PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 11456365. This proceeding, IPR2025-01281, was terminated due to a settlement between the parties. This means the claims of the patent have not been fully adjudicated by the PTAB, and the patent's validity has not been tested through a Final Written Decision. For a defendant, this indicates the patent claims remain untested by the PTAB, and an IPR defense remains an option, though the specific claims and prior art raised in the settled IPR may face estoppel for the petitioner and its privies.

IPR2025-01281 — Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-03
• Status: Terminated-Settled. This indicates the proceeding concluded without a Final Written Decision, likely due to an agreement between the petitioner and the patent owner.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from the provided data or general search for a settled case prior to institution or FWD.
• Petition grounds: This information is not explicitly available from the structured data. A specific search would be required to retrieve the petition document from the USPTO PTAB E2E system to determine the challenged claims, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112).
• Institution decision: The proceeding status is "Terminated-Settled" as of 2026-02-20, which is prior to the typical one-year deadline for a final written decision (September 2026). It is highly probable that an institution decision was never reached or was issued shortly before settlement, as settlement often occurs at or after institution. Without specific access to the PTAB E2E docket for IPR2025-01281, the exact date and panel's reasoning for institution (or denial) are not publicly available from the provided data or general search.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): No Final Written Decision was issued as the proceeding was Terminated-Settled.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated as settled on 2026-02-20. The specific terms of the settlement are confidential between Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. and Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd.
• Appeal: Given the termination via settlement and absence of a Final Written Decision, no Federal Circuit appeal would have occurred.
• Defensive value: This proceeding did not result in any claims being invalidated by the PTAB. However, the fact that a large entity like Sandisk Technologies, Inc. filed an IPR could indicate potential validity concerns with the patent. The claims of US11456365 remain untested by a PTAB Final Written Decision.

Strategic summary

There is one AIA trial proceeding, IPR2025-01281, on file for US patent 11456365. This IPR was initiated by Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. but was ultimately terminated as settled on 2026-02-20, before a Final Written Decision could be rendered. Consequently, no claims of US11456365 have been officially canceled or sustained by the PTAB. All claims of the patent are therefore considered UNTESTED by the PTAB.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, Section 315(e)(2) estoppel, which bars petitioners and their privies from raising grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised, typically applies after a Final Written Decision is issued. Since IPR2025-01281 was terminated by settlement, it is unlikely that statutory estoppel under § 315(e)(2) would apply in the same manner as if a FWD had been issued. However, contractual estoppel (via the settlement agreement) could prevent Sandisk and its privies from challenging the patent again using the same or similar prior art. For a new defendant facing assertion of this patent, virtually all prior-art grounds remain available for a potential new IPR filing, assuming they are not in privity with Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al.

The involvement of Sandisk Technologies, Inc., a significant player in the memory technology space, suggests that the patent claims may have been viewed as potentially problematic or impactful by a competitor. The settlement before a decision could indicate a mutually beneficial agreement, rather than a definitive statement on the patent's validity. There is no public pattern of aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner or involvement of defensive aggregators indicated by this single proceeding.

Recommended next steps

Since IPR2025-01281 was terminated by settlement and no claims were adjudicated, there is no Final Written Decision to link to for invalidated claims. The patent claims remain untested by the PTAB.

For a defendant considering challenging US11456365:

• Investigate the settlement: While the terms are confidential, understanding the context or any public statements around the settlement for IPR2025-01281 might offer insights into the patent owner's or petitioner's positions.
• Conduct a thorough prior art search: Given that the patent's claims haven't been tested by a PTAB FWD, a fresh and comprehensive prior art search is crucial to identify strong grounds for a new IPR petition, should one be necessary.
• Evaluate claims independently: Carefully analyze the claims of US11456365, particularly those cited in any assertion, against newly identified or existing prior art to determine the strength of potential invalidity arguments.
• Consider a new IPR filing: If strong prior art grounds are found, filing a new IPR remains a viable strategy as estoppel from the settled IPR is unlikely to apply to an unrelated defendant.## Proceedings overview
  One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 11456365. This proceeding, IPR2025-01281, was terminated due to a settlement between the parties. This means the claims of the patent have not been fully adjudicated by the PTAB, and the patent's validity has not been tested through a Final Written Decision. For a defendant, this indicates the patent claims remain untested by the PTAB, and an IPR defense remains an option, though the specific claims and prior art raised in the settled IPR may face estoppel for the petitioner and its privies.

IPR2025-01281 — Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-03
• Status: Terminated-Settled. This indicates the proceeding concluded without a Final Written Decision, likely due to an agreement between the petitioner and the patent owner.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from the provided data or general search for a settled case prior to institution or FWD.
• Petition grounds: This information is not explicitly available from the structured data. A specific search would be required to retrieve the petition document from the USPTO PTAB E2E system to determine the challenged claims, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112).
• Institution decision: The proceeding status is "Terminated-Settled" as of 2026-02-20, which is prior to the typical one-year deadline for a final written decision (September 2026). It is highly probable that an institution decision was never reached or was issued shortly before settlement, as settlement often occurs at or after institution. Without specific access to the PTAB E2E docket for IPR2025-01281, the exact date and panel's reasoning for institution (or denial) are not publicly available from the provided data or general search.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): No Final Written Decision was issued as the proceeding was Terminated-Settled.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated as settled on 2026-02-20. The specific terms of the settlement are confidential between Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. and Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd.
• Appeal: Given the termination via settlement and absence of a Final Written Decision, no Federal Circuit appeal would have occurred.
• Defensive value: This proceeding did not result in any claims being invalidated by the PTAB. However, the fact that a large entity like Sandisk Technologies, Inc. filed an IPR could indicate potential validity concerns with the patent. The claims of US11456365 remain untested by a PTAB Final Written Decision.

Strategic summary

There is one AIA trial proceeding, IPR2025-01281, on file for US patent 11456365. This IPR was initiated by Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. but was ultimately terminated as settled on 2026-02-20, before a Final Written Decision could be rendered. Consequently, no claims of US11456365 have been officially canceled or sustained by the PTAB. All claims of the patent are therefore considered UNTESTED by the PTAB.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, Section 315(e)(2) estoppel, which bars petitioners and their privies from raising grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised, typically applies after a Final Written Decision is issued. Since IPR2025-01281 was terminated by settlement, it is unlikely that statutory estoppel under § 315(e)(2) would apply in the same manner as if a FWD had been issued. However, contractual estoppel (via the settlement agreement) could prevent Sandisk and its privies from challenging the patent again using the same or similar prior art. For a new defendant facing assertion of this patent, virtually all prior-art grounds remain available for a potential new IPR filing, assuming they are not in privity with Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al.

The involvement of Sandisk Technologies, Inc., a significant player in the memory technology space, suggests that the patent claims may have been viewed as potentially problematic or impactful by a competitor. The settlement before a decision could indicate a mutually beneficial agreement, rather than a definitive statement on the patent's validity. There is no public pattern of aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner or involvement of defensive aggregators indicated by this single proceeding.

Recommended next steps

Since IPR2025-01281 was terminated by settlement and no claims were adjudicated, there is no Final Written Decision to link to for invalidated claims. The patent claims remain untested by the PTAB.

For a defendant considering challenging US11456365:

• Investigate the settlement: While the terms are confidential, understanding the context or any public statements around the settlement for IPR2025-01281 might offer insights into the patent owner's or petitioner's positions.
• Conduct a thorough prior art search: Given that the patent's claims haven't been tested by a PTAB FWD, a fresh and comprehensive prior art search is crucial to identify strong grounds for a new IPR petition, should one be necessary.
• Evaluate claims independently: Carefully analyze the claims of US11456365, particularly those cited in any assertion, against newly identified or existing prior art to determine the strength of potential invalidity arguments.
• Consider a new IPR filing: If strong prior art grounds are found, filing a new IPR remains a viable strategy as estoppel from the settled IPR is unlikely to apply to an unrelated defendant.