PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There is one Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding on file for US12190198, which is currently in the "Trial Instituted" status. This means the patent owner is currently defending the patentability of the challenged claims.

PGR2025-00067 — [[[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.) v. Sai C. Manapragada

• Type: Post-Grant Review
• Filed: 2025-07-21
• Status: Trial Instituted. The PTAB has decided to initiate a trial to review the patentability of the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available yet for the institution decision.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available yet for the institution decision.
• Institution decision: Instituted. Date and panel's reasoning are not publicly available at this stage, but the status "Trial Instituted" confirms the Board found at least one claim likely unpatentable.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not yet issued as the proceeding is in the "Trial Instituted" phase.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement or termination information is available.
• Appeal: No appeal information is available as a Final Written Decision has not yet been issued.
• Defensive value: This active PGR proceeding indicates that claims within US12190198 are currently under challenge and their patentability is being reviewed by the PTAB. A defendant facing assertion of this patent should closely monitor the outcome of this PGR, as a successful challenge could invalidate some or all of the asserted claims.

Strategic summary

As of 2026-05-20, US12190198 has one active Post-Grant Review proceeding, PGR2025-00067. This means that at least some claims of the patent are currently under review by the PTAB and their patentability has been challenged by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. The institution of trial signifies that the petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable. Therefore, no claims have been canceled or sustained yet; they are currently under examination. The specific claims being challenged and the grounds for challenge are not yet publicly detailed in the provided information.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, if the PGR proceeds to a Final Written Decision, § 325(e)(2) will bar the petitioner (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.) and their privies from asserting in a future civil action or ITC proceeding that a claim is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during the PGR. For other potential defendants, the prior art grounds raised in this PGR may still be available unless they are in privity with the petitioner. However, the Board's findings in the PGR, even if not binding on other parties, can be persuasive.

The involvement of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. as the petitioner suggests a significant industry player has an interest in challenging this patent.

Recommended next steps

• Monitor the PTAB E2E system for PGR2025-00067 (PGR2025-00067) for updates on claim-level outcomes, judge panel details, petition grounds, and subsequent decisions. The PTAB has a statutory one-year deadline from institution to issue a Final Written Decision.
• Upon issuance of the institution decision, review the specific claims challenged and the prior art asserted by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
• If a Final Written Decision is issued, carefully examine its disposition at the claim-level granularity to understand which claims, if any, have been canceled or confirmed as patentable. This will directly impact any potential infringement defense strategy.
• If you are a defendant, and a Final Written Decision invalidates claims, assess whether your current or contemplated product or service infringes the remaining, patentable claims. This can significantly narrow the scope of potential assertion.

Proceedings overview

There is one Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding on file for US12190198, which is currently in the "Trial Instituted" status. This means the patent owner is currently defending the patentability of the challenged claims.

PGR2025-00067 — Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Sai C. Manapragada

• Type: Post-Grant Review
• Filed: 2025-07-21
• Status: Trial Instituted. The PTAB has decided to initiate a trial to review the patentability of the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available yet for this specific case. However, some PTAB judges, like Jeffrey N. Fredman and James A. Worth, are active in other PGRs and IPRs, but it's not confirmed they are on this panel.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are not yet publicly available for this proceeding.
• Institution decision: Instituted. While the specific decision is not publicly available yet, the status "Trial Instituted" confirms the Board found a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable. The USPTO implemented a bifurcated process for institution decisions in IPR and PGR cases in March 2025, where the Director first decides discretionary considerations before a three-member panel decides on the merits. The Director, in consultation with at least three PTAB judges, determines institution based on discretionary and merits considerations.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not yet issued as the proceeding is in the "Trial Instituted" phase.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement or termination information is available.
• Appeal: No appeal information is available as a Final Written Decision has not yet been issued.
• Defensive value: This active PGR proceeding indicates that claims within US12190198 are currently under challenge and their patentability is being reviewed by the PTAB. A defendant facing assertion of this patent should closely monitor the outcome of this PGR, as a successful challenge could invalidate some or all of the asserted claims.

Strategic summary

As of 2026-05-20, US12190198 has one active Post-Grant Review proceeding, PGR2025-00067. This means that at least some claims of the patent are currently under review by the PTAB and their patentability has been challenged by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. The institution of trial signifies that the petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable. Therefore, no claims have been canceled or sustained yet; they are currently under examination. The specific claims being challenged and the grounds for challenge are not yet publicly detailed in the provided information.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, if the PGR proceeds to a Final Written Decision, § 325(e)(2) will bar the petitioner (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.) and their privies from asserting in a future civil action or ITC proceeding that a claim is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during the PGR. For other potential defendants, the prior art grounds raised in this PGR may still be available unless they are in privity with the petitioner. However, the Board's findings in the PGR, even if not binding on other parties, can be persuasive.

The involvement of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. as the petitioner suggests a significant industry player has an interest in challenging this patent.

Recommended next steps

• Monitor the PTAB E2E system for PGR2025-00067 for updates on claim-level outcomes, judge panel details, petition grounds, and subsequent decisions. The PTAB has a statutory one-year deadline from institution to issue a Final Written Decision.
• Upon issuance of the institution decision, review the specific claims challenged and the prior art asserted by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
• If a Final Written Decision is issued, carefully examine its disposition at the claim-level granularity to understand which claims, if any, have been canceled or confirmed as patentable. This will directly impact any potential infringement defense strategy.
• If you are a defendant, and a Final Written Decision invalidates claims, assess whether your current or contemplated product or service infringes the remaining, patentable claims. This can significantly narrow the scope of potential assertion.