PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There are three AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 12193790: two Post-Grant Reviews (PGRs) and one Inter Partes Review (IPR). One PGR is currently instituted and pending, one PGR was denied institution, and one IPR was denied institution. This indicates a relatively strong defensive posture for the patent owner, as two out of three challenges to date have failed to reach the trial stage. However, one PGR is still active, presenting an ongoing risk to the validity of the claims.

PGR2026-00003 — WHOOP, Inc. v. Omni Medsci Inc.

• Type: Post-Grant Review
• Filed: 2025-10-13
• Status: Trial Instituted. The PTAB has decided to proceed with a trial on the merits of the petition.
• Judge panel: Information not available in the provided patent text or standard public snippets; requires direct search of PTAB E2E.
• Petition grounds: Information not available in the provided patent text or standard public snippets; requires direct search of PTAB E2E.
• Institution decision: Instituted. The institution decision date and the panel's reasoning would be found in the official PTAB institution decision document.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not yet issued, as the status is "Trial Instituted" and "Pending".
• Settlement / termination: Not settled or terminated.
• Appeal: Not applicable yet, as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This active PGR means that the patent owner's claims are currently undergoing validity challenge at the PTAB. The outcome of this proceeding will significantly impact the defensive value of the patent.

PGR2025-00064 — SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v. Omni Medsci Inc.

• Type: Post-Grant Review
• Filed: 2025-08-05
• Status: Discretionary Denial. The PTAB declined to institute a trial based on discretionary grounds.
• Judge panel: Information not available in the provided patent text or standard public snippets; requires direct search of PTAB E2E.
• Petition grounds: Information not available in the provided patent text or standard public snippets; requires direct search of PTAB E2E.
• Institution decision: Denied. The petition was denied institution on 2026-04-10. The specific reasoning for the discretionary denial would be detailed in the PTAB's decision to deny institution.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as the petition was denied institution.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated by denial of institution.
• Appeal: No appeal noted.
• Defensive value: The discretionary denial of this PGR is a positive outcome for the patent owner, suggesting the claims survived this particular challenge without being subject to a full trial. An IPR-based defense using the same or similar grounds would face higher hurdles against this patent owner.

IPR2025-01253 — SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v. Omni Medsci Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-05
• Status: Institution Denied. The PTAB declined to institute a trial.
• Judge panel: Information not available in the provided patent text or standard public snippets; requires direct search of PTAB E2E.
• Petition grounds: Information not available in the provided patent text or standard public snippets; requires direct search of PTAB E2E.
• Institution decision: Denied. The petition was denied institution on 2026-05-14. The specific reasoning for the denial would be detailed in the PTAB's decision to deny institution.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as the petition was denied institution.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated by denial of institution.
• Appeal: No appeal noted.
• Defensive value: The denial of institution for this IPR is another positive for the patent owner. It indicates that the arguments and prior art presented in this petition were not sufficiently compelling for the PTAB to initiate a trial. This strengthens the patent against future IPR challenges based on similar grounds.

Strategic summary

As of 2026-05-25, US Patent 12193790 faces one active Post-Grant Review, PGR2026-00003, filed by WHOOP, Inc. The status of this proceeding is "Trial Instituted," meaning the claims under review are currently subject to a validity challenge. However, two other challenges, PGR2025-00064 and IPR2025-01253, both filed by SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al., were denied institution. This means that for these two petitions, no claims were invalidated, and the patent claims were sustained against those specific challenges. Therefore, for a defendant, the patent has demonstrated resilience, having survived two initial attempts to invalidate its claims at the institution stage. The specific claims challenged and instituted in PGR2026-00003 are not explicitly stated in the provided text.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1), SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. (and their privies) would be estopped from asserting in any other USPTO or district court proceeding that a claim of US12193790 is invalid on any ground that they raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2025-01253. A similar estoppel would apply for PGR2025-00064, although the exact scope of estoppel in discretionary denials can sometimes be complex and depend on the PTAB's reasoning. For other potential defendants, the prior art grounds raised in the denied petitions may still be available, assuming they are not in privity with Samsung.

The pattern of proceedings shows that [Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) filed both a PGR and an IPR on the same patent on the same date (2025-08-05), both of which were denied institution. This could indicate either weak petitions or a strong patent owner defense at the institution stage. The institution of PGR2026-00003 by WHOOP, Inc. suggests that the PTAB found sufficient merit in that particular petition to proceed to trial, potentially using different grounds or arguments than those in the denied petitions.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US Patent 12193790 today:

• PGR2026-00003 is active: The most critical next step is to closely monitor PGR2026-00003. Since the trial has been instituted, a Final Written Decision is expected within one year of institution. Understanding the specific claims challenged and the prior art asserted in this proceeding is crucial. The institution decision itself would outline the PTAB's reasoning for instituting the trial, which can provide insight into the potential weaknesses of the asserted claims.
• Access PTAB E2E: It is highly recommended to access the official PTAB End-to-End (E2E) system for PGR2026-00003, PGR2025-00064, and IPR2025-01253 to obtain the full institution decisions and other public documents. These documents will detail the exact claims challenged, the prior art grounds, the judge panels, and the PTAB's reasoning for institution or denial. This information is vital for understanding the scope of validity challenges and potential estoppel.
  • For PGR2026-00003, specifically look for the institution decision to understand the claims under review and the preliminary validity assessment.
  • For PGR2025-00064 and IPR2025-01253, review the denial decisions for the PTAB's specific reasoning, especially for discretionary denials, to understand what types of arguments or prior art were unsuccessful.