PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 9485621, which resulted in a discretionary denial of institution. This gives the patent a strengthened defensive posture as the challenged claims were not tested on the merits.

IPR2025-01262 — [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) v. Avant Location Technologies LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-11
• Status: Discretionary Denial. The Director of the USPTO denied institution of the IPR petition.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available as institution was denied. However, Director John A. Squires was involved in the decision to deny institution for this proceeding and others around the same time.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims and prior art are not publicly detailed for petitions that are discretionarily denied without a full institution decision.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-01-09. The petition was denied institution after a review of discretionary considerations by the Director of the USPTO. Routine institution decisions at this time were often issued as summary notices without detailed explanations, particularly for discretionary denials. The PTAB's institution rate has been low, with many petitions being denied on discretionary grounds under Director Squires's leadership.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal has been filed, as institution was denied. Appeals to the Federal Circuit typically occur after a Final Written Decision.
• Defensive value: This proceeding is highly favorable for the patent owner, Avant Location Technologies LLC. The discretionary denial of institution means that the claims challenged by Apple Inc. were not reviewed on the merits, and thus, remain unchallenged by this particular IPR. This outcome significantly hardens the patent against future challenges from Apple Inc. and its privies on the same or reasonably could have raised grounds, although the specific reasoning for the discretionary denial is not publicly detailed.

Strategic summary

All claims of US9485621 remain untested by IPR proceedings, as the single IPR filed against it, IPR2025-01262, was denied institution on discretionary grounds. This means that no claims have been canceled or found unpatentable through this IPR process.

The estoppel landscape is favorable for the patent owner. Because IPR2025-01262 did not result in a Final Written Decision, statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) does not apply to the petitioner, Apple Inc., regarding this patent in civil actions. Statutory estoppel is generally triggered only with a final written decision. However, while statutory estoppel may not strictly apply, the discretionary denial could still signal to Apple Inc. that the PTAB is unreceptive to its challenge on this patent, potentially discouraging future IPR attempts by Apple Inc. or its privies on similar grounds.

The sole PTAB activity for this patent is a discretionary denial of institution. This could indicate a trend under the current Director of the USPTO to limit IPR institutions, particularly on discretionary grounds, making it more challenging for petitioners to successfully bring IPRs.

Recommended next steps

• No active proceedings are currently pending against US9485621 at the PTAB. The patent has successfully defended against the sole IPR petition filed, which was denied institution.
• If facing assertion of this patent, a defendant should evaluate the specific reasoning for the discretionary denial of IPR2025-01262, if obtainable, to understand the PTAB's stance.
• Given the denial of institution, a defendant would need to develop independent prior art grounds for any potential invalidity arguments in district court litigation, or consider filing a new IPR with different grounds and arguments that address the discretionary denial factors.