PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US Patent 9,036,701. This proceeding, IPR2025-01345, was terminated due to settlement before a final written decision was issued. This gives a defendant limited insight into the patent's validity as no claims were invalidated or sustained by the PTAB.

IPR2025-01345 — Snap Inc. et al. v. Nokia Technologies Oy

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-21
• Status: Terminated-Settled. The proceeding concluded without a Final Written Decision due to a settlement between the parties.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific judge panel for this IPR is not publicly available in the termination record.
• Petition grounds: Details regarding the specific claims challenged and prior art asserted are not publicly available in the termination record. Typically, IPR petitions challenge claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated as "Terminated-Settled" on 2026-01-23. This typically indicates a settlement occurred before an institution decision was rendered.
• Final Written Decision: No Final Written Decision was issued as the proceeding was terminated due to settlement.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated on 2026-01-23. The specific terms of the settlement are confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal was filed with the Federal Circuit, which is typical for proceedings terminated by settlement prior to a Final Written Decision.
• Defensive value: This proceeding does not provide a definitive ruling on the patentability of any claims of US 9,036,701. The settlement means the claims challenged by Snap Inc. et al. remain untested by the PTAB. However, the fact that a settlement occurred suggests some commercial interest or concern from Snap Inc. et al. regarding the patent.

Strategic summary

No claims of US 9,036,701 have been canceled or sustained by the PTAB, as the single filed IPR, IPR2025-01345, was terminated due to settlement. Therefore, all claims of the patent remain untested by the PTAB in terms of patentability challenges.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since IPR2025-01345 was terminated due to settlement before a Final Written Decision, statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) and (2) does not apply to the petitioner (Snap Inc. et al.) or its privies. This means that Snap Inc. et al. (and their privies) are not barred from raising any ground that they raised or reasonably could have raised in the IPR in future proceedings, although contractual estoppel may apply depending on the settlement terms. For a defendant currently being asserted against, this means that prior-art grounds that could have been raised in IPR2025-01345 are generally still available for a new IPR petitioner, subject to the one-year time bar for IPR petitions from the date a defendant is served with a complaint alleging infringement.

There are no apparent pattern signals such as multiple IPRs from the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner based on the provided data. Unified Patents is not listed as a petitioner in this proceeding.

Recommended next steps

As there are no active PTAB proceedings and the sole filed IPR was settled without a final decision, there are no immediate trial-stage milestones to monitor. For a potential defendant, the absence of an FWD means no claims have been invalidated by the PTAB, which could be seen as a challenge for an IPR-based defense. However, the lack of a decision also means no claims have been affirmed as patentable over the prior art by the PTAB.

Given the settlement, it would be prudent to investigate if the settlement agreement is publicly available or if any related court filings shed light on the scope of the agreement.