PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There are a total of four AIA trial proceedings on file for U.S. Patent 11,620,701, all of which have been terminated through settlement or other means, with no claims formally invalidated or sustained by the PTAB. This means the patent's claims remain untested by a Final Written Decision, giving a defendant a unique defensive posture where the patent has not been hardened through a successful IPR defense on the merits.

IPR2026-00152 — Ebury Partners UK Ltd. v. Intercurrency Software LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-12-17
• Status: Terminated (Settlement)
• Judge panel: Information not publicly available without access to the full PTAB docket.
• Petition grounds: Information regarding the specific claims challenged, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) is not publicly available without access to the full petition.
• Institution decision: Not applicable, as the proceeding was terminated before a decision on institution.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): None issued.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated, and Google Patents indicates it was due to a settlement. The specific terms of the settlement are confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit, as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: This termination, likely due to settlement, suggests the patent owner sought to resolve the dispute outside of a PTAB decision on the merits. For a new defendant, the claims remain untested by a formal PTAB review, leaving open the possibility of challenging the patent in a new IPR.

IPR2025-01586 — NIUM PTE. LTD. v. Intercurrency Software LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-07
• Status: Terminated-Settled
• Judge panel: Information not publicly available without access to the full PTAB docket.
• Petition grounds: Information regarding the specific claims challenged, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) is not publicly available without access to the full petition.
• Institution decision: Not applicable, as the proceeding was terminated before a decision on institution.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): None issued.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated as settled on 2026-05-26. The specific terms of the settlement are confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit, as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: This settlement, like the others, means the patent claims were not adjudicated on their merits by the PTAB. This allows a new defendant to potentially pursue their own IPR challenge without being estopped by a prior FWD.

IPR2025-01446 — Airwallex Pty. Ltd. et al. v. Intercurrency Software LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-29
• Status: Terminated-Settled
• Judge panel: Information not publicly available without access to the full PTAB docket.
• Petition grounds: Information regarding the specific claims challenged, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) is not publicly available without access to the full petition.
• Institution decision: Not applicable, as the proceeding was terminated before a decision on institution.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): None issued.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated as settled on 2025-10-06. The specific terms of the settlement are confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit, as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: The settlement of this IPR means that the patent owner avoided a PTAB decision on the validity of its claims. This leaves all claims open to challenge by a new petitioner, as there is no FWD to create statutory estoppel.

IPR2025-01045 — Wise PLC et al. v. Intercurrency Software LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-05-30
• Status: Terminated-Settled
• Judge panel: Information not publicly available without access to the full PTAB docket.
• Petition grounds: Information regarding the specific claims challenged, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) is not publicly available without access to the full petition.
• Institution decision: Not applicable, as the proceeding was terminated before a decision on institution.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): None issued.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated as settled on 2025-07-11. The specific terms of the settlement are confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit, as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: As with the other proceedings, this settlement means that no claims of U.S. Patent 11,620,701 have been formally invalidated by the PTAB. A new defendant would not face statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) based on this terminated proceeding.

Strategic summary

All four IPR proceedings initiated against U.S. Patent 11,620,701 were terminated as settled or otherwise without reaching a Final Written Decision. Consequently, no claims of patent 11,620,701 have been formally canceled or sustained by the PTAB, meaning all claims (1-16) remain UNTESTED by a merits-based PTAB decision.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) statutory estoppel only applies to petitioners (and their privies) for grounds raised or that reasonably could have been raised in an IPR that proceeds to a Final Written Decision. Since none of these IPRs resulted in a Final Written Decision, statutory estoppel does not apply to the petitioners of these terminated proceedings. For a new defendant currently facing assertion of this patent, all prior-art grounds remain available for a potential IPR challenge, as there has been no PTAB ruling on the patentability of the claims.

The pattern of multiple IPRs being filed by different entities (Ebury Partners, NIUM, Airwallex, Wise PLC) and all subsequently terminating via settlement suggests that the patent owner, Intercurrency Software LLC, is actively enforcing its patent rights and is inclined to resolve challenges through confidential agreements rather than pursuing a full PTAB trial. This behavior often characterizes non-practicing entities (NPEs) or patent assertion entities. The absence of any appeals to the Federal Circuit further supports the conclusion that the proceedings ended before a final judgment on the merits. There is no indication of a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents being directly involved as a petitioner in these listed proceedings.

Recommended next steps

Given that all IPR proceedings against U.S. Patent 11,620,701 have settled and no claims have been formally invalidated, the claims of the patent are considered untested by the PTAB. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent:

• Evaluate a new IPR challenge: Since statutory estoppel does not apply from the terminated proceedings, a new defendant has a full opportunity to file an IPR against claims of U.S. Patent 11,620,701, presenting any available prior art. This is a strong defensive option, as the patent owner has not yet successfully defended the patent's claims on their merits at the PTAB.
• Investigate settlement terms: While confidential, understanding the nature and scope of the settlements for IPR2026-00152, IPR2025-01586, IPR2025-01446, and IPR2025-01045 could provide insight into the patent owner's enforcement strategy and potential valuation of the patent.
• Monitor for future litigation: Keep an eye on district court litigation (as indicated by the numerous Texas Eastern District Court cases listed in Google Patents) and any new PTAB filings related to U.S. Patent 11,620,701.