PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 12138276, which was terminated. This particular proceeding was a Post-Grant Review (PGR) that ended in procedural termination, meaning no claims were adjudicated on the merits. Consequently, the patent remains unaffected by this proceeding, and its claims are entirely untested at the PTAB. This gives a defendant no immediate advantage from PTAB proceedings.

PGR2025-00076 — Gilgamesh Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Enveric Biosciences Canada Inc.

• Type: Post-Grant Review
• Filed: 2025-08-12
• Status: Terminated (Procedural Termination). The proceeding was terminated before institution and before a Final Written Decision on the merits.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available as the case was terminated before institution.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-15 of US Patent 12,138,276 on grounds of obviousness and anticipation under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, and written description and enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
• Institution decision: Denied / Not Instituted. The proceeding was terminated due to a settlement before a decision on institution.
• Final Written Decision: No Final Written Decision was issued as the proceeding was terminated before institution.
• Settlement / termination: The case was terminated by Order on January 8, 2026, due to settlement between the parties. The specific terms of the settlement are confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal was filed with the Federal Circuit, as there was no Final Written Decision to appeal.
• Defensive value: This proceeding did not result in any claims being invalidated. The termination by settlement means the patent's claims remain untested at the PTAB, offering no direct defensive leverage based on this particular PGR. However, the settlement does indicate that the petitioner found it commercially advantageous to resolve the dispute, which can be interpreted in various ways.

Strategic summary

All claims (1-15) of US patent 12138276 remain untested and patentable as far as PTAB proceedings are concerned. The single PGR filed against the patent, PGR2025-00076, was terminated via a confidential settlement between the petitioner, Gilgamesh Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., and the patent owner, Enveric Biosciences Canada Inc., before the Board made a decision on institution. This means there is no PTAB decision on the merits of the challenged claims.

Regarding estoppel, since PGR2025-00076 was terminated prior to institution, there is no estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1) against the petitioner or its privies for any grounds that could have been raised. Therefore, all prior-art grounds, including those previously asserted in the petition, are still theoretically available for future challenges by unrelated parties. The termination before institution signifies that the patent owner did not have to defend the merits of the patent before the PTAB in this instance. The absence of a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents in the chain, other than their data portal linking to the case, doesn't indicate a clear pattern signal beyond the initial challenge by Gilgamesh.

Recommended next steps

• As there are no claims invalidated or sustained by a PTAB Final Written Decision, the patent remains in its original form.
• If facing assertion of this patent, consider the prior art identified in the petition for PGR2025-00076. While that petition was terminated, the arguments and prior art could still be relevant for a new PTAB challenge by a different entity or for litigation defense.
• A defendant could consider filing a new Post-Grant Review petition, provided they meet the statutory requirements, as the claims have not been substantively reviewed by the PTAB.
• Monitor the patent for any new litigation filings or other PTAB proceedings.
• For details on the terminated PGR2025-00076, refer to the case information available on the Unified Patents PTAB Portal: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/PGR2025-00076.