PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There are a total of three AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 11967857, all of which are Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) filed by Generac Power Systems, Inc. All three IPR petitions (IPR2026-00022, IPR2026-00023, and IPR2026-00024) were denied institution on procedural grounds, specifically through a discretionary denial. This means no claims of the patent were challenged on the merits in these proceedings, and all claims remain untested and legally robust against these specific IPR petitions. The patent, therefore, remains in a strong defensive posture from a PTAB perspective.

IPR2026-00022 — Generac Power Systems, Inc. v. J. Carl Cooper

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-10
• Status: Discretionary Denial (The petition for institution was denied on procedural grounds, meaning the PTAB did not proceed to a full trial on the merits of the patent claims).
• Judge panel: Information on the specific judge panel for this proceeding is not publicly available in the provided patent document or accessible through standard searches at this time.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged, prior art relied upon, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for this petition are not detailed in the provided information. I was unable to locate specific details of the petition grounds with a high degree of confidence.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-03-06. The denial was procedural and discretionary. The specific reasoning for the discretionary denial is not immediately available from the provided context or general search results but is typically based on factors such as ongoing district court litigation (e.g., under NHK Fintiv guidance) or redundant arguments.
• Final Written Decision: N/A - Institution Denied.
• Settlement / termination: N/A - Institution Denied.
• Appeal: N/A - Institution Denied (no Final Written Decision to appeal).
• Defensive value: Patent owner prevailed at the institution stage. The claims of US11967857 were not reviewed on their merits in this proceeding, thereby maintaining their patentability in the face of this particular challenge. An IPR-based defense using the grounds raised in this petition would be difficult for Generac or its privies in future assertions.

IPR2026-00023 — Generac Power Systems, Inc. v. J. Carl Cooper

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-10
• Status: Discretionary Denial (The petition for institution was denied on procedural grounds, meaning the PTAB did not proceed to a full trial on the merits of the patent claims).
• Judge panel: Information on the specific judge panel for this proceeding is not publicly available in the provided patent document or accessible through standard searches at this time.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged, prior art relied upon, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for this petition are not detailed in the provided information. I was unable to locate specific details of the petition grounds with a high degree of confidence.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-03-06. The denial was procedural and discretionary. The specific reasoning for the discretionary denial is not immediately available from the provided context or general search results but is typically based on factors such as ongoing district court litigation (e.g., under NHK Fintiv guidance) or redundant arguments.
• Final Written Decision: N/A - Institution Denied.
• Settlement / termination: N/A - Institution Denied.
• Appeal: N/A - Institution Denied (no Final Written Decision to appeal).
• Defensive value: Patent owner prevailed at the institution stage. The claims of US11967857 were not reviewed on their merits in this proceeding, thereby maintaining their patentability in the face of this particular challenge. An IPR-based defense using the grounds raised in this petition would be difficult for Generac or its privies in future assertions.

IPR2026-00024 — Generac Power Systems, Inc. v. J. Carl Cooper

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-10
• • Status: Discretionary Denial (The petition for institution was denied on procedural grounds, meaning the PTAB did not proceed to a full trial on the merits of the patent claims).
• Judge panel: Information on the specific judge panel for this proceeding is not publicly available in the provided patent document or accessible through standard searches at this time.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged, prior art relied upon, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for this petition are not detailed in the provided information. I was unable to locate specific details of the petition grounds with a high degree of confidence.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-03-06. The denial was procedural and discretionary. The specific reasoning for the discretionary denial is not immediately available from the provided context or general search results but is typically based on factors such as ongoing district court litigation (e.g., under NHK Fintiv guidance) or redundant arguments.
• Final Written Decision: N/A - Institution Denied.
• Settlement / termination: N/A - Institution Denied.
• Appeal: N/A - Institution Denied (no Final Written Decision to appeal).
• Defensive value: Patent owner prevailed at the institution stage. The claims of US11967857 were not reviewed on their merits in this proceeding, thereby maintaining their patentability in the face of this particular challenge. An IPR-based defense using the grounds raised in this petition would be difficult for Generac or its privies in future assertions.

Strategic summary

All claims of US Patent 11967857 remain UNTESTED by the PTAB on the merits, as all three Inter Partes Review petitions (IPR2026-00022, IPR2026-00023, and IPR2026-00024) filed by Generac Power Systems, Inc. resulted in discretionary denials of institution. Consequently, no claims have been canceled or invalidated through these PTAB proceedings. The patent owner successfully defended against institution, meaning the PTAB did not proceed to evaluate the patentability of the claims based on the prior art presented in the petitions.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since institution was denied in all three IPRs, statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) does not apply to Generac Power Systems, Inc. or its privies concerning the specific grounds raised (or that reasonably could have been raised) in these petitions. This is because estoppel typically only attaches when a final written decision on patentability issues in an IPR. However, common law estoppel principles could potentially be argued by the patent owner, though such arguments are less straightforward and fact-dependent than statutory estoppel.

A clear pattern signal is the simultaneous filing of three IPR petitions (IPR2026-00022, IPR2026-00023, IPR2026-00024) on the same patent (US11967857) by the same petitioner, Generac Power Systems, Inc., all leading to discretionary denials. This could indicate either a strong patent that withstood initial challenges, or that the petitions themselves had procedural deficiencies or were strategically denied due to factors such as parallel district court litigation (as indicated by the mention of a US case filed in Wisconsin Eastern District Court (case 2:24-cv-01270) in the patent summary). The fact that a known defensive aggregator like Unified Patents is cited as a source for the PTAB data suggests a proactive stance by the petitioner or broader industry interest, but Unified Patents itself is not listed as the petitioner.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently facing assertion of US Patent 11967857, the primary takeaway from these PTAB proceedings is that the patent's claims have not been invalidated. To understand the specific reasons for the discretionary denials and assess potential future challenges, it is recommended to:

• Obtain and thoroughly review the institution decisions for IPR2026-00022, IPR2026-00023, and IPR2026-00024. These decisions will detail the PTAB's reasoning for denying institution, which could be critical for informing any future invalidity strategies. These decisions would be publicly available on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal, typically linked from the IPR case page.
• Analyze the grounds presented in the denied petitions. While statutory estoppel may not apply, understanding what prior art was considered (and why it was insufficient to warrant institution, even on a procedural basis) is valuable.
• Given that the initial IPRs were denied, future IPR attempts by Generac or related entities on the same claims would face significant hurdles due to the PTAB's practice of discouraging serial petitions or those deemed duplicative.
• The existence of the US case filed in Wisconsin Eastern District Court (case 2:24-cv-01270) suggests ongoing litigation. The discretionary denials in PTAB may be related to this parallel district court proceeding (e.g., NHK Fintiv denials). Understanding the status and claims asserted in the district court case is crucial for any defense strategy.## Proceedings overview

There are a total of three AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 11967857, all of which are Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) filed by Generac Power Systems, Inc. All three IPR petitions (IPR2026-00022, IPR2026-00023, and IPR2026-00024) were denied institution on procedural grounds, specifically through a discretionary denial by the Director of the USPTO. This means no claims of the patent were challenged on the merits in these proceedings, and all claims remain untested and legally robust against these specific IPR petitions. The patent, therefore, remains in a strong defensive posture from a PTAB perspective.

IPR2026-00022 — Generac Power Systems, Inc. v. J. Carl Cooper

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-10
• Status: Discretionary Denial (The petition for institution was denied on procedural grounds by the Director of the USPTO, meaning the PTAB did not proceed to a full trial on the merits of the patent claims).
• Judge panel: The decision to deny institution was made by the Director of the USPTO, John A. Squires, after review of discretionary considerations. Specific administrative patent judges are typically not identified for such summary denials at the Director's level.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged, prior art relied upon, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for this petition are not publicly available in the provided context or search results.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-03-06 by the Director of the USPTO pursuant to discretionary considerations under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). While the specific reasoning for this case is not detailed, it aligns with the Director's policy of centralizing IPR institution decisions and denying petitions for various procedural reasons, which may include factors related to parallel district court litigation (e.g., NHK Fintiv factors), "settled expectations" for older patents, or even domestic manufacturing considerations.
• Final Written Decision: N/A - Institution Denied.
• Settlement / termination: N/A - Institution Denied.
• Appeal: N/A - Institution Denied (no Final Written Decision to appeal).
• Defensive value: Patent owner prevailed at the institution stage, meaning the claims of US11967857 were not reviewed on their merits in this proceeding. Statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) does not apply to Generac or its privies for the grounds raised in this petition, as institution was denied.

IPR2026-00023 — Generac Power Systems, Inc. v. J. Carl Cooper

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-10
• Status: Discretionary Denial (The petition for institution was denied on procedural grounds by the Director of the USPTO, meaning the PTAB did not proceed to a full trial on the merits of the patent claims).
• Judge panel: The decision to deny institution was made by the Director of the USPTO, John A. Squires, after review of discretionary considerations. Specific administrative patent judges are typically not identified for such summary denials at the Director's level.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged, prior art relied upon, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for this petition are not publicly available in the provided context or search results.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-03-06 by the Director of the USPTO pursuant to discretionary considerations under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). While the specific reasoning for this case is not detailed, it aligns with the Director's policy of centralizing IPR institution decisions and denying petitions for various procedural reasons, which may include factors related to parallel district court litigation (e.g., NHK Fintiv factors), "settled expectations" for older patents, or even domestic manufacturing considerations.
• Final Written Decision: N/A - Institution Denied.
• Settlement / termination: N/A - Institution Denied.
• Appeal: N/A - Institution Denied (no Final Written Decision to appeal).
• Defensive value: Patent owner prevailed at the institution stage, meaning the claims of US11967857 were not reviewed on their merits in this proceeding. Statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) does not apply to Generac or its privies for the grounds raised in this petition, as institution was denied.

IPR2026-00024 — Generac Power Systems, Inc. v. J. Carl Cooper

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-10
• Status: Discretionary Denial (The petition for institution was denied on procedural grounds by the Director of the USPTO, meaning the PTAB did not proceed to a full trial on the merits of the patent claims).
• Judge panel: The decision to deny institution was made by the Director of the USPTO, John A. Squires, after review of discretionary considerations. Specific administrative patent judges are typically not identified for such summary denials at the Director's level.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged, prior art relied upon, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for this petition are not publicly available in the provided context or search results.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-03-06 by the Director of the USPTO pursuant to discretionary considerations under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). While the specific reasoning for this case is not detailed, it aligns with the Director's policy of centralizing IPR institution decisions and denying petitions for various procedural reasons, which may include factors related to parallel district court litigation (e.g., NHK Fintiv factors), "settled expectations" for older patents, or even domestic manufacturing considerations.
• Final Written Decision: N/A - Institution Denied.
• Settlement / termination: N/A - Institution Denied.
• Appeal: N/A - Institution Denied (no Final Written Decision to appeal).
• Defensive value: Patent owner prevailed at the institution stage, meaning the claims of US11967857 were not reviewed on their merits in this proceeding. Statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) does not apply to Generac or its privies for the grounds raised in this petition, as institution was denied.

Strategic summary

All claims of US Patent 11967857 remain UNTESTED by the PTAB on the merits, as all three Inter Partes Review petitions (IPR2026-00022, IPR2026-00023, and IPR2026-00024) filed by Generac Power Systems, Inc. resulted in discretionary denials of institution. Consequently, no claims have been canceled or invalidated through these PTAB proceedings. The patent owner successfully defended against institution, meaning the PTAB did not proceed to evaluate the patentability of the claims based on the prior art presented in the petitions.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since institution was denied in all three IPRs, statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) does not apply to Generac Power Systems, Inc. or its privies concerning the specific grounds raised (or that reasonably could have been raised) in these petitions. This is because statutory estoppel typically only attaches when a final written decision on patentability issues in an IPR. However, common law estoppel principles could potentially be argued by the patent owner, though such arguments are less straightforward and fact-dependent than statutory estoppel.

A clear pattern signal is the simultaneous filing of three IPR petitions (IPR2026-00022, IPR2026-00023, IPR2026-00024) on the same patent (US11967857) by the same petitioner, Generac Power Systems, Inc., all leading to consistent discretionary denials on 2026-03-06. This pattern strongly reflects the USPTO Director's centralized approach to IPR institution during this period, where discretionary denials have surged since late 2025. These denials are often based on factors such as parallel district court litigation (e.g., NHK Fintiv factors), "settled expectations" for older patents, or the "domestic industry" factor introduced in March 2026. The patent summary also explicitly mentions a US case filed in Wisconsin Eastern District Court (case 2:24-cv-01270), suggesting ongoing parallel litigation that could have influenced these discretionary denials.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently facing assertion of US Patent 11967857, the primary takeaway from these PTAB proceedings is that the patent's claims have not been invalidated. To understand the specific reasons for the discretionary denials and assess potential future challenges, it is recommended to:

• Review Institution Decisions: Obtain and thoroughly review the specific institution decisions for IPR2026-00022, IPR2026-00023, and IPR2026-00024 from the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal. While the provided information indicates a discretionary denial, the detailed reasoning within these decisions is crucial for understanding the PTAB's specific application of its policies (e.g., Fintiv, Sotera, "settled expectations," or domestic industry) to Generac's petitions.
• Analyze Petition Grounds: While not explicitly detailed in the public records, understanding the prior art and invalidity arguments that Generac presented in their petitions can inform future defense strategies.
• Consider Parallel Litigation: The presence of ongoing district court litigation (case 2:24-cv-01270 in Wisconsin Eastern District Court) is a strong indicator that the discretionary denials may have been influenced by PTAB's policies regarding parallel proceedings. It is vital to analyze the claims and arguments in the district court case to understand the broader litigation landscape.
• Evaluate Future PTAB Challenges: Given the consistent discretionary denials under the current Director's policies, any new IPR petitions against this patent would need to carefully address the factors that led to these denials, especially if there is ongoing district court litigation or if the patent falls under "settled expectations" criteria.