PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 11948550. This proceeding is currently active and pending, meaning no claims have been invalidated or sustained yet. This gives a defendant some uncertainty regarding the patent's enforceability, as an active challenge is underway.

IPR2026-00272 — Krisp Technologies, Inc. v. Sanas Ai Inc

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-03-27
• Status: Pending. The petition has been filed, and the PTAB is currently reviewing it to determine whether to institute a trial.
• Judge panel: Not yet publicly available, as the institution decision has not been issued.
• Petition grounds: The specific petition grounds, including which claims are challenged and the prior art cited, are not yet publicly available through standard search methods, as the case is still in its early stages before an institution decision. IPRs typically challenge claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103.
• Institution decision: Not yet issued. The statutory deadline for an institution decision is typically six months from the petition's filing date, which would be around 2026-09-27.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as the trial has not been instituted.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as the proceeding is pending institution.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This proceeding indicates that at least one party (Krisp Technologies, Inc.) believes there are grounds to challenge the patent's validity. While no claims have been invalidated, the existence of a pending IPR creates an ongoing risk for the patent owner and could influence settlement negotiations for a defendant. The outcome of the institution decision and any subsequent trial will significantly impact the defensive posture.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US patent 11948550 are UNTESTED in the context of a final PTAB decision. The sole proceeding, IPR2026-00272, is in its nascent stages, with the PTAB yet to decide on institution. This means no claims have been canceled or confirmed patentable by the PTAB.

The estoppel landscape is undeveloped. Should IPR2026-00272 be instituted and proceed to a Final Written Decision, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) would bar Krisp Technologies, Inc. (and its privies) from asserting invalidity grounds they raised or reasonably could have raised in the IPR. However, for other potential defendants not in privity with Krisp Technologies, Inc., the full range of prior-art grounds remains available. The presence of Unified Patents in connection with related litigation suggests a potential strategy by defensive aggregators, but the petitioner for this IPR is Krisp Technologies, Inc..

Recommended next steps

• Monitor the status of IPR2026-00272 closely, particularly for the institution decision, which is expected around 2026-09-27. The institution decision will reveal which claims, if any, the PTAB agrees to review.
• If facing an assertion, consider conducting a prior art search independent of the IPR grounds, as all prior art grounds are still available for a new defendant.
• If in discussions with the patent owner, the existence of this pending IPR, even at an early stage, may serve as leverage.