PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

Two AIA trial proceedings have been filed against US Patent 12268475. One Post-Grant Review (PGR) was denied institution, while one Inter Partes Review (IPR) was instituted and is currently in trial. This gives a defendant a mixed defensive posture: the patent has successfully resisted one challenge, but another is actively proceeding and could potentially invalidate claims.

PGR2025-00063 — SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v. Omni Medsci Inc

• Type: Post-Grant Review
• Filed: 2025-08-05
• Status: Discretionary Denial — the petition was denied institution, meaning the PTAB decided not to proceed with a full review.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available due to discretionary denial at this stage.
• Petition grounds: Information about the specific claims and prior art challenged, and the statutory basis (e.g., § 102, § 103, § 112) is not explicitly detailed in the provided snippet. However, PGRs can challenge a patent on any ground of patentability under §§ 101, 102, 103, or 112 (except best mode) based on prior art or other grounds. To find the specific grounds, one would typically review the petition and institution decision.
• Institution decision: Denied (Discretionary Denial) — 2026-04-10. The specific reasoning for the discretionary denial is not provided in the prompt's structured data. Discretionary denials often occur for reasons such as parallel litigation, petition deficiencies, or the "skip rule" in certain circumstances.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as the petition was denied institution.
• Appeal: No appeal possible, as no final decision on the merits was issued.
• Defensive value: The patent owner successfully defended against this PGR challenge, meaning no claims were invalidated. For a potential defendant, this indicates that the grounds raised in this particular PGR were not sufficient (or the PTAB exercised discretion) to warrant a full review. An IPR-based defense using similar arguments would need careful re-evaluation.

IPR2025-01254 — SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v. Omni Medsci Inc

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-05
• Status: Trial Instituted — the PTAB has authorized a full review of the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available yet. The panel is typically named in the institution decision.
• Petition grounds: Similar to the PGR, the specific claims and prior art challenged under § 102 and/or § 103 (the only grounds available for IPRs) are not detailed in the provided snippet. A review of the petition and institution decision would reveal these specifics.
• Institution decision: Instituted. The date of institution is not explicitly stated but is implicitly after the filing date and before the last modified date of 2026-05-20. The panel's reasoning would be detailed in the institution decision, outlining which claims were found to have a reasonable likelihood of being unpatentable based on the asserted prior art.
• Final Written Decision: Not yet issued. The statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision in an IPR is typically one year from the date of institution.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as the proceeding is ongoing.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This active IPR means that the patentability of certain claims of US12268475 is currently under scrutiny. If these claims are central to an infringement theory, their potential invalidation could significantly weaken the patent owner's position. A defendant should closely monitor the progress and outcome of this IPR.

Strategic summary

As of today, May 21, 2026, US Patent 12268475 has faced two AIA trial challenges. The first, PGR2025-00063, was denied institution, meaning the PTAB did not find sufficient grounds to proceed with a post-grant review. This strengthens the patent owner's position against that specific challenge, as all claims that were targeted in that petition remain intact.

However, the second proceeding, IPR2025-01254, has been instituted, indicating that the PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that at least some of the challenged claims are unpatentable. This IPR is currently in the trial phase. Without the institution decision, it's impossible to identify which specific claims were challenged and subsequently instituted for review. Therefore, it is currently unknown which claims of 12268475 are CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. (and its privies) who filed the PGR and IPR, collateral estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) and (2) will apply to any grounds they raised or reasonably could have raised in the instituted IPR once a Final Written Decision is issued. For other potential defendants, the prior art grounds remain available unless they are in privy with Samsung. The fact that Samsung filed both a PGR and an IPR suggests a determined effort to challenge the patent.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US12268475:

1. Monitor IPR2025-01254 Closely: Since IPR2025-01254 is in the trial stage, its outcome will be crucial. The statutory deadline for the Final Written Decision is typically one year from the institution date (which would be around August 2026, given the petition filing date). Obtain the institution decision for IPR2025-01254 to identify the specific claims and prior art grounds that are being challenged. This information is critical for assessing the potential impact on any asserted claims. You can search for the institution decision on the USPTO PTAB End-to-End system by using the proceeding number IPR2025-01254.
2. Review PGR2025-00063 Denial Reasoning: While institution for PGR2025-00063 was denied, understanding the PTAB's reasoning for the discretionary denial can provide insights into potential weaknesses in challenging the patent via PGR. It's important to understand if the denial was based on the merits of the prior art presented or on procedural/discretionary grounds. The decision can be found on the USPTO PTAB End-to-End system.
3. Conduct a thorough prior art search: Regardless of the ongoing IPR, conduct an independent prior art search to identify any new grounds of unpatentability, especially if not in privy with Samsung, to explore potential new IPR challenges.