PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There is currently one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 11664123. This Inter Partes Review (IPR) is in a pending status. This means the patent's claims remain untested by the PTAB, and no claims have been invalidated or sustained through an AIA trial. For a defendant, this indicates that the patent is currently under challenge, but its validity has not yet been substantively reviewed by the PTAB.

IPR2026-00316 — [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) v. Sean McKirdy

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-05-18
• Status: Pending. The petition has been filed and is awaiting a decision on institution.
• Judge panel: Not yet assigned. As of October 2025, decisions on institution for IPR and PGR trials are made by the USPTO Director in consultation with at least three Administrative Patent Judges (APJs).
• Petition grounds: Details of the specific claims challenged and the prior art asserted are not yet publicly available, as the petition has only just been filed.
• Institution decision: Not yet issued. The USPTO Director's decision on whether to institute the trial is typically due within six months of the petition's filing date. For this proceeding, the institution decision is anticipated around November 18, 2026.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as the trial has not yet been instituted.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: Not applicable.
• Defensive value: This proceeding indicates that US Patent 11664123 is currently under challenge by [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) However, since the IPR is in its very early stages, no claims have been determined to be unpatentable. A defendant facing assertion of this patent should monitor the institution decision closely, as institution of the IPR would signal a potentially viable validity challenge.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US Patent 11664123 remain UNTESTED by the PTAB. No claims have been canceled or sustained through an AIA trial proceeding. The ongoing IPR2026-00316 is a newly filed petition by [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.), and as such, the PTAB has not yet made a determination on whether to institute a trial. This means the scope and validity of the patent's claims have not been narrowed by any PTAB decision to date.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since IPR2026-00316 has not yet reached a final written decision (or even an institution decision), no statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) has attached to [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) or its privies. This means that if the IPR is denied institution, or if it settles before a final written decision, Apple would not be estopped from raising the same or reasonably could have raised prior-art grounds in other forums (e.g., district court litigation), subject to other doctrines like Fintiv discretionary denials (though the Fintiv factors for discretionary denial have been significantly refined and are now influenced by U.S. manufacturing considerations and directorial review).

There are no apparent pattern signals of multiple IPRs by the same petitioner on this specific patent, given only one proceeding is currently on file. The involvement of [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) as a petitioner, however, signals a significant challenger, especially considering the existing litigation in the Western District of Texas.

Recommended next steps

• Monitor IPR2026-00316 closely: The critical next milestone for this proceeding is the institution decision, which is expected around 2026-11-18. This decision will indicate whether the PTAB believes there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
• Review the petition: Once the petition for IPR2026-00316 becomes publicly accessible via the USPTO PTAB E2E portal, it is crucial to review the specific claims challenged, the prior art asserted, and the legal arguments presented by [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) This will provide insight into the perceived weaknesses of US11664123.
• Consider discretionary denial factors: Recent changes in PTAB policy, including the USPTO Director's direct role in institution decisions and the consideration of U.S. manufacturing activity, may influence the outcome of the institution decision. These factors should be taken into account when assessing the likelihood of institution.