PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 11722554, with a status of "Institution Denied." This indicates that the patent has survived a challenge at the PTAB, which strengthens its defensive posture as none of its claims have been invalidated.

IPR2025-01083 — Orca Security Ltd. v. Wiz Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-06-04
• Status: Institution Denied. The PTAB declined to institute the inter partes review.
• Judge panel: KARL D. EASTHOM, NABEEL U. KHAN, and LISA A. MURRAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims of the '554 patent. The specific prior art and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for the challenge are not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, beyond a general reference to "unpatentability of the claims challenged in the Petition".
• Institution decision: Denied — 2025-12-15. The PTAB determined that the petitioner, Orca Security Ltd., did not demonstrate a "reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition" under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: The related district court litigation between Orca Security Ltd. and Wiz Inc. was dismissed with prejudice on January 7, 2026, with each side bearing its own legal costs and attorneys' fees. This suggests a broader settlement or resolution between the parties, although the specific terms regarding IPR2025-01083 are confidential if they extend beyond the dismissal of the district court case.
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal on this specific IPR decision as institution was denied. Appeals typically follow a Final Written Decision.
• Defensive value: The denial of institution for IPR2025-01083 means that all claims of US11722554 that were challenged in this petition remain intact and have not been invalidated by the PTAB. This strengthens the patent owner's position, as this particular attempt to invalidate the patent was unsuccessful. Any future challenger would need to present new and compelling arguments to overcome this prior denial of institution.

Strategic summary

All claims of US11722554 remain SUSTAINED as the single IPR proceeding filed against it resulted in a denial of institution. This means that no claims of the patent were canceled or narrowed through this PTAB challenge.

The estoppel landscape for US11722554 is favorable to the patent owner. Since institution was denied in IPR2025-01083, the petitioner, Orca Security Ltd., and its privies would likely be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) from asserting in future district court actions or other PTAB proceedings any ground of invalidity that it raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR petition process against the challenged claims. This significantly limits the prior-art grounds available to Orca Security Ltd. should they attempt another challenge on the same claims.

The context of this IPR suggests a pattern of defensive action by Wiz Inc. against Orca Security Ltd. in a broader patent dispute. Wiz Inc. also challenged the validity of Orca's patents through IPRs, successfully having claims in three of Orca's patents found unpatentable, which contributed to the dismissal of their dueling lawsuits. The IPR on US11722554 was part of Orca's counter-petitions against Wiz's patents.

Recommended next steps

As a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent, the denial of institution for IPR2025-01083 is a positive signal. While the full institution decision document for IPR2025-01083 (Paper 12) would provide the detailed reasoning of the PTAB panel, the publicly available information confirms that the petition was denied. This means that, for the claims challenged in this IPR, the patent owner has successfully defended against a PTAB validity challenge. If your demand letter cites claims that were part of this IPR, the patent owner would likely assert that the PTAB has already reviewed and implicitly affirmed the patentability of those claims by denying institution. You should review the specific claims challenged in IPR2025-01083 to understand the exact scope of the PTAB's decision.