PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US Patent 11315090, which was terminated-settled. This provides a defendant with a degree of uncertainty regarding the validity of the claims, as no final written decision on the merits was issued.

IPR2026-00157 — Plaid Inc. v. Six Trees Capital LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-01-15
• Status: Terminated-Settled
• Judge panel: [No information on judge panel is publicly available at this stage of the proceeding.]
• Petition grounds: [No institution decision was issued due to settlement, so specific petition grounds including claims, art, and statutory basis were not detailed in a public decision.]
• Institution decision: No institution decision was issued as the proceeding was terminated due to settlement.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): No Final Written Decision was issued due to settlement.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated-settled on 2026-05-14. The specific terms of the settlement are confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit occurred, as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: This proceeding was settled before an institution decision or Final Written Decision, meaning the patent claims were not tested on their merits at the PTAB. Therefore, an IPR-based defense on the same or similar grounds would still be available for a future petitioner, though the settlement itself may indicate a perceived strength or weakness by the parties involved.

Strategic summary

As of the current date, no claims of US Patent 11315090 have been canceled or sustained through a Final Written Decision at the PTAB. The single IPR filed, IPR2026-00157, was terminated due to a settlement between the petitioner, Plaid Inc., and the patent owner, Six Trees Capital LLC. This means all claims of the patent remain untested in an AIA trial proceeding.

The estoppel landscape remains open for future potential petitioners. Since IPR2026-00157 was terminated-settled prior to an institution decision or a Final Written Decision, the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) are unlikely to apply. This implies that a new defendant or even Plaid Inc. (depending on the terms of their confidential settlement) would likely not be barred from raising any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in IPR2026-00157. Therefore, prior-art grounds challenging the patentability of the claims under §§ 102 and 103 remain broadly available for new challenges. There is no discernible pattern of multiple IPRs by the same petitioner, and no indication of aggressive PTAB appeals or involvement by defensive aggregators.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of this patent today, the absence of a Final Written Decision means that the claims of US11315090 have not been substantively reviewed and confirmed or denied by the PTAB. Therefore, a defensive strategy involving a new IPR petition remains a viable option. It would be advisable to thoroughly analyze the patent's claims against prior art to identify strong grounds for unpatentability. The fact that IPR2026-00157 settled could suggest various things, including a potential weakness in the patent owner's case or a business decision by Plaid Inc., but without the settlement terms, this remains speculative.