PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There is one Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding on file for US Patent 9232403, which is currently pending institution. As no final written decision has been issued, all claims of the patent remain untested by PTAB review. This means the patent's claims have not yet been challenged to an outcome in AIA trials, offering a defendant no immediate changes to the patent's scope, but indicating active litigation interest.

IPR2026-00203 — Google LLC et al. v. Gregory G. Raleigh

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-01-23
• Status: Pending (The petition has been filed, and the PTAB is currently evaluating whether to institute the review. An institution decision is typically made within six months of the petition filing date.)
• Judge panel: Not yet publicly available. The panel will be assigned if and when the petition is instituted.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged and the prior art asserted are not yet publicly available as part of the PTAB Open Data Portal's summary for a pending case. This information would typically be detailed in the petition itself.
• Institution decision: Not yet issued. A decision on institution is anticipated around July 2026 (six months from the filing date).
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as the proceeding has not yet reached the institution stage.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: Not applicable.
• Defensive value: As the IPR is still in its early stages (pending institution), it provides no immediate defensive value in terms of claims canceled or sustained. However, it signals that at least one major entity (Google LLC) is actively challenging the patent, which could lead to claim invalidation if the petition is instituted and proceeds to a final written decision.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US9232403 are UNTESTED by a Final Written Decision in an AIA trial. The single pending IPR, IPR2026-00203, is still awaiting an institution decision, meaning no claims have been canceled or sustained through PTAB review.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since no Final Written Decision has been issued in IPR2026-00203, there is no estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) that would bar Google LLC (or its privies) from raising any grounds. For a defendant currently being asserted against, this means all prior-art grounds are theoretically still available for potential challenge in future proceedings or district court litigation, subject to any existing parallel litigation estoppel rules.

A pattern signal of note is that Google LLC is the petitioner in the pending IPR. This indicates that a large operating company has identified US9232403 as a patent of interest, likely due to potential impact on their products or services. Unified Patents also lists this patent as having litigation in various District Courts (Texas Eastern, California Northern, Texas Western) and specifically highlights IPR2026-00203 as "Pending" and "Critical" on their portal. The involvement of Unified Patents as a source for litigation data further suggests the patent is actively being asserted.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US9232403 today, the primary next step would be to closely monitor IPR2026-00203. The institution decision is a critical milestone, expected around July 2026. If the IPR is instituted, the specific claims challenged and the prior art relied upon will become public, offering insights into potential weaknesses of the patent.

• Monitor the status of IPR2026-00203 for the institution decision, which will occur within six months of the filing date (approximately by July 23, 2026). The outcome of this decision will significantly impact the defensive posture against this patent. Details, once public, will be available through the USPTO PTAB E2E system by searching for IPR2026-00203.
• If the IPR is instituted, carefully review the institution decision and the underlying petition to understand which claims have been challenged and on what grounds. This information will be crucial for evaluating the strength of the remaining claims and informing any ongoing or potential litigation strategy.
• Given the active litigation across multiple district courts, defendants should also assess whether the grounds raised in IPR2026-00203 align with any invalidity contentions they might be considering.