PTAB challenges

The USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) API currently returns no AIA trial proceedings for U.S. Patent 11,316,014 as of the most recent ingest. However, live web search results, including those explicitly provided in the "Litigation summary" section of this analysis, indicate several Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings have been filed and progressed. This discrepancy is noted, and the information from the "Litigation summary" and subsequent web searches will be used as authoritative.

Proceedings overview

There have been seven Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings filed against US Patent 11,316,014. Of these, two have resulted in Final Written Decisions (FWDs) cancelling claims, and five have been terminated due to settlement. This leaves a defensive posture where a defendant can leverage the invalidated claims and consider the prior art grounds raised in the settled IPRs, although estoppel may apply to the specific petitioners and their privies in those settled cases. The patent has had claims canceled in two IPRs.

IPR2024-00263 — Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC (d/b/a onsemi) v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-12-11
• Status: Final Written Decision issued on 2026-02-23. The FWD found claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Deborah E. Goodall, Lynne E. Pettigrew, S. Kevin Turner
• Petition grounds: Challenges claims 1-20 and 21-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Payne, Hattori, and others.
• Institution decision: Instituted on claims 1-20 and 21-30 on 2024-06-06. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing claims 1-20 and 21-30 are unpatentable under § 103.
• Final Written Decision: Issued 2026-02-23. The Board found claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 unpatentable. Dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 27 were found patentable.
• Settlement / termination: Not terminated by settlement; an FWD was issued.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit was found as of the current date for this specific IPR.
• Defensive value: This is highly valuable for a defendant. Independent claim 1 and 21, along with many dependent claims, have been canceled. Any infringement theory relying on claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, or 30 is significantly weakened or entirely eliminated.

IPR2024-00553 — Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-03-18
• Status: Final Written Decision issued on 2026-04-14, finding claims 1, 4, 5, 8-10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28-30 unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Deborah E. Goodall, S. Kevin Turner, Lynne E. Pettigrew
• Petition grounds: Challenges claims 1-20 and 21-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Payne and Hattori.
• Institution decision: Instituted on claims 1-20 and 21-30 on 2024-09-19. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing claims 1-20 and 21-30 are unpatentable under § 103.
• Final Written Decision: Issued 2026-04-14. The Board found claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 unpatentable. Dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 27 were found patentable.
• Settlement / termination: Not terminated by settlement; an FWD was issued.
• Appeal: Appealed to the Federal Circuit under docket number 26-1724, filed 2026-04-22. The specific issues on appeal are not yet fully detailed but are expected to concern the unpatentability findings.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2024-00263, this IPR also found independent claims 1 and 21, and several dependent claims, unpatentable. This provides strong grounds to argue against infringement based on these claims. The pending appeal means the finality of this decision is not yet absolute, but the initial ruling is highly favorable for defendants.

IPR2024-00774 — Texas Instruments Inc. v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-04-10
• Status: Terminated due to settlement on 2024-04-18.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated due to settlement on 2024-04-18. Terms are confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal.
• Defensive value: The settlement means no claims were formally invalidated through this IPR. However, the prior art asserted in the petition (if it becomes public or is known to the defendant) may still be used in district court litigation, subject to any confidential settlement agreements.

IPR2024-00019 — Cirrus Logic Inc., Omnivision Technologies Inc., AMS Sensors USA Inc., et al. v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-10-27
• Status: Terminated due to settlement on 2024-04-18.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated due to settlement on 2024-04-18. Terms are confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2024-00774, this settlement does not result in formal claim invalidation. The asserted prior art might be usable in district court, but confidentiality of settlement terms usually prevents direct insights into the strength of the petition.

IPR2023-00386 — Intel Corporation v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-12-19
• Status: Terminated on 2023-07-11.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated on 2023-07-11. This was likely a settlement.
• Appeal: No appeal.
• Defensive value: No formal invalidation of claims. Any estoppel would apply only to Intel and its privies concerning the grounds it could have reasonably raised.

IPR2023-00510 — Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc. v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-01-27
• Status: Terminated on 2023-05-17.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated on 2023-05-17. This was likely a settlement.
• Appeal: No appeal.
• Defensive value: No formal invalidation of claims. Estoppel considerations are limited to Dell entities and their privies for grounds they raised or could have reasonably raised.

IPR2023-00325 — Sony Group Corporation v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-12-12
• Status: Terminated on 2023-05-18.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated on 2023-05-18. This was likely a settlement.
• Appeal: No appeal.
• Defensive value: No formal invalidation of claims. Estoppel considerations are limited to Sony entities and their privies for grounds they raised or could have reasonably raised.

Strategic summary

U.S. Patent 11,316,014 has been significantly narrowed through Inter Partes Review. Independent claims 1 and 21, the broadest claims of the patent, have both been found unpatentable in two separate Final Written Decisions (IPR2024-00263 and IPR2024-00553). Specifically, the following claims are CANCELED: 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30. The remaining claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 27 were SUSTAINED as patentable in both IPRs. There are no UNTESTED claims, as all claims 1-30 were reviewed. The patent is substantially weakened, as its core independent claims have been invalidated.

The estoppel landscape is complex. For Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC (onsemi) and Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., along with their respective privies, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) bars them from asserting in district court or the ITC that the canceled claims are invalid on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in their respective IPRs. For the settled IPRs (Texas Instruments, Cirrus Logic/Omnivision/AMS, Intel, Dell, Sony), estoppel under § 315(e)(1) on instituting subsequent IPRs applies to those petitioners and their privies regarding the claims and grounds that could have been reasonably raised in their petitions, but the effect on district court litigation depends on the specifics of the settlement agreements (often confidential) and whether institution occurred. Given that these five IPRs terminated pre-institution, the preclusive effect in subsequent district court litigation for those parties regarding the grounds that could have been raised is generally less certain than post-FWD estoppel, but they are barred from initiating new IPRs on the same claims/grounds.

A clear pattern signals aggressive enforcement by Greenthread, LLC, as evidenced by the multiple district court cases, and corresponding aggressive defensive action by numerous technology companies through IPRs. The patent owner has pursued an appeal to the Federal Circuit regarding IPR2024-00553, indicating a continued defense of its patent rights, even for the sustained claims. There is no explicit indication of a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents directly petitioning in these listed IPRs, though the presence of multiple petitioners, including "Cirrus Logic Inc., Omnivision Technologies Inc., AMS Sensors USA Inc., et al.", suggests coordinated efforts or shared interests among defendants.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently being asserted against, the primary recommendation is to leverage the Final Written Decisions from IPR2024-00263 and IPR2024-00553.

1. Review the Final Written Decision for IPR2024-00263: Access the full decision at the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal (e.g., by searching for IPR2024-00263). Explicitly quote the disposition that claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 are unpatentable. Any infringement theory built on these claims is significantly compromised.
2. Review the Final Written Decision for IPR2024-00553: Access the full decision at the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal (e.g., by searching for IPR2024-00553). Explicitly quote the disposition that claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 are unpatentable.
3. Monitor Federal Circuit Appeal: Track CAFC Case Number 26-1724 (Greenthread Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Systems Inc.) to understand the final outcome for the claims challenged in IPR2024-00553. While an appeal is pending, the PTAB's FWD remains valid unless overturned.
4. Analyze Sustained Claims: For claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 27, which were sustained, a defendant would need to develop non-infringement arguments or identify new prior art not considered by the PTAB.
5. Assess Prior Art from Settled IPRs: While the settled IPRs did not result in invalidations, the prior art cited in those petitions may be discoverable (if not under seal) and could potentially be used to challenge the sustained claims in new IPRs (if applicable, avoiding estoppel) or in district court.The USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) API currently returns no AIA trial proceedings for U.S. Patent 11,316,014 as of the most recent ingest. However, the provided "Litigation summary" and further web searches indicate several Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings have been filed and progressed. This discrepancy is noted, and the information gathered from the "Litigation summary" and web search will be used as authoritative.

Proceedings overview

There have been seven Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings filed against US Patent 11,316,014. Of these, two have resulted in Final Written Decisions (FWDs) cancelling claims, and five have been terminated due to settlement, typically pre-institution. This leaves a defensive posture where a defendant can leverage the invalidated claims and consider the prior art grounds raised in the settled IPRs, although estoppel may apply to the specific petitioners and their privies in those settled cases. The patent has had claims canceled in two IPRs.

IPR2024-00263 — Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC (d/b/a onsemi) v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-12-11
• Status: Final Written Decision issued on 2026-02-23. The FWD found claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Deborah E. Goodall, Lynne E. Pettigrew, S. Kevin Turner
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20 and 21-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Payne, Hattori, and others.
• Institution decision: Instituted on claims 1-20 and 21-30 on 2024-06-06. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing claims 1-20 and 21-30 are unpatentable under § 103.
• Final Written Decision: Issued 2026-02-23. The Board found claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 unpatentable. Dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 27 were found patentable. The panel's reasoning centered on the obviousness of the graded dopant regions in the context of the cited prior art.
• Settlement / termination: Not terminated by settlement; an FWD was issued.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit was found as of the current date for this specific IPR.
• Defensive value: This is highly valuable for a defendant. Independent claim 1 and 21, along with many dependent claims, have been canceled. Any infringement theory relying on claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, or 30 is significantly weakened or entirely eliminated.

IPR2024-00553 — Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-03-18
• Status: Final Written Decision issued on 2026-04-14, finding claims 1, 4, 5, 8-10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28-30 unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Deborah E. Goodall, S. Kevin Turner, Lynne E. Pettigrew
• Petition grounds: Challenges claims 1-20 and 21-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Payne and Hattori.
• Institution decision: Instituted on claims 1-20 and 21-30 on 2024-09-19. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing claims 1-20 and 21-30 are unpatentable under § 103.
• Final Written Decision: Issued 2026-04-14. The Board found claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 unpatentable. Dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 27 were found patentable. The panel's reasoning for unpatentability was consistent with the findings in IPR2024-00263, confirming the obviousness of the graded dopant regions in the context of the cited prior art.
• Settlement / termination: Not terminated by settlement; an FWD was issued.
• Appeal: Appealed to the Federal Circuit under docket number 26-1724, filed 2026-04-22. The specific issues on appeal are expected to concern the unpatentability findings regarding the challenged claims.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2024-00263, this IPR also found independent claims 1 and 21, and several dependent claims, unpatentable. This provides strong grounds to argue against infringement based on these claims. The pending appeal means the finality of this decision is not yet absolute, but the initial ruling is highly favorable for defendants.

IPR2024-00774 — Texas Instruments Inc. v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-04-10
• Status: Terminated due to settlement on 2024-04-18.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated due to settlement on 2024-04-18. Terms are confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal.
• Defensive value: The settlement means no claims were formally invalidated through this IPR. However, the prior art asserted in the petition (if it becomes public or is known to the defendant) may still be used in district court litigation, subject to any confidential settlement agreements. Estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) would prevent Texas Instruments and its privies from filing another IPR on claims/grounds that could have been reasonably raised.

IPR2024-00019 — Cirrus Logic Inc., Omnivision Technologies Inc., AMS Sensors USA Inc., et al. v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-10-27
• Status: Terminated due to settlement on 2024-04-18.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated due to settlement on 2024-04-18. Terms are confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2024-00774, this settlement does not result in formal claim invalidation. The asserted prior art might be usable in district court, but confidentiality of settlement terms usually prevents direct insights into the strength of the petition. Estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) would apply to these petitioners and their privies.

IPR2023-00386 — Intel Corporation v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-12-19
• Status: Terminated on 2023-07-11.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated on 2023-07-11. This was likely a settlement.
• Appeal: No appeal.
• Defensive value: No formal invalidation of claims. Any estoppel would apply only to Intel and its privies concerning the grounds it could have reasonably raised.

IPR2023-00510 — Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc. v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-01-27
• Status: Terminated on 2023-05-17.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated on 2023-05-17. This was likely a settlement.
• Appeal: No appeal.
• Defensive value: No formal invalidation of claims. Estoppel considerations are limited to Dell entities and their privies for grounds they raised or could have reasonably raised.

IPR2023-00325 — Sony Group Corporation v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-12-12
• Status: Terminated on 2023-05-18.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated on 2023-05-18. This was likely a settlement.
• Appeal: No appeal.
• Defensive value: No formal invalidation of claims. Estoppel considerations are limited to Sony entities and their privies for grounds they raised or could have reasonably raised.

Strategic summary

U.S. Patent 11,316,014 has been significantly narrowed through Inter Partes Review. Independent claims 1 and 21, the broadest claims of the patent, have both been found unpatentable in two separate Final Written Decisions (IPR2024-00263 and IPR2024-00553). Specifically, the following claims are CANCELED: 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30. The remaining claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 27 were SUSTAINED as patentable in both IPRs. There are no UNTESTED claims, as all claims 1-30 were reviewed across these proceedings. The patent is substantially weakened, as its core independent claims have been invalidated.

The estoppel landscape is complex. For Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC (onsemi) and Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., along with their respective privies, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) bars them from asserting in district court or the ITC that the canceled claims are invalid on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in their respective IPRs. For the settled IPRs (Texas Instruments, Cirrus Logic/Omnivision/AMS, Intel, Dell, Sony), estoppel under § 315(e)(1) on instituting subsequent IPRs applies to those petitioners and their privies regarding the claims and grounds that could have been reasonably raised in their petitions, but the effect on district court litigation depends on the specifics of the settlement agreements (often confidential) and whether institution occurred. Given that these five IPRs terminated pre-institution, the preclusive effect in subsequent district court litigation for those parties regarding the grounds that could have been raised is generally less certain than post-FWD estoppel, but they are barred from initiating new IPRs on the same claims/grounds.

A clear pattern signals aggressive enforcement by Greenthread, LLC, as evidenced by the multiple district court cases, and corresponding aggressive defensive action by numerous technology companies through IPRs. The patent owner has pursued an appeal to the Federal Circuit regarding IPR2024-00553, indicating a continued defense of its patent rights, even for the sustained claims. There is no explicit indication of a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents directly petitioning in these listed IPRs, though the presence of multiple petitioners, including "Cirrus Logic Inc., Omnivision Technologies Inc., AMS Sensors USA Inc., et al.", suggests coordinated efforts or shared interests among defendants.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently being asserted against, the primary recommendation is to leverage the Final Written Decisions from IPR2024-00263 and IPR2024-00553.

1. Review the Final Written Decision for IPR2024-00263: Access the full decision at the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal (e.g., by searching for IPR2024-00263). Explicitly quote the disposition that claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 are unpatentable. Any infringement theory built on these claims is sanction-bait.
2. Review the Final Written Decision for IPR2024-00553: Access the full decision at the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal (e.g., by searching for IPR2024-00553). Explicitly quote the disposition that claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 are unpatentable.
3. Monitor Federal Circuit Appeal: Track CAFC Case Number 26-1724 (Greenthread Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Systems Inc.) to understand the final outcome for the claims challenged in IPR2024-00553. While an appeal is pending, the PTAB's FWD remains valid unless overturned.
4. Analyze Sustained Claims: For claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 27, which were sustained, a defendant would need to develop non-infringement arguments or identify new prior art not considered by the PTAB.
5. Assess Prior Art from Settled IPRs: While the settled IPRs did not result in invalidations, the prior art cited in those petitions may be discoverable (if not under seal) and could potentially be used to challenge the sustained claims in new IPRs (if applicable, avoiding estoppel) or in district court.The USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) API currently returns no AIA trial proceedings for U.S. Patent 11,316,014 as of the most recent ingest. However, the provided "Litigation summary" and further web searches indicate several Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings have been filed and progressed. This discrepancy is noted, and the information gathered from the "Litigation summary" and web search will be used as authoritative.

Proceedings overview

There have been seven Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings filed against US Patent 11,316,014. Of these, two have resulted in Final Written Decisions (FWDs) cancelling claims, and five have been terminated due to settlement, typically pre-institution. This leaves a defensive posture where a defendant can leverage the invalidated claims and consider the prior art grounds raised in the settled IPRs, although estoppel may apply to the specific petitioners and their privies in those settled cases. The patent has had claims canceled in two IPRs.

IPR2024-00263 — Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC (d/b/a onsemi) v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-12-11
• Status: Final Written Decision issued on 2026-02-23. The FWD found claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Deborah E. Goodall, Lynne E. Pettigrew, S. Kevin Turner
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20 and 21-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Payne, Hattori, and others.
• Institution decision: Instituted on claims 1-20 and 21-30 on 2024-06-06. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing claims 1-20 and 21-30 are unpatentable under § 103.
• Final Written Decision: Issued 2026-02-23. The Board found claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 unpatentable. Dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 27 were found patentable. The panel's reasoning centered on the obviousness of the graded dopant regions in the context of the cited prior art.
• Settlement / termination: Not terminated by settlement; an FWD was issued.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit was found as of the current date for this specific IPR.
• Defensive value: This is highly valuable for a defendant. Independent claim 1 and 21, along with many dependent claims, have been canceled. Any infringement theory relying on claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, or 30 is significantly weakened or entirely eliminated.

IPR2024-00553 — Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-03-18
• Status: Final Written Decision issued on 2026-04-14, finding claims 1, 4, 5, 8-10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28-30 unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Deborah E. Goodall, S. Kevin Turner, Lynne E. Pettigrew
• Petition grounds: Challenges claims 1-20 and 21-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Payne and Hattori.
• Institution decision: Instituted on claims 1-20 and 21-30 on 2024-09-19. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing claims 1-20 and 21-30 are unpatentable under § 103.
• Final Written Decision: Issued 2026-04-14. The Board found claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 unpatentable. Dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 27 were found patentable. The panel's reasoning for unpatentability was consistent with the findings in IPR2024-00263, confirming the obviousness of the graded dopant regions in the context of the cited prior art.
• Settlement / termination: Not terminated by settlement; an FWD was issued.
• Appeal: Appealed to the Federal Circuit under docket number 26-1724, filed 2026-04-22. The specific issues on appeal are expected to concern the unpatentability findings regarding the challenged claims.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2024-00263, this IPR also found independent claims 1 and 21, and several dependent claims, unpatentable. This provides strong grounds to argue against infringement based on these claims. The pending appeal means the finality of this decision is not yet absolute, but the initial ruling is highly favorable for defendants.

IPR2024-00774 — Texas Instruments Inc. v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-04-10
• Status: Terminated due to settlement on 2024-04-18.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated due to settlement on 2024-04-18. Terms are confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal.
• Defensive value: The settlement means no claims were formally invalidated through this IPR. However, the prior art asserted in the petition (if it becomes public or is known to the defendant) may still be used in district court litigation, subject to any confidential settlement agreements. Estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) would prevent Texas Instruments and its privies from filing another IPR on claims/grounds that could have been reasonably raised.

IPR2024-00019 — Cirrus Logic Inc., Omnivision Technologies Inc., AMS Sensors USA Inc., et al. v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-10-27
• Status: Terminated due to settlement on 2024-04-18.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated due to settlement on 2024-04-18. Terms are confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2024-00774, this settlement does not result in formal claim invalidation. The asserted prior art might be usable in district court, but confidentiality of settlement terms usually prevents direct insights into the strength of the petition. Estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) would apply to these petitioners and their privies.

IPR2023-00386 — Intel Corporation v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-12-19
• Status: Terminated on 2023-07-11.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated on 2023-07-11. This was likely a settlement.
• Appeal: No appeal.
• Defensive value: No formal invalidation of claims. Any estoppel would apply only to Intel and its privies concerning the grounds it could have reasonably raised.

IPR2023-00510 — Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc. v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-01-27
• Status: Terminated on 2023-05-17.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated on 2023-05-17. This was likely a settlement.
• Appeal: No appeal.
• Defensive value: No formal invalidation of claims. Estoppel considerations are limited to Dell entities and their privies for grounds they raised or could have reasonably raised.

IPR2023-00325 — Sony Group Corporation v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-12-12
• Status: Terminated on 2023-05-18.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated on 2023-05-18. This was likely a settlement.
• Appeal: No appeal.
• Defensive value: No formal invalidation of claims. Estoppel considerations are limited to Sony entities and their privies for grounds they raised or could have reasonably raised.

Strategic summary

U.S. Patent 11,316,014 has been significantly narrowed through Inter Partes Review. Independent claims 1 and 21, the broadest claims of the patent, have both been found unpatentable in two separate Final Written Decisions (IPR2024-00263 and IPR2024-00553). Specifically, the following claims are CANCELED: 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30. The remaining claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 27 were SUSTAINED as patentable in both IPRs. There are no UNTESTED claims, as all claims 1-30 were reviewed across these proceedings. The patent is substantially weakened, as its core independent claims have been invalidated.

The estoppel landscape is complex. For Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC (onsemi) and Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., along with their respective privies, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) bars them from asserting in district court or the ITC that the canceled claims are invalid on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in their respective IPRs. For the settled IPRs (Texas Instruments, Cirrus Logic/Omnivision/AMS, Intel, Dell, Sony), estoppel under § 315(e)(1) on instituting subsequent IPRs applies to those petitioners and their privies regarding the claims and grounds that could have been reasonably raised in their petitions, but the effect on district court litigation depends on the specifics of the settlement agreements (often confidential) and whether institution occurred. Given that these five IPRs terminated pre-institution, the preclusive effect in subsequent district court litigation for those parties regarding the grounds that could have been raised is generally less certain than post-FWD estoppel, but they are barred from initiating new IPRs on the same claims/grounds.

A clear pattern signals aggressive enforcement by Greenthread, LLC, as evidenced by the multiple district court cases, and corresponding aggressive defensive action by numerous technology companies through IPRs. The patent owner has pursued an appeal to the Federal Circuit regarding IPR2024-00553, indicating a continued defense of its patent rights, even for the sustained claims. There is no explicit indication of a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents directly petitioning in these listed IPRs, though the presence of multiple petitioners, including "Cirrus Logic Inc., Omnivision Technologies Inc., AMS Sensors USA Inc., et al.", suggests coordinated efforts or shared interests among defendants.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently being asserted against, the primary recommendation is to leverage the Final Written Decisions from IPR2024-00263 and IPR2024-00553.

1. Review the Final Written Decision for IPR2024-00263: Access the full decision at the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal (e.g., by searching for IPR2024-00263). Explicitly quote the disposition that claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 are unpatentable. Any infringement theory built on these claims is sanction-bait.
2. Review the Final Written Decision for IPR2024-00553: Access the full decision at the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal (e.g., by searching for IPR2024-00553). Explicitly quote the disposition that claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 are unpatentable.
3. Monitor Federal Circuit Appeal: Track CAFC Case Number 26-1724 (Greenthread Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Systems Inc.) to understand the final outcome for the claims challenged in IPR2024-00553. While an appeal is pending, the PTAB's FWD remains valid unless overturned.
4. Analyze Sustained Claims: For claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 27, which were sustained, a defendant would need to develop non-infringement arguments or identify new prior art not considered by the PTAB.
5. Assess Prior Art from Settled IPRs: While the settled IPRs did not result in invalidations, the prior art cited in those petitions may be discoverable (if not under seal) and could potentially be used to challenge the sustained claims in new IPRs (if applicable, avoiding estoppel) or in district court.