PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 11621360, IPR2025-00994, which resulted in a discretionary denial of institution. This means no claims were invalidated or sustained on the merits by the PTAB. For a defendant, this indicates the patent has survived one attempt at IPR, but the merits of the claims were not actually tested. The patent owner's claims remain as granted.

IPR2025-00994 — [[[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.) v. W&w Sens Devices Inc

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-06-20
• Status: Discretionary Denial. The PTAB declined to institute the inter partes review on procedural grounds, rather than on the merits of the patentability challenge.
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Jennifer M. Beal, Deborah A. Dailey, and Michael P. Tierney
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20 of US11621360 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over combinations of prior art, including but not limited to, U.S. Patent No. 8,633,484 (Ouyang), U.S. Patent No. 9,136,373 (Ma), and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0326227 (Shih).
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-03-09. The Board exercised its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) based on the factors outlined in Fintiv, finding that the petitioner had not demonstrated that the co-pending district court litigation would not proceed to a merits decision before the PTAB's final written decision.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated via the Board's discretionary denial of institution. There was no settlement of the IPR itself.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: The IPR was denied institution on procedural grounds, not on the merits of the patentability challenge. This means the patent's claims were not tested and remain intact. An IPR-based defense on the same grounds as those raised in IPR2025-00994 might face similar discretionary denial challenges if parallel district court litigation is ongoing and sufficiently advanced. However, new or substantially different grounds could still be considered.

Strategic summary

All claims (1-20) of US11621360 remain UNTESTED on their merits by the PTAB. IPR2025-00994 challenged claims 1-20, but institution was discretionarily denied, meaning the patentability of these claims was not adjudicated by the Board. Therefore, all claims of US11621360 are currently considered valid as granted for the purposes of PTAB proceedings.

The estoppel landscape resulting from IPR2025-00994 is narrow due to the discretionary denial. Since the IPR was not instituted, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel, which typically bars petitioners and their privies from raising grounds raised or that reasonably could have been raised during an IPR, may not apply as broadly as in cases that proceed to a Final Written Decision. The denial was procedural (based on Fintiv factors related to parallel litigation), not on the merits of the prior art. This suggests that the prior art grounds (Ouyang, Ma, Shih combinations) themselves are not necessarily estopped for future challenges by a different petitioner or even potentially by Samsung if circumstances change (e.g., no parallel litigation).

The pattern signal indicates that the patent owner, W&w Sens Devices Inc, successfully navigated an initial IPR challenge by leveraging procedural defenses, specifically the Fintiv factors. The petitioner, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., initiated this IPR, suggesting that they viewed the patent as a threat in litigation. The prompt also notes "Family has litigation," with a US case filed in the Texas Eastern District Court, reinforcing the context of parallel litigation that likely contributed to the Fintiv denial.

Recommended next steps

• For a defendant facing assertion of US11621360, it's crucial to understand the specifics of the ongoing district court litigation (e.g., the Texas Eastern District Court case 2:24-cv-00854) that led to the IPR's discretionary denial. This context will inform the viability of any new IPR petitions, especially concerning Fintiv considerations.
• Review the PTAB's Decision Denying Institution for IPR2025-00994 (available on the USPTO PTAB E2E portal by searching for IPR2025-00994 or through the Unified Patents portal) to understand the precise reasoning for the Fintiv denial. This will help assess whether alternative prior art or modified arguments could overcome a similar discretionary hurdle in a new IPR.
• Consider if there are strong prior art grounds that were not raised or could not have been reasonably raised by Samsung in IPR2025-00994, which might allow for a fresh IPR challenge without being subject to the same Fintiv considerations or estoppel implications.
• As there are no active PTAB proceedings on US11621360, there are no upcoming trial-stage milestones to track.

---

Citations:

https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-00994
https://patents.google.com/patent/US11621360/en
https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A24-cv-00854