PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

Three AIA trial proceedings have been filed against US patent 12028793. All three proceedings (IPR2025-01401, IPR2025-01239, and IPR2025-00978) concluded without a full merits review, with two resulting in discretionary denials of institution and one being terminated. This outcome suggests the patent has survived these IPR challenges, making an IPR-based defense harder for future challengers, as no claims were invalidated.

IPR2025-01401 — Google LLC v. Telcom Ventures LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-08
• Status: Discretionary Denial. The PTAB declined to institute review.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from the provided data or standard search results for discretionary denials at this stage.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are not publicly detailed for discretionary denials without access to the full petition and institution decision documents, which are not typically provided in summary search results.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-02-27. The petition for IPR was denied institution under the Board's discretionary authority.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal on record as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: Google's challenge was dismissed before a full review of the merits. This outcome strengthens the patent owner's position, as a large technology company failed to get an IPR instituted against this patent. Future challengers might face similar discretionary denial arguments.

IPR2025-01239 — [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) v. Telcom Ventures LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-05
• Status: Terminated. The proceeding ended prematurely without a final decision on the merits.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from the provided data or standard search results for terminated proceedings at this stage.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are not publicly detailed for terminated proceedings without access to the full petition documents.
• Institution decision: Details of the institution decision are not immediately clear from the "Terminated" status, but often termination occurs before or shortly after institution, typically due to settlement.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as the proceeding was terminated.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated on 2026-02-02. The proceeding was likely terminated due to a settlement between Apple Inc. and Telcom Ventures LLC, the terms of which are typically confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as the proceeding was terminated prior to a Final Written Decision.
• Defensive value: Apple's challenge was terminated, most likely due to a confidential settlement. This suggests a potential licensing deal or other agreement that resolved the dispute outside of a PTAB merits decision. For a defendant, this means the patent was not invalidated by Apple, and the terms of the settlement are unknown.

IPR2025-00978 — [[Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) et al.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.%20et%20al.) v. Telcom Ventures LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-05-23
• Status: Discretionary Denial. The PTAB declined to institute review.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from the provided data or standard search results for discretionary denials at this stage.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are not publicly detailed for discretionary denials without access to the full petition and institution decision documents.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-04-09. The petition for IPR was denied institution under the Board's discretionary authority.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal on record as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: Samsung's attempt to challenge the patent was unsuccessful, with the PTAB issuing a discretionary denial. Similar to the Google IPR, this indicates the patent has withstood a challenge from another major technology company without any claims being invalidated.

Strategic summary

All three IPR proceedings against US patent 12028793 concluded without a merits decision, meaning all claims of 12028793 remain SUSTAINED and UNTESTED by a Final Written Decision at the PTAB. Claims 1-11 are therefore still considered valid from a PTAB perspective. The patent has not been narrowed through these IPRs.

The estoppel landscape is complex due to the discretionary denials and termination. For IPR2025-01401 (Google) and IPR2025-00978 (Samsung), the petitioners (and their privies) are generally estopped under § 315(e)(2) from asserting invalidity grounds in future litigation that they raised or reasonably could have raised in their petitions, to the extent those grounds were part of the denied institution. For IPR2025-01239 (Apple), the estoppel depends on the specific terms of the confidential settlement and whether an IPR trial was ever instituted (which is unlikely if it terminated early). If institution was denied or it settled before institution, then the scope of estoppel may be narrower than if a full trial proceeded to a FWD.
The pattern signals here show that Telcom Ventures LLC, the patent owner, has successfully defended against three IPR challenges from major tech companies (Google, Apple, Samsung) without any claims being invalidated. The prevalence of "Discretionary Denial" and "Terminated" statuses suggests either strong arguments against institution (e.g., related litigation, serial petitions, Fintiv denials) or successful settlements, rather than a merits-based defense of patentability at trial. The fact that Unified Patents has filed related PTAB cases (as indicated in the Google Patents litigation section for this family) suggests an active defensive effort in the broader patent family.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US patent 12028793 today:

• Given the history of discretionary denials and termination, an IPR-based defense will be challenging. A thorough analysis of the petitions and institution decisions for IPR2025-01401 and IPR2025-00978 is critical to understand the PTAB's reasoning for discretionary denial. This would involve accessing the full public records for these cases via the USPTO PTAB E2E system.
• For IPR2025-01239, understanding the reason for termination is important, though often settlement terms are confidential.
• Consider what prior art grounds were raised in the denied petitions (if publicly accessible) and which prior art grounds remain available to a new petitioner, keeping in mind the estoppel effects on Google and Samsung.
• If litigation is ongoing, assess if the prior art grounds you wish to assert would be subject to estoppel for Google, Apple, or Samsung, or if a new petitioner could bring a stronger case or present new arguments.
• The patent appears to be active and potentially asserted against major players, warranting a careful review of its claims against your products/services and the full prosecution history.## Proceedings overview
  Three AIA trial proceedings have been filed against US patent 12028793. All three proceedings (IPR2025-01401, IPR2025-01239, and IPR2025-00978) concluded without a full merits review, with two resulting in discretionary denials of institution and one being terminated. This outcome indicates the patent has survived these IPR challenges, making an IPR-based defense harder for future challengers, as no claims were invalidated.

IPR2025-01401 — Google LLC v. Telcom Ventures LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-08
• Status: Discretionary Denial. The PTAB declined to institute review of the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available at this stage for discretionary denials.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are not typically detailed in public summaries for discretionary denials without access to the full decision.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-02-27. The petition for IPR was denied institution under the Board's discretionary authority.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: Google's challenge was dismissed before a full review of the merits. This outcome strengthens the patent owner's position, as a major technology company failed to get an IPR instituted against this patent. Future challengers might face similar discretionary denial arguments.

IPR2025-01239 — Apple Inc. v. Telcom Ventures LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-05
• Status: Terminated. The proceeding ended prematurely, likely due to a settlement, without a final decision on the merits.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available at this stage for terminated proceedings.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are not typically detailed in public summaries for terminated proceedings without access to the full petition.
• Institution decision: Details of the institution decision are not immediately clear from the "Terminated" status, but termination typically occurs before or shortly after institution, often due to settlement.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as the proceeding was terminated.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated on 2026-02-02. This proceeding was likely terminated due to a settlement between Apple Inc. and Telcom Ventures LLC. The terms of such settlements are typically confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as the proceeding was terminated prior to a Final Written Decision.
• Defensive value: Apple's challenge was terminated, most likely due to a confidential settlement. For a defendant, this means the patent was not invalidated by Apple in this proceeding, and the specific terms of the resolution are unknown.

IPR2025-00978 — Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Telcom Ventures LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-05-23
• Status: Discretionary Denial. The PTAB declined to institute review of the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available at this stage for discretionary denials.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are not typically detailed in public summaries for discretionary denials without access to the full decision.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-04-09. The petition for IPR was denied institution under the Board's discretionary authority.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: Samsung's attempt to challenge the patent was unsuccessful, with the PTAB issuing a discretionary denial. Similar to the Google IPR, this indicates the patent has withstood a challenge from another major technology company without any claims being invalidated.

Strategic summary

All three IPR proceedings against US patent 12028793 concluded without a merits decision. This means all claims of 12028793 (claims 1-11) remain SUSTAINED and UNTESTED by a Final Written Decision at the PTAB. The patent has not been narrowed through these IPRs.

The estoppel landscape is influenced by the discretionary denials and the termination. For IPR2025-01401 (Google) and IPR2025-00978 (Samsung), the respective petitioners (and their privies) are generally estopped under § 315(e)(2) from asserting invalidity grounds in future litigation that they raised or reasonably could have raised in their petitions, to the extent those grounds were part of the denied institution. For IPR2025-01239 (Apple), the estoppel implications depend on the specific terms of the confidential settlement and whether an IPR trial was ever instituted (which is unlikely given the "Terminated" status usually indicates pre-institution settlement or procedural termination). If institution was denied or the case settled before institution, then the scope of estoppel may be narrower than if a full trial proceeded to a FWD.
The pattern signals indicate that Telcom Ventures LLC, the patent owner, has successfully navigated three IPR challenges from major tech companies (Google, Apple, Samsung) without any claims being invalidated by a PTAB FWD. The prevalence of "Discretionary Denial" and "Terminated" statuses suggests either strong arguments against institution (e.g., arguments related to Fintiv, other litigation, or claim construction) or successful settlements, rather than a merits-based defense of patentability through a full IPR trial. The inclusion of PTAB cases filed by Unified Patents against this family (as noted in the Google Patents record) suggests a broader, active defensive effort against this patent owner's portfolio.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US patent 12028793 today:

• A thorough review of the public records for IPR2025-01401 (denied 2026-02-27) and IPR2025-00978 (denied 2026-04-09) is critical to understand the specific reasoning behind the PTAB's discretionary denials. This information can be accessed via the USPTO PTAB E2E system. Analyzing these decisions will help in identifying the PTAB's predispositions and what arguments they found unpersuasive for institution, which can inform future challenges.
• While the specific terms of the termination for IPR2025-01239 are confidential, the fact that Apple chose to settle rather than proceed with the IPR (or was denied institution) is a data point to consider in assessing the patent's strength.
• Any new IPR petition would need to carefully consider the estoppel effects on Google and Samsung, focusing on prior art grounds that were not, and reasonably could not have been, raised in the prior petitions, especially if the new petitioner is not in privy with the previous petitioners.
• Since all claims remain sustained, a defendant should conduct a thorough independent invalidity analysis to identify strong prior art outside of what may have been presented in the denied IPRs, and a robust non-infringement analysis.