PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

Two AIA trial proceedings have been filed against US patent 11880207. One proceeding, IPR2026-00201, resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, while the other, IPR2026-00160, has been instituted and is currently in the trial phase. This presents a mixed defensive posture; one challenge was denied, but another is actively proceeding and could potentially lead to claim invalidation.

IPR2026-00160 — Wybotics, Co. Ltd. et al. v. Kameshwar Durvasula et al

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-11-25
• Status: Trial Instituted. The PTAB has decided to institute a trial on the challenged claims and the proceeding is ongoing.
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Christa J. Zado, Kalyan P. Deshpande, and S. Jeffrey and Alberty.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of prior art, including US Patent No. 9,388,595 (Durvasula), US Patent No. 7,398,138 (Durvasula), US Patent No. 5,205,174 (Silverman), US Patent No. 2004/0025268 (Porat), US Patent No. 5,435,031 (H-Tech), and WO 2004/019295 (Aqua Products). Specifically, all challenged claims were asserted against various combinations of Durvasula, Silverman, and Porat.
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2026-05-22. The Board found that the Petitioner, Wybotics, Co. Ltd., demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-20 are unpatentable. The institution decision details that all 20 claims were challenged under § 103, with various combinations of prior art, and the Board found sufficient merit to proceed to trial on all challenged claims.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not yet issued. The trial is ongoing, with an expected statutory deadline for the FWD around 2027-05-22.
• Settlement / termination: Not settled or terminated.
• Appeal: No appeal has been filed from a Final Written Decision, as one has not been issued.
• Defensive value: This proceeding is actively challenging all claims (1-20) of US11880207. A defendant facing assertion should closely monitor the outcome, as a Final Written Decision invalidating these claims would significantly weaken the patent owner's position. Conversely, if claims are sustained, it would strengthen the patent's validity against similar prior art arguments.

IPR2026-00201 — Beatbot Technology (USA) Co. Ltd. et al. v. Kameshwar Durvasula et al

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-01-26
• Status: Discretionary Denial. The PTAB declined to institute a trial.
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Amanda J. Moore, David C. McKone, and Michael J. Fitzpatrick.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20 of US11880207 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over combinations of prior art, including US Patent No. 7,398,138 (Durvasula), US Patent No. 9,388,595 (Durvasula), US Patent No. 5,205,174 (Silverman), and WO 2004/019295 (Aqua Products).
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-05-19. The Board exercised its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) based on factors similar to those articulated in Fintiv. The reasoning indicated that the Petition was filed relatively late in the context of co-pending district court litigation, and judicial economy weighed against institution.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): None issued due to the discretionary denial of institution.
• Settlement / termination: Not settled or terminated.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied, and no final written decision on the merits was issued.
• Defensive value: The discretionary denial means the merits of the patentability challenge raised by Beatbot Technology (USA) Co. Ltd. were not fully adjudicated by the PTAB. While the claims were not invalidated, the patent was also not "hardened" on the merits against the specific prior art cited. However, this petitioner (and its privies) may be estopped from raising the same or substantially the same invalidity grounds in district court, depending on the specifics of the Fintiv denial.

Strategic summary

Currently, none of the claims (1-20) of US11880207 have been canceled by the PTAB. All 20 claims are subject to an ongoing Inter Partes Review, IPR2026-00160, where trial has been instituted. This means their patentability is actively being challenged, and the patent owner (Zodiac Pool Systems LLC) is defending them. A prior attempt to challenge these same claims (IPR2026-00201) was denied institution on discretionary grounds, not on the merits of the patentability arguments.

The estoppel landscape is important. For Beatbot Technology (USA) Co. Ltd. and its privies, a denial of institution based on Fintiv-like factors might lead to arguments of estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) for any ground raised in the petition in co-pending litigation. However, the exact scope of estoppel from a discretionary denial can be complex and depends on judicial interpretation. For Wybotics, Co. Ltd. and its privies, if IPR2026-00160 proceeds to a Final Written Decision, they would be estopped from raising any ground raised or that reasonably could have been raised in that IPR. For a new defendant, the prior art grounds (e.g., Durvasula, Silverman, Porat, Aqua Products) are generally still available for use in an invalidity defense, provided they are not the same as those that were raised by Wybotics (and its privies) in the instituted trial and found unpersuasive in a FWD.

The current proceedings show two distinct petitioner entities challenging the patent. Unified Patents is not explicitly listed as a petitioner in either proceeding. The patent owner, Zodiac Pool Systems LLC (assigned from Aqua Products, Inc.), is actively involved in defending the patent in these proceedings.

Recommended next steps

• For IPR2026-00160, as it is in the trial phase, monitor the ongoing proceedings closely. The key upcoming milestone will be the oral hearing, followed by the Final Written Decision, which is expected by 2027-05-22.
• If you are a defendant facing assertion of US11880207, carefully review the institution decision for IPR2026-00160 (available at) to understand the specific prior art combinations and arguments that the PTAB found persuasive for institution. This information could be valuable for formulating your own invalidity defenses, but be mindful of potential estoppel if you are in privy with the petitioner or raising identical grounds.
• For IPR2026-00201, while institution was denied, the petition itself (and the denial decision) can still offer insights into arguments previously attempted against the patent.

"IPR2026-00160 - Unified Patents PTAB Data". portal.unifiedpatents.com.
"IPR2026-00201 - Unified Patents PTAB Data". portal.unifiedpatents.com.