PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

A total of one AIA trial proceeding has been filed against U.S. Patent 12,543,922. This single Post-Grant Review (PGR) is currently pending, initiated by [[[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.) As the proceeding is still in its early stages, the patent claims remain untested by the PTAB. This means the patent's validity has not yet been challenged through a final decision at the PTAB, leaving a defendant in a posture where the patent's claims are presumed valid until the resolution of this ongoing PGR.

PGR2026-00043 — Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Mark S. Feddema et al

• Type: Post-Grant Review
• Filed: 2026-04-14
• Status: Pending. The proceeding is active and has not yet reached an institution decision.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the assigned judge panel is not yet publicly available at this early stage of the proceeding.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged, prior art asserted, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for the petition are not yet publicly detailed in the provided information. However, PGRs typically challenge claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112 (except for best mode).
• Institution decision: Not yet issued. The deadline for the PTAB to decide whether to institute the PGR is approximately six months from the filing date, around October 14, 2026.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as an institution decision has not yet been rendered.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: Not applicable.
• Defensive value: This proceeding indicates that at least one party (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.) believes there are grounds to challenge the patent's validity through a PGR. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, the outcome of this PGR will be critical. If the claims are cancelled, any infringement theory relying on those claims would be significantly weakened. If institution is denied or claims are sustained, it strengthens the patent owner's position.

Strategic summary

As of May 29, 2026, all claims (Claims 1-26) of U.S. Patent 12,543,922 are currently UNTESTED by a PTAB Final Written Decision. The only active proceeding, PGR2026-00043, is in its nascent stages, with an institution decision still pending. Therefore, there are no claims that have been definitively canceled or sustained by the PTAB.

The estoppel landscape has not yet formed. Since the PGR has not been instituted, and certainly no Final Written Decision has been issued, the petitioner, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., is not yet estopped from raising any grounds. For any other potential defendants, all prior-art grounds and statutory challenges remain available for use in future PTAB proceedings (should they be timely filed) or district court litigation.

Regarding pattern signals, only one PGR has been filed to date. This is not unusual given the patent's relatively recent issue date of February 10, 2026. There is no indication of repeated filings by the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner. The petitioner, Samsung Electronics, is a major corporation and a frequent participant in patent litigation and PTAB trials.

Recommended next steps

Given the pending PGR2026-00043, a defendant should closely monitor its progress. The key near-term milestone is the institution decision deadline, expected around October 14, 2026.

• If you are a potential defendant, track this PGR. The petition itself, once publicly available in full on the USPTO PTAB E2E system, will outline the specific arguments and prior art Samsung is using to challenge the patent. This information would be valuable for developing your own defensive strategy, regardless of the PGR's outcome.
• If the PTAB institutes the PGR, it signals that at least some claims have a reasonable likelihood of being found unpatentable, which could influence settlement discussions or litigation strategy.
• If institution is denied, it would suggest the PTAB found the initial challenge insufficient, making subsequent PTAB challenges (particularly by the same petitioner or their privies) more difficult due to estoppel.

At this stage, without an institution decision or Final Written Decision, the patent remains in full force. The absence of further PTAB activity beyond this single PGR is typical for recently issued patents, as it takes time for potential infringers to identify the patent and consider challenges.