PTAB challenges

Proceedings Overview

Currently, there is one active AIA trial proceeding, IPR2026-00330, challenging US Patent 11,949,962. This Inter Partes Review is in its early stages, with the petition having been filed recently, and no institution decision or final written decision has been issued yet. This means the patent claims remain untested at the PTAB, and their validity is currently being challenged.

IPR2026-00330 — Viant Technology LLC et al. v. Intent IQ LLC et al.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-04-02
• Status: Pending. The petition has been filed, and the PTAB is currently reviewing it to determine whether to institute a trial. A decision on institution is typically expected within six months of the petition's filing date.
• Judge panel: Not yet publicly available. The panel of Administrative Patent Judges will be assigned if the trial is instituted.
• Petition grounds: The full details of the petition grounds, including the specific claims challenged, the prior art references asserted, and the statutory bases (§ 102 for anticipation or § 103 for obviousness), are not yet publicly summarized in an institution decision. This information would be found in the filed petition itself on the PTAB E2E system.
• Institution decision: Not yet issued. Based on the filing date of April 2, 2026, an institution decision is anticipated around October 2026.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable; the trial has not yet been instituted.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement or termination has been publicly reported.
• Appeal: Not applicable; no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: As the IPR is still pending at the institution phase, the claims of US 11,949,962 remain presumptively valid. For a defendant facing assertion, this proceeding indicates that the patent's validity is currently under scrutiny by the PTAB. The outcome of the institution decision will significantly impact the defensive posture. If instituted, it signals a non-frivolous challenge; if denied, it suggests the petitioner failed to meet the threshold for unpatentability, making future IPRs on the same grounds more challenging.

Strategic Summary

Currently, all claims of US 11,949,962 are UNTESTED at the PTAB, as the single Inter Partes Review (IPR2026-00330) filed against it is still in the pre-institution phase. Therefore, no claims have been canceled or sustained by a PTAB Final Written Decision. The patent has not been narrowed through IPR proceedings to date.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, if IPR2026-00330 proceeds to a Final Written Decision, the petitioners (Viant Technology LLC et al.) and their privies would be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from challenging the patentability of any claim on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised during the IPR. For a defendant currently being asserted against, this means that prior-art grounds not included in the IPR petition (or those the PTAB declined to institute on) would still be available for a future challenge, assuming no privity with the current petitioners.

There is no public pattern of multiple IPRs filed by the same petitioner on this specific patent. The patent owner, Intent IQ LLC, is known for aggressively enforcing its portfolio, as evidenced by its litigation history and prior successful IPR defenses on related patents. The current IPR filing by multiple petitioners (Viant Technology LLC et al.) suggests a coordinated challenge, which is a common strategy in cases involving frequently asserted patents.

Recommended Next Steps

• Monitor the progress of IPR2026-00330 closely. The key upcoming milestone is the institution decision, expected around October 2, 2026 (six months from the petition filing date). The decision will reveal which claims, if any, the PTAB has agreed to review and on what grounds.
• Access the public records for IPR2026-00330 on the USPTO PTAB E2E system to review the petition itself. This will provide precise details on the claims challenged, the asserted prior art, and the petitioner's arguments. Understanding these grounds is crucial for evaluating the strength of the challenge and informing potential counter-arguments or defenses.