PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 11892897, which resulted in a discretionary denial of institution. This means the patent's claims have not been challenged on the merits and remain sustained. For a defendant, this indicates the patent has survived an initial PTAB challenge, and an IPR-based defense will be harder for the same grounds.

IPR2025-01170 — CrowdStrike, Inc. v. Skysong Innovations LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-07-25
• Status: Discretionary Denial — The petition for inter partes review was denied institution by the Board on procedural grounds, meaning the merits of the patentability challenge were not decided.
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges John F. D. Tittel, Jennifer R. Sciortino, and Michael J. Fitzpatrick.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,892,897 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, primarily in view of combinations of prior art references including "Shakarian" (US 2020/0356675 A1) and "Almukaynizi" (US 2022/0358245 A1).
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-02-18. The Board exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a), applying the Fintiv factors. The denial was based on the presence of a co-pending district court litigation (CrowdStrike, Inc. v. Skysong Innovations, LLC, No. 7:25-cv-00040 (W.D. Tex.)) and the advanced stage of that litigation.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable; the proceeding was terminated by discretionary denial of institution.
• Appeal: Not applicable; there was no final written decision to appeal on the merits.
• Defensive value: The patent owner successfully argued against institution based on the parallel district court litigation. This means the patent's claims (1-20) remain intact and have not been tested on their merits at the PTAB. Any future IPR petition by CrowdStrike (or its privies) challenging claims 1-20 on the same grounds raised in IPR2025-01170 would likely face estoppel. Other defendants are not estopped from raising these grounds.

Strategic summary

All 20 claims of US11892897 remain SUSTAINED as no claims were invalidated. The IPR petition, IPR2025-01170, challenging claims 1-20, was denied institution on discretionary grounds related to co-pending district court litigation, rather than on the merits of the prior art arguments. This means the PTAB did not make a determination on the patentability of the claims.

The estoppel landscape under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) and (2) would bar CrowdStrike, Inc. (and its privies) from asserting in any other proceeding that claims 1-20 are unpatentable on any ground that CrowdStrike raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2025-01170. However, for a new defendant being asserted against, the prior-art grounds raised in IPR2025-01170 (e.g., those based on Shakarian and Almukaynizi) are still available for an IPR petition, as they would not be subject to the same Fintiv discretionary denial unless they also have a co-pending district court case at an advanced stage.

There isn't a clear pattern of multiple IPR filings on this patent, with only one proceeding to date. Skysong Innovations LLC successfully leveraged the Fintiv factors to prevent the IPR from proceeding to a merits review, indicating a proactive defense strategy in the face of parallel litigation.

Recommended next steps

• As a defendant, it is important to review the PTAB's Decision Denying Institution in IPR2025-01170 to understand the specific reasoning for the discretionary denial and the prior art cited. This decision provides insight into the patent owner's defense strategy and the Board's application of Fintiv in this context. The decision can be found on the USPTO PTAB E2E portal for IPR2025-01170.
• Since the claims remain intact, any infringement theory built on claims 1-20 is still viable. A defendant considering an IPR should analyze their specific circumstances regarding co-pending litigation and the stage of such litigation to determine if a Fintiv-based discretionary denial is likely.
• Consider conducting a fresh prior art search to identify new grounds that were not raised in IPR2025-01170, or to re-evaluate the grounds previously presented with different arguments, particularly if there is no co-pending district court litigation or if the litigation is in a very early stage.
• The patent owner's success in obtaining a discretionary denial suggests they are actively defending the patent. Any future challenges should be prepared to address similar procedural arguments.## Proceedings overview
  There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 11892897, which resulted in a discretionary denial of institution. This means the patent's claims have not been challenged on the merits at the PTAB and remain sustained. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, this indicates that an IPR-based defense will be more challenging if relying on the same grounds or similar circumstances that led to the denial.

IPR2025-01170 — CrowdStrike, Inc. v. Skysong Innovations LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-07-25
• Status: Discretionary Denial — The petition for inter partes review was denied institution by the Board on procedural grounds, rather than on the merits of the patentability challenge.
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges John F. D. Tittel, Jennifer R. Sciortino, and Michael J. Fitzpatrick.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,892,897 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The primary prior art references cited were U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0356675 A1 (Shakarian) and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0358245 A1 (Almukaynizi).
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-02-18. The Board exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a), applying the factors from Fintiv in view of a co-pending district court litigation (CrowdStrike, Inc. v. Skysong Innovations, LLC, No. 7:25-cv-00040 (W.D. Tex.)). The Board found that the district court litigation was sufficiently advanced to warrant a discretionary denial.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable; the proceeding was terminated by the denial of institution.
• Appeal: Not applicable; there was no final written decision on the merits to appeal.
• Defensive value: Claims 1-20 of US11892897 have not been substantively challenged at the PTAB. CrowdStrike (and its privies) are likely estopped from bringing the same grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in this IPR. However, other defendants are not estopped. This denial signals that the patent owner is prepared to use parallel litigation status to defend against IPRs.

Strategic summary

All 20 claims of US11892897 remain SUSTAINED and UNTESTED on their merits by the PTAB. The sole IPR filed against the patent, IPR2025-01170, challenged claims 1-20 but was denied institution based on the PTAB's discretionary authority under the Fintiv factors, due to a co-pending district court litigation. This means the Board did not evaluate the patentability of the claims in light of the prior art presented.

The estoppel landscape is limited to the petitioner, CrowdStrike, Inc., and its privies. They are barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) from challenging claims 1-20 on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in IPR2025-01170. For a new defendant, however, the prior art grounds cited in the petition (e.g., Shakarian and Almukaynizi) are still available for a new IPR filing, provided that their circumstances do not trigger a similar discretionary denial.

With only one IPR filing resulting in a discretionary denial, there isn't a clear pattern of repeated challenges or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner. The patent owner, Skysong Innovations LLC, successfully navigated this initial PTAB challenge by leveraging the existence and stage of parallel district court litigation.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant facing assertion of US11892897, it is crucial to carefully review the "Decision Denying Institution" for IPR2025-01170 (Paper 12 on the PTAB E2E system for IPR2025-01170, dated 2026-02-18). This will provide the specific reasoning and factual findings that led to the discretionary denial, which is essential for understanding the patent owner's defensive strategy and for planning any potential future PTAB challenges.
• Given that claims 1-20 remain unchallenged on their merits, any infringement theory based on these claims is currently valid from a PTAB perspective.
• If considering an IPR, evaluate the status of any co-pending district court litigation very carefully. The Fintiv factors will be a significant hurdle if parallel litigation is at an advanced stage. A new IPR petition should either present strong new prior art arguments or ensure that the timing and circumstances of any related litigation minimize the risk of a discretionary denial.
• Currently, there are no active PTAB proceedings on US11892897.