PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

One Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding has been filed against US patent 12131745, which is currently pending. This means the patent's claims are actively being challenged, and a defendant should closely monitor the outcome of this proceeding as no claims have been definitively invalidated or sustained by the PTAB yet.

IPR2026-00274 — Krisp Technologies, Inc. v. Sanas Ai Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-03-18
• Status: Pending. The petition has been filed, and the PTAB is currently evaluating whether to institute a trial.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific judge panel is not yet publicly available at this early stage of the proceeding.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims challenged, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are typically detailed in the petition, which is not publicly available via simple search at this preliminary stage. However, IPRs generally focus on § 102 (novelty) and § 103 (obviousness) grounds.
• Institution decision: Not yet issued. The PTAB has a statutory deadline to decide whether to institute the IPR.
• Final Written Decision: Not yet issued. A Final Written Decision would only be issued if the IPR is instituted and proceeds to trial.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement or termination has been reported.
• Appeal: No appeal has been filed as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This IPR proceeding represents an active challenge to the patent. For a defendant, this means there is a potential for claims of US12131745 to be invalidated, which could weaken any assertion based on those claims. However, until an institution decision or a Final Written Decision is issued, the full defensive impact remains to be seen.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US patent 12131745 remain untested by a Final Written Decision, as the single IPR proceeding, IPR2026-00274, is in its very early stages and is still pending an institution decision. There are no claims that have been definitively CANCELED or SUSTAINED by the PTAB at this time.

Regarding estoppel, since no institution decision or Final Written Decision has been rendered, the estoppel provisions of § 315(e)(2) are not yet in effect. Krisp Technologies, Inc. (the petitioner) and any parties in privity with them would be barred from raising grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPR, should it proceed to a Final Written Decision. For other potential defendants, prior art grounds remain available for challenge until a trial is instituted and concluded. There is no clear pattern of multiple IPRs from the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner at this point, as this is the first and only reported IPR. Unified Patents is listed as a petitioner in a PTAB case IPR2026-00274, indicating a potential defensive aggregator involvement.

Recommended next steps

The IPR2026-00274 proceeding against US12131745 is pending. The next significant milestone will be the institution decision, which the PTAB typically issues within 6 months of the petition filing date (around September 2026). Parties facing assertion of this patent should monitor the status of IPR2026-00274 closely via the USPTO PTAB E2E system to understand the specific claims challenged and the outcome of the institution decision. The Unified Patents portal also indicates this proceeding is pending.