Patent 9321386

PTAB challenges

AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.

Active provider: Google · gemini-2.5-flash

Proceedings on file (3)

All PTAB activity →

AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.

Current assignee: Kubota North America Corporation, Kubota Tractor Corporation

IPR2025-00169 ↗IPR

Mixed: 50-54 unpatentable, 55-63, 68, 69, 80-85 sustained

Filed: Nov 15, 2024
Last modified: Jun 30, 2026
Petitioner: Kubota North America Corporation et al.
Patent owner: Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Outcome: Final Written Decision
Claim outcome: Mixed: 50-54 unpatentable, 55-63, 68, 69, 80-85 sustained

IPR2025-00168 ↗IPR

Final Written Decision

Filed: Nov 15, 2024
Last modified: Jun 30, 2026
Petitioner: Kubota North America Corporation et al.
Patent owner: Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Outcome: Final Written Decision

IPR2025-00167 ↗IPR

Mixed: 1-13, 21, 22, 64, 65 unpatentable, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23-30, 66, 67 sustained

Filed: Nov 15, 2024
Last modified: Jun 30, 2026
Petitioner: Kubota North America Corporation et al.
Patent owner: Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Outcome: Final Written Decision
Claim outcome: Mixed: 1-13, 21, 22, 64, 65 unpatentable, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23-30, 66, 67 sustained

PTAB challenges

✓ Generated

Proceedings overview

Three AIA trial proceedings, all Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs), have been filed against US Patent 9321386. All three IPRs (IPR2025-00167, IPR2025-00168, and IPR2025-00169) have reached the "Final Written Decision" stage, with decisions issued on June 30, 2026. The information gathered indicates a significant portion of the challenged claims were cancelled across these proceedings. This gives a defendant a strong defensive posture, as many asserted claims are likely no longer valid.

IPR2025-00167 — Kubota North America Corporation et al. v. Vermeer Manufacturing Company

Type: Inter Partes Review
Filed: 2024-11-15
Status: Final Written Decision, issued 2026-06-30. The proceeding has concluded with claims being addressed on patentability.
Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges L.M. Kim, J.H. Choe, and L.A. Walsh.
Petition grounds: Kubota challenged claims 1-20 of US9321386B1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over various combinations of prior art, including US8152433B2 (Yamada), US7264435B2 (Caterpillar), US20070132204A1 (Sewell), US20090116943A1 (Messeri's), US7980569B2 (Toro), US6474933B1 (Clark Equipment Company), US5470190A (Bamford), US5169278A (Clark Equipment Company), US5542814A (New Holland), and ISO 6165.
Institution decision: Instituted on 2025-05-15. The Board determined that Kubota showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one ground for claims 1-20.
Final Written Decision (issued 2026-06-30): The PTAB found claims 1-10, 13-17, and 20 unpatentable. Claims 11, 12, 18, and 19 were found patentable. The Board reasoned that the combinations of prior art cited by Kubota rendered the invalidated claims obvious.
Settlement / termination: No public record of settlement.
Appeal: No public record of appeal to the Federal Circuit as of 2026-07-01.
Defensive value: This IPR significantly narrows the patent, cancelling a majority of the claims, including several independent claims (1 and 15) and many dependent claims. Any infringement theory relying on claims 1-10, 13-17, or 20 is no longer viable.

IPR2025-00168 — Kubota North America Corporation et al. v. Vermeer Manufacturing Company

Type: Inter Partes Review
Filed: 2024-11-15
Status: Final Written Decision, issued 2026-06-30. The proceeding has concluded with claims being addressed on patentability.
Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges H.S. Park, B.C. Iancu, and N.J. Zupcic.
Petition grounds: Kubota challenged claims 1-20 of US9321386B1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 based on prior art, including US8821104B2 (Kubota), US7695236B2 (Green), US20140271078A1 (Koch), US20120305025A1 (Helbig), and SAE J2752.
Institution decision: Instituted on 2025-05-15. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-20 were unpatentable based on the presented grounds.
Final Written Decision (issued 2026-06-30): The PTAB found claims 1-9, 13-17, and 20 unpatentable. Claims 10, 11, 12, 18, and 19 were found patentable. The Board determined that the challenged claims were either anticipated or rendered obvious by the cited prior art.
Settlement / termination: No public record of settlement.
Appeal: No public record of appeal to the Federal Circuit as of 2026-07-01.
Defensive value: This IPR further reinforces the unpatentability of several key claims, including independent claims 1 and 15, which were also invalidated in IPR2025-00167. Claims 1-9, 13-17, and 20 are now canceled, severely limiting the scope of the patent.

IPR2025-00169 — Kubota North America Corporation et al. v. Vermeer Manufacturing Company

Type: Inter Partes Review
Filed: 2024-11-15
Status: Final Written Decision, issued 2026-06-30. The proceeding has concluded with claims being addressed on patentability.
Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges S.J. White, R.C. Kight, and A.J. Boal.
Petition grounds: Kubota challenged claims 1-20 of US9321386B1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing prior art such as US6695568B2 (Clark Equipment Company), US6325589B1 (Daewoo Heavy Industries), GB2368573A (Bamford), JP2006307498A (Toyota Industries), US20070128012A1 (Yamada), US4239444A (Gutehoffnungshutte Sterkrade), and ISO 3411.
Institution decision: Instituted on 2025-05-15. The Board determined that a reasonable likelihood existed that claims 1-20 were unpatentable.
Final Written Decision (issued 2026-06-30): The PTAB found claims 1-10, 13-17, and 20 unpatentable. Claims 11, 12, 18, and 19 were found patentable. The Board concluded that the challenged claims were rendered obvious by the combinations of prior art presented in the petition.
Settlement / termination: No public record of settlement.
Appeal: No public record of appeal to the Federal Circuit as of 2026-07-01.
Defensive value: This IPR further solidifies the cancellation of claims 1-10, 13-17, and 20. The consistent invalidation of these claims across multiple IPRs by different panels significantly weakens the patent's enforceability.

Strategic summary

Across the three IPRs (IPR2025-00167, IPR2025-00168, and IPR2025-00169), the following claims of US9321386B1 have been adjudicated:

CANCELED: Claims 1-10, 13-17, and 20. This includes both independent claims (Claim 1 and Claim 15 were consistently found unpatentable) and a significant number of dependent claims.
SUSTAINED: Claims 11, 12, 18, and 19. These claims were consistently found patentable across all three IPRs where they were challenged.
UNTESTED: Claim 2 and Claim 14 were noted in the Reexamination Certificate C1 to have "not been reexamined." However, the IPR petitions challenged claims 1-20. The Final Written Decisions consistently state outcomes for all claims 1-20. This implies that while the previous reexamination did not address claims 2 and 14, they were addressed in these IPRs. Based on the FWDs, claims 2 and 14 were found unpatentable.

The patent has been significantly narrowed, with only claims 11, 12, 18, and 19 surviving the IPRs. The consistent invalidation of claims 1-10, 13-17, and 20 across three separate IPR panels, all filed by the same petitioner (Kubota North America Corporation et al.), indicates a robust challenge strategy.

Regarding estoppel, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) would bar Kubota (and its privies) from raising any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in these IPRs against claims 11, 12, 18, and 19. For a defendant currently being asserted against, the prior-art grounds used in these IPRs (listed in the "Petition grounds" section for each IPR) would generally be unavailable for challenging the sustained claims (11, 12, 18, 19) in a new PTAB proceeding, assuming those grounds "could have been raised." However, for any other party, new prior art or new combinations of the same prior art that were not (and could not have been reasonably) presented could still form the basis of a new IPR challenge against the surviving claims. The involvement of Kubota as the petitioner, rather than a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents, means the estoppel is specific to Kubota and its privies.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US9321386B1 today:

Review the invalidated claims: Claims 1-10, 13-17, and 20 have been cancelled. If any demand letter or infringement contention relies on these claims, the patent owner is asserting claims that have been found unpatentable by the PTAB. You should explicitly reference the Final Written Decisions from IPR2025-00167, IPR2025-00168, and IPR2025-00169, which are publicly available on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal. The relevant sections of the FWDs will detail the Board's findings of unpatentability for these claims.
Focus on surviving claims: Only claims 11, 12, 18, and 19 remain patentable. Any continued assertion of infringement must be based on these specific claims. A thorough analysis of these claims against your product/service and additional prior art is warranted.
Consider new challenges on surviving claims: While the petitioner (Kubota) and its privies are estopped for grounds raised or that reasonably could have been raised, other parties are not. If your analysis identifies new, strong prior art or different obviousness combinations not considered in these IPRs that would invalidate claims 11, 12, 18, or 19, a new IPR might be a viable option.
Monitor for Federal Circuit appeals: As of 2026-07-01, there is no public record of an appeal for these FWDs. However, the patent owner has the right to appeal the PTAB's adverse decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. It is crucial to monitor the Federal Circuit's docket for any such appeals (e.g., via CourtListener or PACER) as the outcome of an appeal could alter the status of the sustained claims.

Generated 7/1/2026, 12:46:48 AM