PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

U.S. Patent No. 11,644,693 is currently the subject of two active Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. Both IPRs are in the "Pending" status, indicating they have been filed but have not yet reached the institution decision stage. This means no claims have been invalidated or sustained through PTAB final written decisions. For a defendant facing assertion, this indicates that the patent is under active challenge by [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.), but the validity of its claims remains officially untested at the PTAB.

IPR2026-00340 — Apple Inc. v. Ingeniospec, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-04-24
• Status: Pending. The petition has been filed, and the PTAB is in the pre-institution phase.
• Judge panel: Not yet publicly assigned for an active trial. The decision to institute IPRs is now solely made by the Director of the USPTO, and a panel of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) is assigned only after institution.
• Petition grounds: Details regarding the specific claims challenged, prior art cited, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are typically found in the petition itself, which is not yet publicly detailed in top-level search results. However, based on the patent's claims and the prior art identified, it is highly likely that the petition challenges claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (anticipation) and/or § 103 (obviousness) using printed publications.
• Institution decision: Not yet issued. The deadline for the PTAB to issue an institution decision is typically six months from the filing date of the petition.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable; an institution decision has not yet been rendered.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable; the proceeding is in its early stages.
• Appeal: Not applicable.
• Defensive value: This active IPR signifies a direct challenge to the patent's validity by a major technology company. While no claims have been invalidated yet, the existence of this proceeding indicates that the patent's claims are being scrutinized, and its ultimate strength is uncertain.

IPR2026-00339 — Apple Inc. v. Ingeniospec, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-05-05
• Status: Pending. The petition has been filed, and the PTAB is in the pre-institution phase.
• Judge panel: Not yet publicly assigned for an active trial. The decision to institute IPRs is now solely made by the Director of the USPTO, and a panel of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) is assigned only after institution.
• Petition grounds: Details regarding the specific claims challenged, prior art cited, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are typically found in the petition itself, which is not yet publicly detailed in top-level search results. Given the common petitioner and the same patent, it is probable that this petition targets similar claims and prior art as IPR2026-00340, likely under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or § 103.
• Institution decision: Not yet issued. The deadline for the PTAB to issue an institution decision is typically six months from the filing date of the petition.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable; an institution decision has not yet been rendered.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable; the proceeding is in its early stages.
• Appeal: Not applicable.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2026-00340, this IPR represents another active challenge to the patent's validity. The fact that two separate IPRs have been filed by the same petitioner suggests a comprehensive attack on the patent's claims, which could significantly impact its enforceability if institution is granted.

Strategic summary

Currently, no claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,644,693 have been canceled or sustained by the PTAB. Both IPR2026-00340 and IPR2026-00339 are in their initial "Pending" phase, meaning the PTAB has not yet decided whether to institute a trial. Consequently, all claims of the patent are currently untested by a PTAB final written decision.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, if either IPR is instituted and proceeds to a Final Written Decision, Apple Inc. (as the petitioner) and its privies would be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting in future district court or ITC proceedings any invalidity ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPR. Until an institution decision is made, the full scope of challenged claims and prior art relied upon by Apple Inc. is not yet definitively public from the PTAB's perspective. The filing of two separate IPRs by the same petitioner, Apple Inc., indicates a robust and likely broad challenge to the patent.

Recommended next steps

• For both IPR2026-00340 (filed 2026-04-24) and IPR2026-00339 (filed 2026-05-05), the primary next milestone will be the institution decision. The PTAB typically issues an institution decision within six months of the petition's filing date. Therefore, expect institution decisions for IPR2026-00340 around October 24, 2026, and for IPR2026-00339 around November 5, 2026.
• Monitor the USPTO PTAB End-to-End (E2E) system for the official filing of the petitions, the Patent Owner's preliminary responses, and ultimately, the institution decisions. These decisions will reveal which claims, if any, the PTAB believes have a reasonable likelihood of being unpatentable, thus proceeding to trial.
• If you are a defendant, understand that the patent is currently under active challenge, and the outcome of these IPRs could significantly alter the patent's enforceability.