PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

One inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2026-00206, has been filed against US Patent 9027032. The IPR was denied institution, meaning the challenged claims were not reviewed on the merits and remain sustained. This outcome gives a defendant a stronger defensive posture regarding the patent, as it has withstood a PTAB challenge at the institution phase.

IPR2026-00206 — Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Damaka Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-01-13
• Status: Discretionary Denial. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to institute the inter partes review.
• Judge panel: The decision on institution was issued by John A. Squires, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
• Petition grounds: The exact claims challenged and specific prior art for IPR2026-00206 are not explicitly detailed in the public records found, but similar IPRs filed by Cisco Systems, Inc. against Damaka Inc. on related patents challenged claims based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over prior art references such as Abuan, Platt, and Morrison. It is highly probable that IPR2026-00206 similarly challenged claims of US9027032B2 under § 102 and/or § 103.
• Institution decision: Institution was denied on 2026-05-06. The denial was based on "discretionary and non-merits considerations" by the Director of the USPTO. This typically implies a denial under doctrines such as Fintiv or other discretionary rules, which may consider factors like parallel district court litigation or recent USPTO policy shifts, such as the new U.S. manufacturing footprint factor. Cisco Systems, Inc. is involved in parallel district court litigation against Damaka Inc. (e.g., 2:25-cv-00593 in the E.D. Texas, filed 2025-05-30), which likely factored into the discretionary denial. Cisco argued against discretionary denial by highlighting its U.S. manufacturing operations, Damaka's lack thereof, and the diligence in filing the petitions after receiving infringement contentions.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: This proceeding demonstrates that the patent owner, Damaka Inc., successfully defended against the IPR petition at the institution stage. While the claims of US9027032B2 were not adjudicated on the merits by the PTAB, the discretionary denial means that this specific challenge did not proceed to trial. This could make it more difficult for Cisco (or parties in privity with Cisco) to bring a similar IPR challenge on the same grounds.

Strategic summary

All claims of US9027032B2 remain untested on their patentability merits before the PTAB. The sole IPR proceeding filed against the patent, IPR2026-00206, was denied institution based on discretionary and non-merits considerations by the Director of the USPTO. Therefore, no claims of 9027032 are currently canceled or sustained by a PTAB Final Written Decision. All claims are effectively "sustained" against this particular challenge by virtue of the non-institution.

The estoppel landscape is impacted by the discretionary denial. Typically, a denial of institution without reaching the merits does not trigger claim-by-claim estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). However, argument-based estoppel might still apply to Cisco Systems, Inc. and its privies for the specific grounds and arguments raised in the petition for IPR2026-00206. The PTAB's recent emphasis on discretionary denials, particularly those involving parallel litigation and the new "U.S. manufacturing footprint" factor, suggests a trend towards limiting IPRs when district court cases are ongoing. For a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent, prior-art grounds not raised (or not reasonably able to have been raised) by Cisco, or by a non-estopped party, could still be available for a new IPR petition.

A pattern signal observed is that Cisco Systems, Inc. has filed multiple IPRs against Damaka Inc. for related patents, and several of these have been "Not Instituted - Procedural". This suggests that Damaka Inc. has successfully leveraged procedural or discretionary arguments to prevent institution in these PTAB challenges. This indicates that the patent owner is actively and effectively defending its patent portfolio at the PTAB.

Recommended next steps

Since IPR2026-00206 was denied institution, there is no Final Written Decision (FWD) to link to for claim invalidation. The claims of US9027032B2 have not been invalidated by the PTAB.

For a defendant considering challenging this patent, it would be crucial to:

1. Obtain and thoroughly review the "Notice of Decisions on Institution" for IPR2026-00206, issued on 2026-05-06, to understand the precise reasoning for the discretionary denial. This document will illuminate the specific factors that led to the denial and may provide guidance on what grounds or circumstances might avoid a similar discretionary denial in a future petition.
2. Evaluate the existing district court litigation between Damaka Inc. and Cisco Systems, Inc. The outcome of these cases, and any associated validity arguments made in that forum, could influence future PTAB proceedings or settlement negotiations.
3. Consider whether any new prior art or significantly different unpatentability arguments exist that were not (or could not reasonably have been) raised in IPR2026-00206. This would be critical to overcome any potential argument-based estoppel.
4. Assess the applicability of the USPTO's evolving discretionary denial policies, especially concerning parallel litigation and the U.S. manufacturing footprint, to your specific situation. The Director's memorandum issued March 11, 2026, introduced these considerations.