PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

The USPTO Open Data Portal shows two AIA trial proceedings on US patent 11620634. Both proceedings, IPR2025-01361 and IPR2025-01152, were denied institution on discretionary grounds. This indicates a strong defensive posture for the patent owner, as the patent has survived two challenges at the institution phase, hardening its validity against the specific grounds raised by Google LLC and [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.)

IPR2025-01361 — Google LLC v. CardWare Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-07-29
• Status: Discretionary Denial (The petition for inter partes review was denied institution by the PTAB.)
• Judge panel: [I am unable to determine the specific judge panel for this proceeding based on the available information. Many PTAB institution decisions are not directly accessible through public search without specific case access, and the provided prompt context does not contain this information.]
• Petition grounds: [I am unable to determine the specific claims, prior art, or statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) challenged in the petition without access to the full petition or institution decision.]
• Institution decision: Denied. The petition was denied institution on 2026-03-05 on discretionary grounds. [The specific reasoning for the discretionary denial is not available without access to the full institution decision document.]
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: This proceeding demonstrates that Google LLC attempted to challenge the patent but was unsuccessful at the institution stage. The patent owner prevailed, meaning an IPR-based defense using the same or substantially similar grounds against Google LLC would be challenging.

IPR2025-01152 — Apple Inc. v. CardWare Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-06-20
• Status: Discretionary Denial (The petition for inter partes review was denied institution by the PTAB.)
• Judge panel: [I am unable to determine the specific judge panel for this proceeding based on the available information. Many PTAB institution decisions are not directly accessible through public search without specific case access, and the provided prompt context does not contain this information.]
• Petition grounds: [I am unable to determine the specific claims, prior art, or statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) challenged in the petition without access to the full petition or institution decision.]
• Institution decision: Denied. The petition was denied institution on 2026-01-12 on discretionary grounds. [The specific reasoning for the discretionary denial is not available without access to the full institution decision document.]
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: Apple Inc.'s petition against the patent was denied institution. This indicates that the patent has withstood a challenge from a major technology company at the preliminary stage, making an IPR-based defense on the same or similar grounds more difficult for Apple Inc.

Strategic summary

All claims of US patent 11620634 remain UNTESTED at the PTAB, as both IPR petitions filed against it were denied institution. This means no claims have been canceled or found unpatentable by the PTAB. The patent owner, CardWare Inc., has successfully defended the patent against challenges from two prominent technology companies, Google LLC and Apple Inc., at the institution phase.

The estoppel landscape under § 315(e)(2) will bar both Google LLC and Apple Inc. (and their privies) from asserting in future district court litigation or other PTAB proceedings any ground of unpatentability that they raised or reasonably could have raised in their respective IPR petitions. For a defendant currently being asserted against by CardWare Inc., the grounds raised by Google and Apple are likely unavailable to them if they are in privy with these petitioners. However, a new defendant not in privy with Google or Apple would still have the opportunity to raise their own prior-art grounds against the patent, provided they are not estopped for other reasons.

There is a clear pattern signal here: two separate petitioners, both major tech companies, have attempted IPRs on this patent and both have been met with discretionary denials. This suggests the patent owner is adept at navigating PTAB proceedings and that the patent itself may possess characteristics (e.g., strong arguments against instituting based on Fintiv factors, or other discretionary grounds) that make it challenging to successfully institute an IPR. There is no indication of defensive aggregators like Unified Patents in these proceedings.

Recommended next steps

Since both IPRs (IPR2025-01361 and IPR2025-01152) were denied institution, there are no invalidated claims to cite. The patent US11620634 has currently survived all challenges at the PTAB institution stage. A defendant facing assertion of this patent today should understand that the patent is thus far unblemished by PTAB proceedings. Any future IPR petition would need to carefully consider the reasons for the discretionary denials in the prior cases (once those decisions become fully public and accessible) and present new, compelling grounds that address those concerns. No active proceedings are pending.