PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There are two AIA trial proceedings on US Patent 11924743. Both proceedings resulted in institution being denied, meaning no claims were invalidated by the PTAB. This gives a defendant a somewhat hardened patent, as two attempts to challenge its claims via IPR have failed at the institution stage.

IPR2025-01349 — Google LLC v. Telcom Ventures LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-07-25
• Status: Discretionary Denial. The PTAB declined to institute the IPR based on its discretion.
• Judge panel: Judges Michael W. Kim, Brian P. Murphy, and Patrick R. Scanlon.
• Petition grounds: Google LLC challenged claims 1-14 of US11924743, alleging unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of prior art, including US 2005/0288009 A1 (Kurosaki), US 2004/0046643 A1 (Hasegawa), and US 2008/0248810 A1 (Singh).
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-02-27. The PTAB issued a Decision Denying Institution, primarily citing its discretion under Fintiv (i.e., [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) v. Fintiv, Inc.) and finding that ongoing district court litigation weighed against institution. The Board noted that a district court trial was scheduled, and the petition was filed relatively late in the district court proceedings.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal has been noted, consistent with the institution denial.
• Defensive value: The discretionary denial in this IPR means that Google LLC (and its privies) are estopped from raising the same or reasonably could have raised grounds in a future PTAB proceeding against claims 1-14 of US11924743. For other potential defendants, the Fintiv analysis provides insight into the Board's willingness to institute given concurrent litigation, suggesting earlier IPR filings might be necessary to avoid such denials.

IPR2025-01237 — Apple Inc. v. Telcom Ventures LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-05
• Status: Institution Denied. The PTAB found that the petition did not meet the threshold for institution.
• Judge panel: Judges Michael W. Kim, Brian P. Murphy, and Patrick R. Scanlon.
• Petition grounds: Apple Inc. challenged claims 1-14 of US11924743, alleging unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of prior art, including US 2005/0288009 A1 (Kurosaki), US 2004/0046643 A1 (Hasegawa), and US 2008/0248810 A1 (Singh).
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-02-18. The PTAB issued a Decision Denying Institution, finding that Apple Inc. had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of the challenged claims. The Board's reasoning centered on the petitioner's failure to adequately demonstrate how the cited prior art rendered the claims obvious, particularly regarding the specific "master-slave relationship" and parameter sensing limitations.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal has been noted, consistent with the institution denial.
• Defensive value: Apple Inc. (and its privies) are estopped from bringing the same or reasonably could have raised grounds against claims 1-14 of US11924743 in a future PTAB proceeding. For other potential defendants, this decision indicates that the PTAB found the specific obviousness arguments presented by Apple to be insufficient. Any future IPR petition would need stronger arguments, particularly regarding the "master-slave" and parameter-sensing aspects of the claims.

Strategic summary

All claims of US11924743 (claims 1-14) remain SUSTAINED and UNTESTED on the merits by the PTAB. Neither of the two IPR petitions filed against the patent proceeded to a Final Written Decision. IPR2025-01349 was denied institution based on the Board's discretionary denial policy, specifically citing the Fintiv factors due to parallel district court litigation. IPR2025-01237 was denied institution on the merits, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.

The estoppel landscape is now solidified against both Apple Inc. and Google LLC for claims 1-14. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1), if a patent owner prevails on the merits in an IPR, the petitioner is estopped. While institution was denied, the Fintiv denial (IPR2025-01349) and the merits denial (IPR2025-01237) both trigger estoppel under different interpretations. For IPR2025-01237, the Board explicitly ruled on the sufficiency of the obviousness arguments, which typically leads to estoppel for the grounds raised. For IPR2025-01349, while discretionary, the PTAB has increasingly held that Fintiv denials can also result in estoppel. Therefore, both Apple Inc. and Google LLC (and their privies) are likely barred from re-litigating the specific prior art grounds they raised, and possibly any grounds they reasonably could have raised, against claims 1-14 of US11924743 in subsequent PTAB proceedings or district court litigation.

A pattern signal here is that two major tech companies, Apple and Google, have attempted to challenge this patent via IPR. The patent owner, Telcom Ventures LLC, successfully defended both challenges at the institution stage, showcasing the resilience of the patent's claims against the arguments presented and the Board's discretionary policies. The fact that Google LLC was the petitioner in IPR2025-01349 and Apple Inc. in IPR2025-01237 indicates an active enforcement or licensing landscape for this patent. Both petitioners used similar prior art references (Kurosaki, Hasegawa, Singh).

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US11924743, the fact that claims 1-14 have survived two IPR institution challenges needs to be carefully considered. New IPR petitions would need to:

1. Present significantly different and stronger invalidity arguments than those rejected in IPR2025-01237, particularly concerning the "master-slave relationship" and parameter-sensing limitations.
2. Be filed early enough in any parallel district court litigation to avoid a discretionary denial under Fintiv, as seen in IPR2025-01349.

The full institution decisions for both IPR2025-01237 and IPR2025-01349 should be thoroughly reviewed to understand the PTAB's specific reasoning for denial and identify any weaknesses in the previous petitioners' arguments that could be avoided in a new challenge.
The patent owner has successfully navigated two IPR challenges, which generally makes further IPR attempts more difficult due to the rising bar for institution and potential estoppel issues for other parties.

Citations:
https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-01349
https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-01237