PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 12104578, which concluded with an institution denial. This outcome strengthens the patent, as its claims remain unchallenged by an IPR.

IPR2026-00102 — LiftWerx USA Inc. v. Liftra IP ApS

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-11-04
• Status: Institution Denied
• Judge panel: William P. Keane, Georgianna W. Mack, Michael J. Zecher
• Petition grounds: LiftWerx USA Inc. challenged claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,104,578 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over various combinations of prior art. The primary grounds involved combinations of prior art references such as DE '539, JP '273, JP '313, WO '018, U.S. '322, U.S. '069, WO '971, U.S. '552, U.S. '195, US '003, US '295, US '255, and US '322.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-05-01. The panel found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Specifically, the Board determined that the Petitioner did not adequately demonstrate how the proposed combinations of prior art rendered the claims obvious, or that the skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the references with a reasonable expectation of success.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit was filed regarding the institution denial.
• Defensive value: The patent owner successfully defended against this IPR petition, meaning all claims (1-17) remain valid and enforceable as they were not subjected to further review on the merits. An IPR-based defense using the same or similar prior art combinations would be difficult given the Board's clear reasoning for denying institution.

Strategic summary

All claims (1-17) of US patent 12104578 are currently SUSTAINED and UNTESTED through an AIA trial on the merits. The sole IPR proceeding, IPR2026-00102, resulted in an institution denial, meaning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found that the petitioner, LiftWerx USA Inc., did not meet the threshold requirement of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim. This outcome significantly hardens the patent, as its claims have withstood a challenge without ever reaching the trial phase.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) generally bars a petitioner (and its real parties in interest or privies) from asserting in other proceedings that a claim is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR. Since institution was denied for IPR2026-00102, the full scope of statutory estoppel is not yet fully defined; however, LiftWerx USA Inc. would likely be estopped from challenging claims 1-17 on the exact same grounds presented in their petition. For other potential defendants, the prior art grounds raised in IPR2026-00102 (e.g., DE '539, JP '273, JP '313, WO '018, U.S. '322, U.S. '069, WO '971, U.S. '552, U.S. '195, US '003, US '295, US '255, and US '322, and their combinations) are still available, though the PTAB's reasoning for denial provides a roadmap for what arguments were considered insufficient.

The patent owner, Liftra IP ApS, has successfully defended against the initial IPR challenge. There is no pattern of aggressive PTAB appeals, nor any indication of defensive aggregators being involved.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, it is important to understand that all claims (1-17) remain active and were not invalidated in IPR2026-00102. The institution decision is available on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal. While the decision indicates that the specific arguments presented by LiftWerx USA Inc. were not persuasive enough for institution, a new IPR could potentially be filed by a different petitioner (or the same petitioner with different arguments if not estopped) relying on new prior art or a more compelling analysis of the existing art. A thorough prior art search beyond the references cited in IPR2026-00102 would be advisable to identify new grounds for potential invalidity challenges.