PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

One Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding has been filed against US patent 11775831, which was denied institution. This gives the patent owner a stronger defensive posture as the patent has survived a challenge without any claims being invalidated.

IPR2025-01399 — CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v. Skysong Innovations LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-26
• Status: Discretionary Denial. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to institute a trial.
• Judge panel: Information not publicly available in the provided snippets.
• Petition grounds: CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. challenged claims 1-11 of US11775831. The primary ground was obviousness over Ujiie in view of Moons, specifically arguing that claims 1, 10, and 11 were obvious. Ujiie disclosed a method of approximate convolution and exact full-precision convolution, while Moons taught precision scaling using fewer bits for weights and inputs. Dependent claims 3-6 and 8-9 were also challenged, with Kaul cited for resolving ties in low-precision results by iteratively increasing bit-width.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-01-16. The denial was discretionary, likely based on factors such as "settled expectations" as the patent has been in force for several years and the petitioner's awareness of the patent. The USPTO introduced a new Interim Process for PTAB Workload Management in March 2025, which bifurcates decisions on institution into discretionary and merits/statutory considerations, and "settled expectations" has become a new basis for discretionary denial.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal on the merits of patentability, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: This proceeding demonstrates that the patent has survived a direct challenge at the PTAB, albeit on discretionary grounds rather than a full merits review. While the claims were not "hardened" on the merits, the discretionary denial makes it more difficult for CrowdStrike (and potentially their privies) to challenge the patent again on similar grounds, especially if "settled expectations" played a role. It also signals that Skysong Innovations LLC is actively enforcing its patents, having filed district court complaints against CrowdStrike and Fortinet.

Strategic summary

US patent 11775831 has been subjected to one IPR proceeding, IPR2025-01399, initiated by CrowdStrike, Inc. The PTAB issued a discretionary denial of institution for this IPR, meaning the Board declined to proceed with a full review of the patentability challenges. Consequently, all claims (1-11) of US11775831 remain UNTESTED on the merits at the PTAB, and none have been canceled. They are currently presumed valid as issued by the USPTO.

Regarding estoppel, since institution was discretionarily denied, statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) generally does not apply to the merits of the grounds raised. However, the petitioner (CrowdStrike, Inc.) may face challenges in filing subsequent petitions against the same patent on similar grounds due to judicial estoppel or the PTAB's discretionary rules, particularly if the denial was based on factors such as the petitioner's prior knowledge of the patent or "settled expectations." The PTAB has recently expanded its bases for discretionary denials beyond the traditional Fintiv factors, including "settled expectations" and other workload management considerations. This suggests a more stringent environment for IPR institution, which could deter future petitioners.

The fact that Skysong Innovations LLC, the patent owner, has initiated district court litigation against CrowdStrike and Fortinet, asserting US11775831 among other patents, indicates an active enforcement strategy. The IPR filing by CrowdStrike was likely a defensive response to this assertion. The discretionary denial of the IPR petition benefits the patent owner by allowing them to continue their district court litigation without the immediate threat of claim cancellation at the PTAB.

Recommended next steps

• For a defendant facing assertion of US11775831, it is important to understand the specific reasoning behind the discretionary denial in IPR2025-01399 to assess its implications. This denial means the patent claims were not invalidated, and thus, infringement theories built upon them are still viable.
• Given the discretionary denial, a new IPR petition, especially by CrowdStrike or its privies on similar grounds, would face significant hurdles. However, other potential petitioners not impacted by the same discretionary factors might still consider filing an IPR, particularly if strong prior art exists that was not addressed or if different grounds are presented.
• The patent owner, Skysong Innovations LLC, is actively asserting this patent in district court. Defendants should monitor the ongoing litigation (e.g., Skysong Innovations, LLC v. CrowdStrike, Case No. 7:25-cv-00040 in the Western District of Texas and Skysong Innovations, LLC v. Fortinet, Case No. 2:25-cv-00098 in the Eastern District of Texas) for any developments that could affect the validity or enforceability of the patent, such as claim construction rulings or summary judgment decisions.
• Reviewing the full decision for IPR2025-01399 on the USPTO PTAB E2E system (by searching for "IPR2025-01399") would provide a more complete understanding of the grounds challenged, the arguments made, and the precise reasoning for the discretionary denial.