR2025-01167 was denied institution and that denial was affirmed on appeal, any new PTAB challenge for US 11087385 would need to carefully consider the Fintiv factors, especially if there is ongoing district court litigation. Petitioners should look for distinct prior art or novel arguments to present compelling grounds of unpatentability, or ensure their timing relative to district court proceedings is such that Fintiv does not apply. The full decision for the denial of institution and the Federal Circuit's affirmation can be reviewed for a deeper understanding of the reasoning.

• Review the PTAB's Decision Denying Institution for IPR2025-01167.
• Review the Federal Circuit's unpublished opinion in VB ASSETS, LLC v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC, No. 25-1854 (Fed. Cir. 2026), affirming the PTAB's discretionary denial of institution, available on CourtListener.