PTAB challenges

Based on the provided information and a review of the patent's history, here is an analysis of the AIA trial proceedings for US patent 11,275,900.

Proceedings overview

One inter partes review (IPR) has been filed against US patent 11,275,900, which resulted in a discretionary denial of institution. This means the patent has not yet been reviewed on its substantive merits by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). For a potential defendant, this means the patent's validity is untested at the PTAB, and the prior art asserted in the denied petition remains available for use in future proceedings.

IPR2025-01398 — CrowdStrike, Inc. v. Skysong Innovations LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-25
• Status: Discretionary Denial. The PTAB declined to institute a trial, not based on the merits of the petitioner's invalidity arguments, but for procedural reasons.
• Judge panel: Information on the specific Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) on this panel is not publicly available at this time.
• Petition grounds: The petition reportedly challenged one or more claims of US patent 11,275,900 based on prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (anticipation) and/or § 103 (obviousness). The specific claims and prior art references are detailed in the petition documents filed with the Board.
• Institution decision: The PTAB issued a decision declining to institute review on 2026-02-19. Such discretionary denials often occur under the Fintiv framework, where the Board weighs factors related to a co-pending district court litigation involving the same patent, particularly if the court case is nearing its trial date. The Board determined that efficiency and fairness considerations did not favor a parallel PTAB proceeding.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued, as trial was never instituted.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated by the Board's decision to deny institution. There is no indication of a settlement between the parties.
• Appeal: Decisions to deny institution of an IPR are generally not appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
• Defensive value: This proceeding provides limited defensive value on the merits, as the PTAB never reached the substance of the invalidity arguments. However, it is significant for two reasons: 1) It signals that the patent is being actively asserted against a major industry player (CrowdStrike). 2) Because institution was denied without a trial on the merits, the petitioner (CrowdStrike) is not subject to statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e). The prior art and arguments from the petition remain available for CrowdStrike and any other future defendant to use in district court or a subsequent PTAB petition.

Strategic summary

The validity of US patent 11,275,900 remains entirely UNTESTED before the PTAB. No claims have been canceled, and none have been sustained through a final written decision. All claims, including independent claims 1 and 12, currently survive with their original scope intact.

The estoppel landscape is favorable for future defendants. Since the sole IPR was denied at the institution stage, no statutory estoppel attaches to the petitioner, CrowdStrike, or any party in privity with them. A new defendant faces no restrictions from this prior proceeding and is free to challenge any claim of the '900 patent at the PTAB using any prior art, including the art cited in the denied IPR2025-01398 petition.

The proceeding reveals a key pattern: the patent is owned by Skysong Innovations LLC, the technology transfer and commercialization arm of Arizona State University. It is being asserted against significant cybersecurity companies like CrowdStrike. This indicates a licensing or litigation campaign is underway, and defendants should anticipate a patent owner experienced in intellectual property matters. The discretionary denial suggests that parallel litigation in district court is likely the primary venue for this dispute, and the patent owner may successfully use a court's advanced schedule to fend off future IPRs.

Recommended next steps

For a company newly facing an assertion of US patent 11,275,900, the following steps are recommended:

• Analyze the denied IPR petition: Obtain the complete file for IPR2025-01398 from the USPTO's PTAB E2E portal. The petition contains a fully developed set of invalidity arguments and prior art references that can be immediately leveraged for a defensive strategy in court or a new IPR.
• Investigate the parallel litigation: Identify the district court litigation that led to the discretionary denial (likely Skysong Innovations LLC v. CrowdStrike, Inc.). The case schedule, claim construction rulings, and discovery in that case will provide critical intelligence for assessing the strength and potential cost of a defense.
• Evaluate filing a new IPR: While the previous IPR was denied on discretionary grounds, circumstances may have changed. If the parallel litigation is at an early stage or if a new petition can present a materially different case, a new IPR may not face the same fate. A thorough analysis of the Board's reasoning in the IPR2025-01398 denial decision is crucial.
• The absence of a merits decision is a key signal: Because the patent has survived its first PTAB challenge without a substantive review, its validity is a blank slate. Any defense must be built from the ground up, but importantly, no prior art or argument has been "lost" due to estoppel.