PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

U.S. Patent 12,417,756 is currently the subject of one active Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This single pending challenge means the patent's claims are currently under review, and no claims have been definitively invalidated or sustained by the PTAB. For a defendant, this creates a dynamic defensive posture, as the patent's validity is still being contested.

PGR2026-00033 — Krisp Technologies, Inc. v. Sanas.AI Inc.

• Type: Post-Grant Review (PGR)
• Filed: 2026-03-30
• Status: Pending. The proceeding has been filed and is currently awaiting an institution decision from the PTAB.
• Judge panel: The judge panel has not yet been publicly assigned or disclosed in an institution decision, as the case is still in the pre-institution phase.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged, prior art asserted, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for the petition are not publicly available in the provided patent text or readily accessible from a general web search at this early stage of the proceeding. Detailed grounds would typically be found in the filed petition and the institution decision.
• Institution decision: The institution decision has not yet been issued. The PTAB typically has six months from the petition filing date to decide whether to institute a PGR. Therefore, an institution decision for PGR2026-00033 is anticipated around September 30, 2026.
• 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 pending PGR indicates an active challenge to the patent's validity. While no claims have been invalidated yet, the outcome of this proceeding could significantly impact the strength of U.S. Patent 12,417,756. A defendant would closely monitor this case, as a successful PGR could lead to the cancellation of some or all of the patent's claims, weakening any infringement assertions. Conversely, if the claims are sustained, it could harden the patent against future challenges.

Strategic summary

As of May 29, 2026, all claims of U.S. Patent 12,417,756 are currently UNTESTED by a final PTAB decision. There is one active Post-Grant Review (PGR2026-00033) challenging the patent's validity, but it is still in the pre-institution phase. Therefore, no claims have been canceled or sustained by the PTAB.

The estoppel landscape has not yet formed for this patent. Estoppel under § 315(e)(2) only applies to petitioners (and their privies) for grounds raised or reasonably could have been raised after a Final Written Decision has been issued. Since PGR2026-00033 is pending institution, no estoppel implications are present at this time.

Regarding pattern signals, Krisp Technologies, Inc., the petitioner in PGR2026-00033, is also the defendant in the district court litigation Sanas.AI Inc. v. Krisp Technologies, Inc. (Case Number: 3:25-cv-05666). This indicates an aggressive defensive strategy by Krisp Technologies, Inc., utilizing both district court litigation and PTAB proceedings to challenge the patent.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US Patent 12,417,756, the primary next step is to closely monitor the progress of PGR2026-00033. The key upcoming milestone is the institution decision, which is anticipated around September 30, 2026. This decision will reveal which (if any) claims the PTAB has agreed to review and based on what prior art.

• Monitor PTAB Docket for PGR2026-00033: Regularly check the USPTO PTAB E2E portal for updates on PGR2026-00033. The institution decision is crucial.
  • The PTAB case number is PGR2026-00033.
• Review Institution Decision: Once issued, thoroughly review the institution decision. This document will detail the PTAB's reasoning for instituting or denying review, including the specific claims and prior art grounds deemed to have a reasonable likelihood of success. This information will be vital for assessing the patent's vulnerability.
• Stay Apprised of Trial Schedule: If the PGR is instituted, note the statutory one-year trial deadline from institution to Final Written Decision. This will include deadlines for discovery, expert reports, and potential oral hearings.