PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There are two AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 11,160,455. One IPR (IPR2025-01585) was denied institution, while the other (IPR2025-01252) has been instituted and is currently pending trial. This provides a mixed defensive posture for a defendant; while one challenge was unsuccessful, the other is ongoing, meaning some claims are still under review for patentability.

IPR2025-01252 — SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v. Omni Medsci Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-05
• Status: Trial Instituted (as of 2026-05-20, trial has been instituted, meaning the PTAB has determined there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable).
• Judge panel: [Information not publicly available at this time from the provided context or initial searches. I would need to access the institution decision for this IPR, which is typically available through the USPTO PTAB E2E system.]
• Petition grounds: [Information not publicly available at this time from the provided context or initial searches. This would be detailed in the petition and institution decision.]
• Institution decision: Instituted. The institution decision date is not provided in the prompt but the status indicates institution has occurred. [To provide reasoning, the institution decision document from the USPTO PTAB E2E system would need to be reviewed.]
• Final Written Decision: Not yet issued. The trial is pending, which means the FWD will be due approximately one year from the institution date.
• Settlement / termination: No indication of settlement or termination.
• Appeal: Not applicable yet, as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This proceeding indicates an active challenge against the patent. If institution was granted on certain claims, those claims are at risk of being invalidated. A defendant should monitor the progress of this IPR closely, particularly the claims targeted and the grounds of unpatentability.

IPR2025-01585 — WHOOP, Inc. v. Omni Medsci Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-26
• Status: Discretionary Denial (The PTAB declined to institute a trial based on discretionary factors, rather than the merits of the patentability challenge).
• Judge panel: [Information not publicly available at this time from the provided context or initial searches. I would need to access the institution decision for this IPR, which is typically available through the USPTO PTAB E2E system.]
• Petition grounds: [Information not publicly available at this time from the provided context or initial searches. This would be detailed in the petition and institution decision.]
• Institution decision: Denied. The institution decision date is not provided in the prompt but the status indicates discretionary denial. [To provide reasoning, the institution decision document from the USPTO PTAB E2E system would need to be reviewed.]
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: No indication of settlement or termination.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: The discretionary denial of this IPR is a positive outcome for the patent owner, Omni Medsci Inc., as the challenged claims were not subjected to full review. For a defendant, this means the patent's claims, as far as this specific petition is concerned, remain undisturbed. However, the discretionary nature of the denial suggests that a similar challenge might still be possible if presented differently or if circumstances change.

Strategic summary

As of today, US Patent 11,160,455 has experienced two IPR challenges. IPR2025-01585, filed by WHOOP, Inc., was met with a discretionary denial, meaning the PTAB chose not to institute a review, leaving the patent claims challenged in that petition intact. However, IPR2025-01252, filed by SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al., was instituted and is currently in the trial phase. This indicates that at least some claims of the patent are facing a strong challenge and could potentially be invalidated.

Without access to the petitions and institution decisions, the specific claims targeted in each IPR and the precise prior art grounds (e.g., § 102 for anticipation, § 103 for obviousness, or § 112 for indefiniteness) remain unknown. Therefore, it's not possible to definitively list which claims are CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED at this stage, beyond noting that claims challenged in IPR2025-01585 were not invalidated due to the denial. The active status of IPR2025-01252 implies that claims challenged therein are currently being adjudicated and could still be canceled.

Regarding estoppel, under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), a petitioner (and their real parties-in-interest and privies) is estopped from asserting in a civil action or another USPTO proceeding that a claim is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR. For WHOOP, Inc., the discretionary denial means they are likely estopped from raising the same grounds in future proceedings. For SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al., the scope of estoppel will depend on the final outcome of IPR2025-01252. If any claims are sustained, they would be estopped from challenging those claims on grounds raised or that could have been reasonably raised. The existence of Unified Patents in the litigation history for this patent (referencing IPR2025-01585 and IPR2025-01252 as "Petitioner: "Unified Patents PTAB Data" by Unified Patents") suggests a defensive aggregator is involved in monitoring or potentially initiating challenges against this patent, which is a common pattern for asserted patents.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US11160455:

• Monitor IPR2025-01252: Given its "Trial Instituted" status, closely follow the progress of IPR2025-01252. The Final Written Decision is expected approximately one year from the institution date. This decision will be crucial as it will provide a definitive ruling on the patentability of the challenged claims. Access the institution decision on the USPTO PTAB E2E portal (once available publicly) to understand the specific claims challenged, the prior art, and the PTAB's reasoning for institution.
• Review Institution Decision of IPR2025-01585: Although IPR2025-01585 was discretionarily denied, reviewing the institution decision (available through USPTO PTAB E2E) would be valuable to understand the petitioner's arguments, the prior art cited, and the specific reasons for the discretionary denial. This could inform strategies for future challenges or highlight potential weaknesses the PTAB did not address on the merits.
• Evaluate Estoppel: Understand the specific grounds raised by WHOOP, Inc. and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. in their respective petitions to ascertain which prior art grounds may be subject to estoppel for those petitioners and their privies. This helps identify which prior art grounds remain available for a new defendant if considering a new IPR challenge or asserting invalidity in district court.
• Assess Untested Claims: Determine if the asserted claims fall outside the scope of both IPR petitions. If so, these "untested" claims might be prime candidates for a new IPR challenge if suitable prior art can be identified.