PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

Only one AIA trial proceeding, PGR2026-00011, has been filed against US Patent 12220935. This proceeding resulted in Institution Denied, meaning the patent claims were not reviewed on the merits by the PTAB. This outcome generally strengthens the patent's defensive posture, as it has withstood a post-grant review challenge at the institution stage.

PGR2026-00011 — Univacco Technology Inc. v. Roman LASCH

• Type: Post-Grant Review (PGR)
• Filed: 2025-11-12
• Status: Institution Denied — The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to institute a trial for this petition.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from the provided search snippets at this time.
• Petition grounds: The available information indicates a PGR was filed by Univacco Technology Inc. against US12220935. However, specific claims challenged, prior art cited, or statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for the petition grounds are not detailed in the provided Google Patents or Unified Patents information. Further details would typically be found in the institution decision or petition document, which is not directly accessible through the provided search.
• Institution decision: Denied. The petition was filed on 2025-11-12, and the last modification was on 2026-05-04, with a status of "Institution Denied". The PTAB did not proceed to a full review of the patent claims. The reasoning for the denial is not immediately available in the provided snippets and would require accessing the full decision document from the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied and no final written decision was issued.
• Defensive value: The denial of institution for PGR2026-00011 means that the patent's validity, as challenged in this petition, was not formally reviewed by the PTAB on the merits. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, this indicates that the specific arguments raised by Univacco Technology Inc. in this PGR were not found sufficient to warrant a full trial, which can be seen as a positive for the patent owner. Any future PTAB challenges would need to present different, compelling arguments to overcome this initial hurdle.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US12220935 remain SUSTAINED and UNTESTED on the merits at the PTAB. The single Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding, PGR2026-00011, initiated against this patent was denied institution. This means the PTAB did not find that the petitioner, Univacco Technology Inc., demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim was unpatentable, or that the petition met the statutory requirements for institution. As a result, no claims of US12220935 have been canceled or found unpatentable through PTAB proceedings.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since PGR2026-00011 was denied institution, the statutory estoppel provisions of § 325(e)(2) for PGRs (which are analogous to § 315(e)(2) for IPRs) do not technically apply to Univacco Technology Inc. or its privies for the claims and grounds raised in this specific petition. This is because estoppel typically applies once a final written decision is issued. However, practically, the grounds raised in the denied petition might be viewed less favorably by the PTAB if presented again in a subsequent petition, unless new and compelling evidence or arguments are brought forth. For a new defendant, all prior-art grounds remain theoretically available, provided they can meet the higher institution threshold for PGRs (more likely than not that at least one claim is unpatentable) and are not in privity with Univacco Technology Inc.

There is no apparent pattern of multiple filings by the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner based on the single proceeding's outcome. The petitioner, Unified Patents, is a defensive aggregator, which signals an interest in challenging potentially problematic patents.

Recommended next steps

Since the PGR2026-00011 proceeding resulted in a denial of institution, there is no Final Written Decision to link to for claim invalidation. The patent US12220935 currently stands with all its claims intact, as they were not subjected to a full PTAB trial.

For a defendant facing assertion of US12220935:

• Review the Petition and Institution Denial: It would be highly beneficial to obtain and review the full petition filed by Univacco Technology Inc. and the PTAB's decision denying institution for PGR2026-00011. This would reveal the specific claims challenged and the prior art and legal arguments presented, as well as the Board's exact reasoning for the denial. This information can help assess the strength of potential future challenges or inform non-PTAB defense strategies. This document can be found by searching the USPTO PTAB E2E portal using the proceeding number PGR2026-00011.
• Evaluate New Prior Art: Since the patent has survived one PGR challenge at the institution phase, any subsequent PTAB petition would ideally leverage new and more compelling prior art or present existing art with novel and stronger arguments to overcome the institution hurdle.
• Monitor for Further Filings: Keep an eye on the patent's PTAB record for any future IPR, PGR, or CBM filings, and the status of those proceedings, especially if assertion activity increases.