PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 12062243, which resulted in an institution denial. This outcome means all claims of the patent remain untested by this specific IPR, leaving the patent's validity fully intact from this challenge.

IPR2026-00108 — Samsara Inc. v. Motive Technologies Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-11-14
• Status: Institution Denied – The Board declined to institute a trial on any of the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Lead APJ: Melissa A. Houston; APJ: Brian C. Lynch; APJ: Michael P. Tierney.
• Petition grounds: Samsara Inc. challenged claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 12,062,243 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness) over various combinations of prior art, including US Patent No. 10,637,869 to Yang, US Patent No. 10,755,750 to Zang, and US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0173874 to Lee.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-05-14. The panel found that the petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Samsara Inc. would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Specifically, the Board determined that the petition failed to adequately articulate how the cited prior art rendered the claims obvious, particularly regarding the "multi-task network" and "joint loss" features.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: The patent owner successfully defended against this IPR petition, with all challenged claims (1-20) surviving this challenge. Any future IPR petition seeking to challenge the same claims on the same grounds (using the same prior art or grounds that reasonably could have been raised) by Samsara Inc. or its privies would be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1). Other parties are not estopped from challenging these claims, but the Board's reasoning for denial provides insight into potential weaknesses in similar obviousness arguments.

Strategic summary

All claims (1-20) of US patent 12062243 are currently SUSTAINED and UNTESTED on the merits by an AIA trial proceeding. The sole IPR filed, IPR2026-00108, resulted in a denial of institution, meaning no trial was ever initiated.

The estoppel landscape is favorable for the patent owner, Motive Technologies Inc. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1), Petitioner Samsara Inc. (and any parties in privity with them) is estopped from asserting in any other USPTO proceeding or in any civil action the invalidity of claims 1-20 on any ground that Samsara Inc. raised or reasonably could have raised in the IPR petition. For other potential defendants, all prior-art grounds remain available for challenge, provided they can meet the institution threshold, especially considering the Board's stated reasons for denying institution in IPR2026-00108.

There are no discernible pattern signals from a single IPR filing. The petitioner, Samsara Inc., has not filed multiple IPRs on this patent, and there was no appeal by the patent owner as institution was denied. There is no indication of a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents in this specific proceeding, as Samsara Inc. was the petitioner.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, it is important to note that all claims of US12062243 remain unchallenged on the merits by an AIA trial proceeding. The institution denial in IPR2026-00108 indicates that the Board found the obviousness arguments presented in the petition to be insufficient. Any potential new IPR petition should carefully review the Board's decision denying institution in IPR2026-00108 to understand the deficiencies identified and formulate stronger arguments.

The institution decision for IPR2026-00108, rendered on 2026-05-14, can be accessed through the USPTO PTAB E2E system. This denial implies that, for claims 1-20, the specific obviousness arguments presented in the petition were not found to have a reasonable likelihood of success.

Given that no claims have been invalidated, and the patent successfully fended off an IPR petition at the institution stage, an IPR-based defense will require a more robust and distinct challenge. The absence of successful PTAB activity suggests that the patent claims may be relatively hardened against the specific prior art and arguments presented in the denied petition.

The next steps for a potential challenger would involve a thorough prior art search and claim analysis to identify new and stronger invalidity grounds that were not raised or reasonably could not have been raised by Samsara Inc. and to clearly articulate how these new grounds meet the institution standard.

1. USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board. IPR2026-00108, Paper 11, Decision Denying Institution. https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2026-00108. Accessed 2026-05-26.## Proceedings overview
   One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 12062243, which resulted in an institution denial. This outcome means all claims of the patent remain untested by this specific IPR, leaving the patent's validity fully intact from this challenge.

IPR2026-00108 — Samsara Inc. v. Motive Technologies Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-11-14
• Status: Institution Denied – The Board declined to institute a trial on any of the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Lead APJ: Melissa A. Houston; APJ: Brian C. Lynch; APJ: Michael P. Tierney.
• Petition grounds: Samsara Inc. challenged claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 12,062,243 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness) over various combinations of prior art, including US Patent No. 10,637,869 to Yang, US Patent No. 10,755,750 to Zang, and US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0173874 to Lee.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-05-14. The panel found that the petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Samsara Inc. would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Specifically, the Board determined that the petition failed to adequately articulate how the cited prior art rendered the claims obvious, particularly regarding the "multi-task network" and "joint loss" features.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: The patent owner successfully defended against this IPR petition, with all challenged claims (1-20) surviving this challenge. Any future IPR petition seeking to challenge the same claims on the same grounds (using the same prior art or grounds that reasonably could have been raised) by Samsara Inc. or its privies would be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1). Other parties are not estopped from challenging these claims, but the Board's reasoning for denial provides insight into potential weaknesses in similar obviousness arguments.

Strategic summary

All claims (1-20) of US patent 12062243 are currently SUSTAINED and UNTESTED on the merits by an AIA trial proceeding. The sole IPR filed, IPR2026-00108, resulted in a denial of institution, meaning no trial was ever initiated.

The estoppel landscape is favorable for the patent owner, Motive Technologies Inc. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1), Petitioner Samsara Inc. (and any parties in privity with them) is estopped from asserting in any other USPTO proceeding or in any civil action the invalidity of claims 1-20 on any ground that Samsara Inc. raised or reasonably could have raised in the IPR petition. For other potential defendants, all prior-art grounds remain available for challenge, provided they can meet the institution threshold, especially considering the Board's stated reasons for denying institution in IPR2026-00108.

There are no discernible pattern signals from a single IPR filing. The petitioner, Samsara Inc., has not filed multiple IPRs on this patent, and there was no appeal by the patent owner as institution was denied. There is no indication of a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents in this specific proceeding, as Samsara Inc. was the petitioner.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, it is important to note that all claims of US12062243 remain unchallenged on the merits by an AIA trial proceeding. The institution denial in IPR2026-00108 indicates that the Board found the obviousness arguments presented in the petition to be insufficient. Any potential new IPR petition should carefully review the Board's decision denying institution in IPR2026-00108 to understand the deficiencies identified and formulate stronger arguments.

The institution decision for IPR2026-00108, rendered on 2026-05-14, can be accessed through the USPTO PTAB E2E system. This denial implies that, for claims 1-20, the specific obviousness arguments presented in the petition were not found to have a reasonable likelihood of success.

Given that no claims have been invalidated, and the patent successfully fended off an IPR petition at the institution stage, an IPR-based defense will require a more robust and distinct challenge. The absence of successful PTAB activity suggests that the patent claims may be relatively hardened against the specific prior art and arguments presented in the denied petition.

The next steps for a potential challenger would involve a thorough prior art search and claim analysis to identify new and stronger invalidity grounds that were not raised or reasonably could not have been raised by Samsara Inc. and to clearly articulate how these new grounds meet the institution standard.

1. USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board. IPR2026-00108, Paper 11, Decision Denying Institution. https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2026-00108. Accessed 2026-05-26.