PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There is currently one active Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding on file for US12412561, PGR2026-00032, which is in a pending status. As the proceeding is still in its early stages and has not yet reached an institution decision, the patent claims remain untested by the PTAB. This means the patent has not yet been "hardened" by surviving a PTAB challenge, nor have any claims been invalidated.

PGR2026-00032 — Krisp Technologies, Inc. v. Sanas Ai Inc.

• Type: Post-Grant Review
• Filed: 2026-03-18
• Status: Pending. This proceeding has been filed but has not yet reached the stage of an institution decision by the PTAB.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific judge panel is typically made public after institution.
• Petition grounds: The petition by Krisp Technologies, Inc. challenges claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,412,561 on grounds of patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and written description and enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The petition cites various prior art references, including U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0175865 to Golman et al. and U.S. Patent No. 10,818,349 to Rotshtein et al.
• Institution decision: Not yet issued. The statutory deadline for the PTAB to issue a decision on institution is approximately six months from the filing date of the petition (around 2026-09-18).
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as the proceeding is pending institution.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as the proceeding is pending institution.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This active PGR proceeding indicates that the validity of claims 1-20 of US12412561 is currently under review. While no claims have been canceled yet, the existence of this challenge suggests potential vulnerabilities. Any assertion of these claims against a defendant would need to consider the ongoing PGR and the grounds raised by Krisp Technologies.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims (1-20) of US12412561 are UNTESTED at the PTAB, as the sole PGR proceeding, PGR2026-00032, is still pending an institution decision. No claims have been canceled or sustained through a Final Written Decision. The patent owner, Sanas Ai Inc., is defending against a challenge from Krisp Technologies, Inc. that targets all claims on multiple statutory bases, including patent eligibility (§ 101), obviousness (§ 103), and written description/enablement (§ 112). This broad challenge suggests a comprehensive attack on the patent's validity.

The estoppel landscape is not yet established since no Final Written Decision has been issued. If PGR2026-00032 is instituted, and subsequently results in a Final Written Decision, Krisp Technologies (and its privies) would be estopped from raising grounds they raised or reasonably could have raised in a future proceeding. However, for other potential defendants not in privity with Krisp Technologies, the prior art and statutory grounds asserted in this petition would still be available for their own challenges. The petitioner, Krisp Technologies, Inc., is a named competitor in the field, which signals a direct interest in invalidating the patent.

Recommended next steps

• As the PGR2026-00032 proceeding is pending, the most critical upcoming milestone is the institution decision deadline, which is around 2026-09-18. This decision will determine whether the PTAB will proceed with a full trial on the challenged claims. Monitoring this decision closely is advisable.
• Defendants facing assertion of US12412561 should review the petition filed in PGR2026-00032 to understand the specific prior art and statutory arguments being made against claims 1-20. The petition document for PGR2026-00032 provides details of the challenges.
• For detailed information on the petition and its grounds, access the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End (PTAB E2E) system for PGR2026-00032.## Proceedings overview
  There is currently one active Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding on file for US12412561, PGR2026-00032, which is in a pending status. As the proceeding is still in its early stages and has not yet reached an institution decision, the patent claims remain untested by the PTAB. This means the patent has not yet been "hardened" by surviving a PTAB challenge, nor have any claims been invalidated.

PGR2026-00032 — Krisp Technologies, Inc. v. Sanas Ai Inc.

• Type: Post-Grant Review
• Filed: 2026-03-18
• Status: Pending. This proceeding has been filed but has not yet reached the stage of an institution decision by the PTAB.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific judge panel is typically made public after institution.
• Petition grounds: The petition by Krisp Technologies, Inc. challenges claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,412,561 on grounds of patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and written description and enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The petition cites various prior art references, including U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0175865 to Golman et al. and U.S. Patent No. 10,818,349 to Rotshtein et al.
• Institution decision: Not yet issued. The statutory deadline for the PTAB to issue a decision on institution is approximately six months from the filing date of the petition (around 2026-09-18).
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as the proceeding is pending institution.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as the proceeding is pending institution.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This active PGR proceeding indicates that the validity of claims 1-20 of US12412561 is currently under review. While no claims have been canceled yet, the existence of this challenge suggests potential vulnerabilities. Any assertion of these claims against a defendant would need to consider the ongoing PGR and the grounds raised by Krisp Technologies. Krisp Technologies and Sanas.AI are competitors in real-time speech technology, and Krisp has previously challenged Sanas's patents in district court, with a judge denying Krisp's motion to invalidate patents, including US12412561, under Section 101 in February 2026. This denial on a Rule 12(c) motion in district court does not preclude a PTAB challenge on the same grounds.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims (1-20) of US12412561 are UNTESTED at the PTAB, as the sole PGR proceeding, PGR2026-00032, is still pending an institution decision. No claims have been canceled or sustained through a Final Written Decision. The patent owner, Sanas Ai Inc., is defending against a challenge from Krisp Technologies, Inc. that targets all claims on multiple statutory bases, including patent eligibility (§ 101), obviousness (§ 103), and written description/enablement (§ 112). This broad challenge suggests a comprehensive attack on the patent's validity.

The estoppel landscape is not yet established since no Final Written Decision has been issued. If PGR2026-00032 is instituted, and subsequently results in a Final Written Decision, Krisp Technologies (and its privies) would be estopped from raising grounds they raised or reasonably could have raised in a future proceeding. However, for other potential defendants not in privity with Krisp Technologies, the prior art and statutory grounds asserted in this petition would still be available for their own challenges. The petitioner, Krisp Technologies, Inc., is a named competitor in the field, which signals a direct interest in invalidating the patent. It is worth noting that the institution rate for IPRs and PGRs has seen a downward trend, with 37% in fiscal year 2026 year-to-date through February 2026. However, PGR petitions are generally favored in the PTAB's discretionary denial calculus.

Recommended next steps

• As the PGR2026-00032 proceeding is pending, the most critical upcoming milestone is the institution decision deadline, which is around 2026-09-18. Monitoring this decision closely is advisable.
• Defendants facing assertion of US12412561 should review the petition filed in PGR2026-00032 to understand the specific prior art and statutory arguments being made against claims 1-20. The petition document for PGR2026-00032 can be accessed through the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End (PTAB E2E) system by searching for trial number PGR2026-00032.
• Given that Krisp Technologies previously attempted to invalidate these patents under § 101 in district court, and that motion was denied, the PTAB's consideration of the § 101 grounds in the PGR will be of particular interest. The PTAB's analysis of patent eligibility is an independent assessment from a district court's Rule 12(c) motion.