PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US Patent 11650968, which was subsequently terminated due to settlement. This leaves the patent's claims untested by a final written decision, indicating that the patent has not been formally hardened or narrowed through PTAB trials.

IPR2025-01063 — Perplexity AI, Inc. v. Dhruv NAIR et al

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-06-05
• Status: Terminated-Settled – The proceeding concluded due to a settlement between Perplexity AI, Inc. and Dhruv Nair et al. (representing the patent owner Comet ML Inc.), rather than a final decision on the merits.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available without access to the full PTAB docket for this case.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims challenged, prior art references, and statutory bases (§ 102 for anticipation / § 103 for obviousness / § 112 for indefiniteness/written description/enablement) are not yet publicly detailed in the provided information or easily discoverable without full PTAB docket access.
• Institution decision: The outcome of the institution decision (instituted, denied, or partially instituted) and its date are not immediately available without access to the full PTAB docket for this case. Given the settlement, it is possible the case settled before an institution decision was rendered or shortly thereafter.
• Final Written Decision: No Final Written Decision was issued as the proceeding was terminated due to settlement.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated due to settlement on 2025-10-02. The specific terms of the settlement are typically confidential and are not publicly disclosed.
• Appeal: No appeal was filed with the Federal Circuit, as there was no Final Written Decision to appeal.
• Defensive value: The settlement of IPR2025-01063 means that the validity of patent US11650968's claims was not adjudicated by the PTAB. For a defendant, this means the patent has not been "hardened" by surviving a validity challenge, but it also means no claims were invalidated. The specific reasons for the settlement are unknown, which limits the insights into the strength or weakness of the patent claims.

Strategic summary

Patent US11650968 currently has all its claims untested by a PTAB Final Written Decision. The sole IPR proceeding, IPR2025-01063, initiated by Perplexity AI, Inc., was terminated due to a settlement, leaving no claims formally canceled or sustained by the PTAB. This means that, from a PTAB perspective, the patent's claims remain as issued, without any official narrowing or confirmation of validity by the Board.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since IPR2025-01063 was terminated due to settlement rather than a Final Written Decision, § 315(e)(2) estoppel provisions likely do not apply to the petitioner (Perplexity AI, Inc.) or its privies in the same way they would after an FWD. The exact scope of any waiver or agreement stemming from the confidential settlement is unknown, but without a merits-based decision, a new challenger would theoretically still be able to raise similar prior art grounds if they chose to file a new IPR.

There are no apparent pattern signals such as multiple IPRs from the same petitioner or aggressive appeals by the patent owner. The involvement of Perplexity AI, Inc. as a petitioner suggests a potential interest from an entity in the AI/ML space, but the settlement prevents drawing conclusions about the patent's susceptibility to challenge.

Recommended next steps

Since IPR2025-01063 was terminated by settlement, there is no Final Written Decision to link to or quote. The PTAB record on Unified Patents portal confirms the settlement.

For a defendant currently facing assertion of US11650968, the fact that the patent claims have not been adjudicated for validity by the PTAB means that any infringement theories are currently based on claims that have not been vetted through an inter partes proceeding. A potential defendant could consider initiating a new IPR if they have compelling prior art and a strong invalidity theory, as the previous settlement does not create a strong estoppel barrier against others. However, the reasons for the prior settlement should be investigated if possible, as they may offer insight into the patent owner's strategy or the perceived strength of the prior art.## Proceedings overview
One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US Patent 11650968, which was subsequently terminated due to settlement. This leaves the patent's claims untested by a final written decision, indicating that the patent has not been formally hardened or narrowed through PTAB trials.

IPR2025-01063 — Perplexity AI, Inc. v. Dhruv NAIR et al

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-06-05
• Status: Terminated-Settled – The proceeding concluded due to a settlement between Perplexity AI, Inc. and Dhruv Nair et al. (representing the patent owner Comet ML Inc.), rather than a final decision on the merits.
• Judge panel: The specific judge panel for this proceeding is not publicly available in the provided information.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged, prior art references, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are not publicly available in the provided information. IPR petitions typically challenge claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103.
• Institution decision: The outcome of the institution decision (instituted, denied, or partially instituted) and its date are not publicly available in the provided information. Given the proceeding's "Terminated-Settled" status, it is possible the case settled before an institution decision was rendered, or shortly thereafter. The USPTO Director gained increased authority over institution decisions, including discretionary denials, effective October 20, 2025. This occurred after the IPR was filed (June 5, 2025) but before its termination (October 2, 2025).
• Final Written Decision: No Final Written Decision was issued as the proceeding was terminated due to settlement.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated due to settlement on 2025-10-02. The specific terms of the settlement are typically confidential and are not publicly disclosed.
• Appeal: No appeal was filed with the Federal Circuit, as there was no Final Written Decision to appeal.
• Defensive value: The settlement of IPR2025-01063 means that the validity of patent US11650968's claims was not adjudicated by the PTAB. For a defendant, this implies that the patent has not been "hardened" by surviving a validity challenge, but it also means no claims were invalidated. The specific reasons for the settlement are unknown, which limits insights into the strength or weakness of the patent claims or the petitioner's prior art.

Strategic summary

Patent US11650968 currently has all its claims untested by a PTAB Final Written Decision. The sole IPR proceeding, IPR2025-01063, initiated by Perplexity AI, Inc., was terminated due to a settlement, leaving no claims formally canceled or sustained by the PTAB. This means that, from a PTAB perspective, the patent's claims remain as issued, without any official narrowing or confirmation of validity by the Board.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since IPR2025-01063 was terminated due to settlement rather than a Final Written Decision, § 315(e)(2) estoppel provisions, which bar petitioners (and their privies) from raising any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised, likely do not apply. The exact scope of any waiver or agreement stemming from the confidential settlement is unknown, but without a merits-based decision, a new challenger would theoretically still be able to raise similar prior art grounds if they chose to file a new IPR.

There are no apparent pattern signals such as multiple IPRs from the same petitioner or aggressive appeals by the patent owner. The involvement of Perplexity AI, Inc. as a petitioner suggests a potential interest from an entity in the AI/ML space, but the settlement prevents drawing conclusions about the patent's susceptibility to challenge.

Recommended next steps

Since IPR2025-01063 was terminated by settlement, there is no Final Written Decision to link to or quote. For specific details regarding the IPR filing, such as the petition grounds and claims challenged, one would typically access the full case file through the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End (PTAB E2E) system.

For a defendant currently facing assertion of US11650968, the fact that the patent claims have not been adjudicated for validity by the PTAB means that any infringement theories are currently based on claims that have not been vetted through an inter partes proceeding. A potential defendant could consider initiating a new IPR if they have compelling prior art and a strong invalidity theory, as the previous settlement does not create a strong estoppel barrier against others. However, the reasons for the prior settlement should be investigated if possible, as they may offer insight into the patent owner's strategy or the perceived strength of the prior art.