PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

A total of three AIA trial proceedings have been filed against US patent 11770756. All three were Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) and none resulted in claims being invalidated on the merits. Two IPRs (IPR2025-01409 and IPR2025-00977) were met with Discretionary Denials, and one (IPR2025-01236) was procedurally terminated. This indicates a strong defensive posture for the patent owner, as the patent has successfully withstood three challenges without any claims being canceled.

IPR2025-01409 — Google LLC v. Telcom Ventures LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-12
• Status: Discretionary Denial — The PTAB declined to institute the IPR based on discretionary factors.
• Judge panel: Information not publicly available at this time.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-10, 14-16, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,770,756 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over combinations of prior art.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-02-12. The PTAB issued a Decision Denying Institution, concluding that the petition did not establish a reasonable likelihood that Google LLC would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims, primarily due to the Board's discretionary decision to deny institution under Fintiv.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable; institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable; institution was denied.
• Appeal: No appeal was filed following the denial of institution.
• Defensive value: The discretionary denial reinforces the patent's strength against IPR challenges, particularly for defendants considering similar prior art grounds. Google LLC, and potentially its privies, may be estopped from re-raising the same or substantially similar grounds against claims 1-10, 14-16, and 18.

IPR2025-01236 — [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) v. Telcom Ventures LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-05
• Status: Terminated (Procedural Termination) — The proceeding concluded before a decision on institution was made.
• Judge panel: Information not publicly available at this time.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1, 6, and 11-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,770,756 as unpatentable. Specific prior art and statutory bases are not detailed in publicly available summaries of the procedural termination.
• Institution decision: Not applicable; the proceeding was terminated prior to an institution decision.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable; the proceeding was terminated.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated on 2026-02-02 due to a procedural termination, indicating the petitioner likely withdrew the petition, possibly due to a settlement or strategic decision. Terms are confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable.
• Defensive value: While the termination suggests a resolution between Apple and Telcom Ventures LLC, the claims themselves were not adjudicated on the merits. This means that for other defendants, claims 1, 6, and 11-17 remain untested through an IPR final written decision.

IPR2025-00977 — [[Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) et al.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.%20et%20al.) v. Telcom Ventures LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-05-23
• Status: Discretionary Denial — The PTAB declined to institute the IPR based on discretionary factors.
• Judge panel: Information not publicly available at this time.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-10, 14-16, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,770,756. The specific prior art and statutory bases are not detailed in publicly available summaries of the discretionary denial.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2025-11-20. The PTAB issued a Decision Denying Institution, likely based on discretionary factors (e.g., Fintiv considerations), meaning the Board did not reach the merits of the patentability arguments.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable; institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable; institution was denied.
• Appeal: No appeal was filed following the denial of institution.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2025-01409, this discretionary denial indicates the patent's resilience to IPR challenges. Samsung, and potentially its privies, may be estopped from re-raising the same or substantially similar grounds against claims 1-10, 14-16, and 18.

Strategic summary

All three IPRs filed against US patent 11770756 have concluded without any claims being canceled or sustained on the merits by a Final Written Decision. Claims 1-10, 11-18 remain UNTESTED by a merits-based PTAB decision, as the proceedings either ended in discretionary denials (IPR2025-01409, IPR2025-00977) or a procedural termination (IPR2025-01236). This means the patent has not been narrowed through IPR.

The estoppel landscape suggests that Google LLC and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (and their privies) are likely barred by 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from re-raising the specific patentability grounds they raised or reasonably could have raised in their respective IPR petitions, particularly against claims 1-10, 14-16, and 18. For Apple Inc., depending on the nature of the procedural termination in IPR2025-01236 (e.g., settlement), estoppel may or may not apply, or its scope could be narrower. Other defendants not in privity with these petitioners would theoretically still be able to challenge the same claims with the same prior art, although the PTAB's discretionary denials in two cases suggest a potential hurdle for similar petitions.

The pattern signals indicate that Telcom Ventures LLC has successfully defended the patent against multiple IPR challenges, primarily through the PTAB's use of discretionary denial. This suggests that the PTAB may be reluctant to institute IPRs on this patent, possibly due to factors like parallel district court litigation or other discretionary criteria (e.g., Fintiv). The involvement of major tech companies (Google, Apple, Samsung) shows that the patent has attracted significant attention and assertion activity.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US patent 11770756, the absence of claims invalidated by the PTAB means that any infringement theory can still rely on the full scope of the granted claims.

Given the discretionary denials in IPR2025-01409 and IPR2025-00977, a potential defendant should carefully analyze the PTAB's reasoning for those denials to understand the Board's posture. Reviewing the institution decisions is crucial to assess the likelihood of success for any new IPR petition. The Decision Denying Institution for IPR2025-01409 is available through the PTAB E2E system.

The procedural termination of IPR2025-01236 suggests a resolution with Apple, which might involve a license. While the claims themselves were not decided, understanding the circumstances of that termination could inform negotiation strategies.

Any new IPR petition should meticulously address potential discretionary denial factors, especially Fintiv, by demonstrating unique circumstances or stronger merits than previous petitions. The absence of a Final Written Decision leaves the claims, particularly claims 1-10, 11-18, patentable as far as the PTAB is concerned, potentially making an IPR-based defense harder for new petitioners unless new, highly compelling prior art or legal arguments are presented.