PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US Patent 11,329,973. This proceeding, IPR2024-00490, initially resulted in a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable, but this decision was subsequently vacated-in-part and remanded by Director Review for reconsideration of arguments related to a particular dependent claim. The patent owner is actively appealing related consolidated cases to the Federal Circuit. This gives a defendant a complex defensive posture, as the patent's claims were largely found unpatentable but are currently in a state of partial remand and potential appeal.

IPR2024-00490 — Visa Inc. v. Cortex MCP Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-01-26
• Status: Final Written Decision (FWD) issued, then vacated-in-part and remanded for further proceedings by Director Review. This means the patentability of certain claims, particularly one dependent claim, is still under reconsideration by the PTAB.
• Judge panel: The Delegated Director Review decision (Paper 36, November 7, 2025) was before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, Acting Chief Administrative Patent Judge, MICHAEL W. KIM, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge, and JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, Acting Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge. Director John Squires granted the initial Director Review on October 15, 2025.
• Petition grounds: Inter partes review was instituted as to all challenged claims and all asserted grounds of unpatentability. While specific prior art references for US11329973 are not detailed in the snippets, related consolidated petitions (IPR2024-00486) targeted claims for obviousness over prior art related to payment tokenization and scannable QR codes.
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2024-08-02 as to all challenged claims and all asserted grounds of unpatentability.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): The initial Final Written Decision found all challenged claims unpatentable. However, on 2025-10-15, Director Review was granted, and the FWD was "vacated-in-part" and "remanded for further consideration where the Board's decision overlooked Patent Owner's arguments regarding a particular dependent claim." A subsequent Delegated Director Review on 2025-11-07 further confirmed the FWD found "All Challenged Claims Unpatentable" while acknowledging the Director Review process. The specific claims still under review due to the remand are not detailed in the provided information.
• Settlement / termination: Not terminated by settlement; an FWD was issued and subsequently subjected to Director Review.
• Appeal: The status for IPR2024-00486, which was consolidated with IPR2024-00490 for Director Review, is listed as "Final Written Decision - Appealed" with appeal number 26-1259. This indicates that the outcome of the Director Review is being appealed to the Federal Circuit.
• Defensive value: Initially, the FWD indicated all challenged claims of US11329973 were unpatentable. However, the subsequent Director Review vacating-in-part and remanding for a specific dependent claim means the patentability of at least that dependent claim is still unsettled. An appeal to the Federal Circuit on the consolidated cases adds further uncertainty. While the initial FWD was a strong blow to the patent owner, the current status means that the final disposition of all claims is not yet determined, and some claims might ultimately be held patentable after the remand or on appeal.

Strategic summary

One IPR proceeding, IPR2024-00490, has been initiated against US Patent 11,329,973 by Visa Inc. The initial Final Written Decision (FWD) in this proceeding, along with consolidated cases IPR2024-00486 and IPR2024-00489, found all challenged claims unpatentable. However, this outcome was not entirely conclusive. On 2025-10-15, Director Review was granted, and the FWD was vacated-in-part and remanded to the PTAB for further consideration of arguments concerning "a particular dependent claim". This means that while the bulk of the challenged claims may still be considered unpatentable based on the original FWD, at least one dependent claim is still subject to reconsideration. As of 2025-11-07, a Delegated Director Review decision was issued related to these consolidated proceedings, but the remand for the dependent claim still stands.

Furthermore, IPR2024-00486, which was part of this consolidated review, is listed as "Final Written Decision - Appealed" to the Federal Circuit under appeal number 26-1259. Given the consolidation and shared Director Review, it is highly probable that the outcome for IPR2024-00490 and US11329973 is also subject to this appeal, or further proceedings are pending at the PTAB following the remand. Therefore, the claims of US11329973, while initially deemed unpatentable, are currently in a state of active review and appeal, meaning no claims are definitively canceled or sustained at this moment, but many are contested. The estoppel landscape is complex due to the partial remand and ongoing appeal; any grounds raised or reasonably could have been raised by Visa Inc. and its privies would be barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for the challenged claims.

Unified Patents, which lists IPR2024-00490 on its portal, is known for its role as a defensive aggregator that files IPRs to deter non-practicing entities. Its involvement suggests a coordinated effort to challenge the patent. The fact that an initial FWD found all claims unpatentable, even with the subsequent remand, indicates significant weaknesses in the patent's claims against the prior art presented by Visa.

Recommended next steps

• Review Director Review Decision: Obtain and thoroughly review Paper 47 (dated 2025-10-15) and Paper 36 (dated 2025-11-07) from the PTAB's Electronic Filing System (E2E) for IPR2024-00490. These documents will provide the specific reasoning for the partial vacatur and remand, including the identity of the "particular dependent claim" under reconsideration. This is crucial for understanding the exact scope of surviving or potentially surviving claims.
• Monitor Federal Circuit Appeal: Closely monitor Federal Circuit appeal 26-1259 (Visa Inc. v. Cortex MCP Inc.) to understand the legal arguments and potential implications for IPR2024-00490. The outcome of this appeal will be highly influential on the ultimate patentability of the claims in US11329973.
• Assess Impact on Assertion: If facing an assertion of US11329973, a defendant should evaluate whether the asserted claims include those initially found unpatentable in the FWD (and not subsequently saved by the remand or appeal). Any infringement theory built on claims definitively found unpatentable by the PTAB (if any are ultimately confirmed as such after remand/appeal) would be significantly weakened.
• Consider Estoppel: The estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) will apply to Visa Inc. and its privies. For other potential defendants, grounds of unpatentability not raised, or not reasonably could have been raised, in IPR2024-00490 remain available.