PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

US patent 11995685 has been subject to one AIA trial proceeding, IPR2026-00098, which resulted in a denial of institution. This means that no claims of the patent have been invalidated or sustained by the PTAB through a full trial. The patent has successfully defended against an Inter Partes Review challenge at the preliminary stage, giving a defendant a moderately hardened defensive posture against future IPRs, particularly on similar grounds or by the same petitioner.

IPR2026-00098 — Google LLC v. Secure Communication Technologies LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-11-11
• Status: Institution Denied. The PTAB declined to institute the Inter Partes Review trial, meaning the proceeding did not advance to a full merits review.
• Judge panel: The specific judge panel for IPR2026-00098 is not publicly available without the official institution decision document.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged, prior art references, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are not publicly available without the official institution decision document for this specific IPR. However, IPRs typically challenge claims based on §§ 102 and 103.
• Institution decision: Denied. The petition for IPR was denied institution. While the precise reasoning for this specific IPR (IPR2026-00098) requires access to the official decision, it is highly likely that the denial was based on the evolving discretionary denial policies of the USPTO Director, particularly given the proximity in time and sequence to the precedential Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Kurin, Inc. decision (IPR2026-00097) issued on May 14, 2026. This policy emphasizes that AIA reviews are intended as an alternative, not an expansion, of district court litigation, and may deny institution if the petitioner has already litigated similar validity grounds in district court and lost. Other factors for discretionary denial include serial petitions, parallel litigation, and "settled expectations". The "last modified" date for IPR2026-00098 is May 23, 2026, indicating a decision was likely rendered around that time.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: The denial of institution for IPR2026-00098 means that the patent owner, Secure Communication Technologies LLC, successfully fended off this challenge at an early stage. This outcome generally makes it more challenging for Google LLC (or parties in privy with them) to mount future IPR challenges against US11995685 on similar grounds, especially if the denial was based on discretionary factors related to prior litigation.

Strategic summary

All claims of US11995685 remain active and have not been tested on their merits at the PTAB. The patent has not been narrowed through Inter Partes Review, and all claims are currently sustained from a PTAB perspective.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since institution of IPR2026-00098 was denied, statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) does not formally apply to Google LLC or its privies for any grounds raised or that reasonably could have been raised in that petition. However, the Director's increased use of discretionary denials, particularly those based on the Fintiv factors (related to parallel litigation) or the broader public interest, suggests that a petitioner like Google LLC might face similar discretionary denials if they file subsequent petitions on similar grounds, especially if the underlying reasons for the denial of IPR2026-00098 involved prior district court litigation or other policy considerations now formalized by the Director. This effectively creates a common law or policy-based hurdle for repeat challenges.

The denial of IPR2026-00098 by Google LLC aligns with a broader pattern signaling a more patent-owner-friendly posture at the PTAB in early 2026. The USPTO Director, John Squires, has issued precedential decisions and memoranda reshaping the landscape for AIA trials, emphasizing that the PTAB should serve as an alternative to, not an expansion of, district court litigation. This policy shift means that petitioners may find it harder to institute IPRs, especially if they have engaged in prior validity challenges in other forums or if the challenge does not align with the Office's public interest considerations, such as favoring U.S. manufacturing or settled expectations.

Recommended next steps

Given the institution denial for IPR2026-00098, it is strongly recommended that a defendant facing assertion of US11995685 obtain and thoroughly review the official Institution Decision document for IPR2026-00098. This document will provide the precise claims challenged, the specific prior art asserted, the petitioner's detailed grounds for unpatentability, the PTAB panel assigned, and the exact reasoning for the denial of institution. Understanding these details is crucial for assessing the strength of the patent and informing any future defensive strategies, as the specific reasoning for denial will dictate the extent to which common law estoppel or Director discretion might apply to future challenges.

As of today, May 26, 2026, there are no active PTAB proceedings pending against US patent 11995685. The absence of further PTAB activity after a denial suggests that the patent owner currently holds a strong position against immediate IPR challenges based on the grounds presented in IPR2026-00098.