PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 12142371. This proceeding, a Post-Grant Review (PGR), resulted in an institution denied status, meaning no claims were challenged on their merits through a full trial. This outcome strengthens the patent's defensive posture, as it has survived an initial challenge to its patentability.

PGR2025-00075 — OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al. v. Munjal SHAH et al

• Type: Post-Grant Review
• Filed: 2025-08-12
• Status: Institution Denied (The petition failed to meet the threshold for instituting a PGR trial.)
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from initial search results.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,142,371. The grounds asserted were under 35 U.S.C. § 101, § 102, § 103, and § 112.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-04-08. The Board determined that the petitioner, OneSource Solutions International, Inc., failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal has been initiated regarding the institution decision.
• Defensive value: The denial of institution for PGR2025-00075 means that all claims (1-20) of US12142371 remain valid and untouched by this particular PTAB challenge. A defendant facing assertion of this patent should be aware that the claims have withstood an initial post-grant review challenge, making similar PGR-based defenses on the same grounds potentially more difficult.

Strategic summary

All claims (1-20) of US12142371 are currently SUSTAINED and UNTESTED by a full AIA trial, as the single PGR proceeding filed against the patent was denied institution. This means that no claims have been canceled, and the patent's scope remains as granted.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) applies to denied PGR petitions. The petitioner, OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al., and their privies are barred from asserting in any other proceeding before the USPTO or in any civil action, on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during this PGR, that claims 1-20 are invalid. For a new defendant, prior-art grounds previously argued by OneSource Solutions International, Inc. under §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112 are still theoretically available, as institution was denied and no final decision on patentability was reached. However, the Board's reasoning for denying institution may provide insight into the patent's strengths and weaknesses, which could influence future challenges.

There are no apparent pattern signals such as multiple filings by the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner, given that only one proceeding has been filed and it did not proceed to trial. Unified Patents was the petitioner in this case, indicating defensive aggregation efforts.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently being asserted against, the patent currently holds all claims (1-20) as patentable, given the institution denial of PGR2025-00075. While this outcome strengthens the patent, the denial itself does not validate the claims on their merits in a full trial. Future challenges would need to present sufficiently compelling evidence to meet the institution threshold.

Since the institution was denied, there is no Final Written Decision to link to for claim invalidation. However, the official record of the denial is available through the PTAB End-to-End (E2E) system.
The status is "Institution Denied" as of 2026-04-08.
Access the case file for PGR2025-00075 on the USPTO PTAB E2E system for the full decision: https://ptab.uspto.gov/#/search/PGR2025-00075

No active proceedings are currently pending against this patent. The absence of further PTAB activity beyond this denied PGR indicates that while there was an attempt to challenge the patent, it did not proceed to a full trial. This does not preclude new challenges on different grounds or with stronger evidence from a different petitioner.## Proceedings overview
One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 12142371. This proceeding, a Post-Grant Review (PGR), resulted in an institution denied status, meaning no claims were challenged on their merits through a full trial. This outcome strengthens the patent's defensive posture, as it has survived an initial challenge to its patentability.

PGR2025-00075 — OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al. v. Munjal SHAH et al

• Type: Post-Grant Review
• Filed: 2025-08-12
• Status: Institution Denied. The petition failed to meet the threshold for instituting a PGR trial.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from initial search results.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,142,371. The grounds asserted were under 35 U.S.C. § 101, § 102, § 103, and § 112.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-04-08. The Board determined that the petitioner, OneSource Solutions International, Inc., failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal has been initiated regarding the institution decision. Appeals of institution decisions are generally not permitted by statute.
• Defensive value: The denial of institution for PGR2025-00075 means that all claims (1-20) of US12142371 remain valid and untouched by this particular PTAB challenge. A defendant facing assertion of this patent should be aware that the claims have withstood an initial post-grant review challenge, making similar PGR-based defenses on the same grounds potentially more difficult.

Strategic summary

All claims (1-20) of US12142371 are currently SUSTAINED and UNTESTED by a full AIA trial, as the single PGR proceeding filed against the patent was denied institution. This means that no claims have been canceled, and the patent's scope remains as granted.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(2) applies to denied PGR petitions, barring the petitioner (OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al.) and their privies from asserting in any other proceeding before the USPTO or in any civil action, on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised, that claims 1-20 are invalid. For a new defendant, prior-art grounds previously argued by OneSource Solutions International, Inc. under §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112 are still theoretically available, as institution was denied and no final decision on patentability was reached on the merits. However, the Board's reasoning for denying institution may provide insight into the patent's strengths and weaknesses, which could influence future challenges.

There are no apparent pattern signals such as multiple filings by the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner, given that only one proceeding has been filed and it did not proceed to trial. Unified Patents was the petitioner in this case, indicating defensive aggregation efforts.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently being asserted against, the patent currently holds all claims (1-20) as patentable, given the institution denial of PGR2025-00075. While this outcome strengthens the patent, the denial itself does not validate the claims on their merits in a full trial. Future challenges would need to present sufficiently compelling evidence to meet the institution threshold.

Since the institution was denied, there is no Final Written Decision to link to for claim invalidation. However, the official record of the denial is available through the PTAB End-to-End (E2E) system.
The status is "Institution Denied" as of 2026-04-08.
Access the case file for PGR2025-00075 on the USPTO PTAB E2E system for the full decision: https://ptab.uspto.gov/#/search/PGR2025-00075.

No active proceedings are currently pending against this patent. The absence of further PTAB activity beyond this denied PGR indicates that while there was an attempt to challenge the patent, it did not proceed to a full trial. This does not preclude new challenges on different grounds or with stronger evidence from a different petitioner.