PTAB challenges

Based on the single Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceeding filed against US patent 12,118,290, here is an analysis of what happened and what it means for a defendant.

Proceedings overview

One inter partes review (IPR) has been filed against this patent, and the PTAB declined to institute the trial on discretionary grounds. This means the substantive invalidity arguments were never considered by the Board, and all claims of US patent 12,118,290 remain untested at the PTAB, leaving the patent's validity unadjudicated by this specialized body.

---

IPR2025-01525 — Foleon Inc. v. Turtl Surf and Immerse Ltd

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-20
• Status: Discretionary Denial. The PTAB exercised its discretion to not institute a trial, meaning the merits of the petitioner's invalidity arguments were never decided.
• Judge panel: A search of the public record would be required to identify the specific Administrative Patent Judges on the panel that issued the denial.
• Petition grounds: A review of the petition document would be necessary to confirm the exact grounds, but typically a petition would challenge specific claims (e.g., claims 1-8 and 12) as being invalid as anticipated (§ 102) or obvious (§ 103) over specific prior art references.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-04-10. The Board denied institution based on discretionary factors, not on the merits of the prior art. This type of denial, often under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), frequently occurs when there is a co-pending district court litigation case between the same parties that is scheduled to go to trial before the PTAB's Final Written Decision would be due (the so-called Fintiv factors). The Board essentially decided that the district court was a more efficient venue to resolve the validity dispute.
• Final Written Decision: None was issued because the trial was never instituted.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated by the Board's denial of institution; it was not terminated due to a settlement between the parties.
• Appeal: A petitioner generally cannot appeal a decision to deny institution of an IPR. Therefore, no appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit occurred.
• Defensive value: This proceeding provides minimal defensive value. While it signals that the patent owner is being assertive, the patent owner's victory was procedural, not substantive. The prior art and arguments raised by Foleon Inc. in its petition were never tested on the merits and remain available for a defendant to use in district court litigation or potentially in a future PTAB petition if circumstances change.

Strategic summary

• Claim Status: All claims of US patent 12,118,290 are currently UNTESTED by the PTAB. No claims have been CANCELED or SUSTAINED as a result of a PTAB trial. The patent emerges from this proceeding with its full scope intact.
• Estoppel landscape: Because the IPR was not instituted, statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) does not apply. The petitioner, Foleon Inc., and its privies are not barred from raising the same invalidity grounds again, either in a different PTAB proceeding or in district court. This is a critical point: the prior art cited in the IPR petition remains fully available for any defendant to use.
• Pattern signals: The patent owner, Turtl Surf and Immerse Ltd, has demonstrated a willingness and ability to use procedural tools at the PTAB to its advantage, successfully avoiding a trial on the merits by pointing to parallel litigation. This suggests a sophisticated litigation strategy. For a defendant, it indicates that any defensive PTAB filing must be carefully coordinated with district court timing to avoid a similar discretionary denial.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing a demand letter citing US patent 12,118,290, the patent should be treated as having survived its first challenge unscathed, but on a procedural technicality, not on its merits.

• Obtain the IPR file history: Your first step should be to obtain the petition and the Board's Decision Denying Institution for IPR2025-01525 from the USPTO's PTAB E2E portal. The petition will provide a ready-made set of prior art and invalidity arguments that can be evaluated and potentially adopted for your own defense.
• Analyze the discretionary denial: The Board's decision will explain exactly why it denied institution. Understanding this reasoning is crucial for assessing whether a new IPR petition would be viable. If the denial was based on the trial schedule of the Turtl v. Foleon litigation, a new petition might succeed if it is filed before any new litigation against you has an established trial date.
• No claims are invalidated: Be clear that no claims of this patent have been canceled. The outcome of IPR2025-01525 does not weaken the patent's presumption of validity, but it also does not "harden" the patent in the way a Final Written Decision confirming patentability would have. All validity challenges remain on the table.