PTAB challenges

Based on the provided information and public records from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), here is an analysis of the AIA trial proceedings for U.S. Patent 11,938,201.

Proceedings overview

Three AIA trial proceedings have been filed against U.S. Patent 11,938,201. One Post-Grant Review (PGR) was terminated due to settlement, one Inter Partes Review (IPR) was procedurally terminated, and one IPR has been instituted and is currently active. While no claims have been invalidated to date, the patent is facing a significant, ongoing validity challenge. For a defendant, this means the patent's strength is actively in question, and the pending IPR could invalidate or narrow the claims being asserted.

IPR2026-00069 — GE Healthcare Ltd. v. Johns Hopkins University

Type: Inter Partes Review
Filed: 2025-10-21
Status: Trial Instituted. This means the PTAB found a "reasonable likelihood" that the petitioner would prevail in challenging at least one of the patent claims. The trial is currently pending.
Judge panel: Public information for this proceeding will identify the Administrative Patent Judges on the panel. A search of the PTAB database is required for the specific names.
Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20 of the '201 patent based on prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The specific prior art combinations asserted would be detailed in the publicly available petition document.
Institution decision: The trial was instituted on 2026-05-12. The PTAB's decision found that the petitioner, GE Healthcare, established a reasonable likelihood of proving that certain claims are obvious over the cited prior art. The specific claims for which trial was instituted are identified in the board's decision.
Final Written Decision: A Final Written Decision (FWD) has not yet been issued. By statute, the PTAB must issue its decision within one year of the institution date, making the deadline approximately 2027-05-12.
Settlement / termination: This proceeding is currently active.
Appeal: N/A.
Defensive value: This is a highly valuable proceeding for a defendant. The institution of trial on multiple claims indicates a significant vulnerability for the patent. A defendant should closely monitor this IPR, as a Final Written Decision invalidating claims could resolve an infringement assertion. The arguments and evidence presented by GE Healthcare could also be leveraged in a parallel district court case, which would likely be stayed pending the PTAB's final decision.

PGR2025-00012 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Johns Hopkins University

Type: Post-Grant Review
Filed: The filing date would be available on the PTAB portal; the case number suggests a filing in late 2024 or early 2025.
Status: Terminated (Settlement). The proceeding was concluded before a decision on the merits because the parties reached a settlement agreement.
Judge panel: The judges assigned would be listed on the public record for the proceeding.
Petition grounds: As a PGR, this petition could have challenged the patent claims on any ground of invalidity, including § 101, § 112, § 102, or § 103.
Institution decision: The case was terminated before an institution decision was made.
Final Written Decision: None was issued due to the settlement.
Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated after the parties filed a joint motion to terminate based on a confidential settlement agreement. This action resolved the dispute between the petitioner (Unified Patents) and the patent owner.
Appeal: N/A.
Defensive value: This proceeding shows that the patent owner, Johns Hopkins University, is willing to settle validity challenges to mitigate risk and litigation costs. It does not weaken the patent's presumption of validity, but it provides a useful data point about the patent owner's strategic behavior. The petitioner, Unified Patents, and its members at the time may be subject to estoppel.

IPR2025-00808 — Petitioner v. Johns Hopkins University

Type: Inter Partes Review
Filed: The case number suggests a filing in mid-2025.
Status: Procedural Termination. The case was terminated by the PTAB for procedural reasons, not based on a settlement or a decision on the merits of the patent claims.
Judge panel: The judges assigned would be listed on the public record for the proceeding.
Petition grounds: An IPR petition would have asserted invalidity based on patents or printed publications under § 102 (anticipation) or § 103 (obviousness).
Institution decision: The case was terminated before an institution decision was made.
Final Written Decision: None was issued.
Settlement / termination: The reason for the procedural termination would be detailed in the board's termination order. This can occur for various reasons, such as the petitioner failing to pay fees or not identifying all real parties-in-interest. This was not a settlement.
Appeal: N/A.
Defensive value: This proceeding has minimal defensive value. Because it was terminated on procedural grounds before institution, it provides no insight into the validity of the patent's claims. The petitioner may or may not be estopped, depending on the specific reason for termination.

Strategic summary

Claim Status: Currently, no claims of U.S. Patent 11,938,201 have been CANCELED or finally adjudicated as SUSTAINED by the PTAB. All 20 claims of the patent are legally valid, but they are subject to the ongoing challenge in IPR2026-00069. The outcome of that proceeding will determine whether claims are canceled or sustained.
Estoppel Landscape: The petitioners and their real parties-in-interest from the two terminated proceedings (PGR2025-00012 and IPR2025-00808) are barred from bringing new challenges on grounds they raised or reasonably could have raised. However, since neither case reached a Final Written Decision, the scope of this estoppel may be limited. For a new defendant, the field of available prior art is wide open, as no art has been fully litigated through an IPR on this patent. Once IPR2026-00069 concludes, GE Healthcare and its privies will be estopped from challenging the patent in district court or the ITC on any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in the IPR.
Pattern Signals: The '201 patent, granted in March 2024, has attracted three PTAB challenges within about 18 months. This indicates the patent is considered significant and is likely being actively asserted or licensed. The involvement of a defensive aggregator (Unified Patents) in the first challenge suggests a broad industry concern. The patent owner's decision to settle the PGR demonstrates a pragmatic approach to litigation, while the currently instituted IPR shows that other challengers are pursuing a merits-based invalidity ruling.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing an assertion of U.S. Patent 11,938,201, the most critical action is to analyze the ongoing IPR2026-00069.

Obtain and Review Key Documents: Download the Petition and the Decision to Institute from the PTAB End-to-End Search System. These documents will detail exactly which claims are under review, the specific prior art being used, and the PTAB's reasoning for why those claims are likely invalid.
Monitor Proceeding Milestones: The key upcoming date is the Final Written Decision deadline, on or about 2027-05-12. Other important events like the Patent Owner Response, the Oral Hearing, and any motions will be docketed on the PTAB portal.
Evaluate Your Position: The claims asserted against you may be the same ones currently under review and at risk of cancellation. This provides significant leverage for requesting a stay of any parallel district court litigation and informs settlement strategy. If the claims asserted against you are different from those instituted in the IPR, or if you possess stronger prior art, you may consider filing your own IPR before the one-year statutory deadline expires after being served with an infringement complaint.