PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

As of the most recent ingest, the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for US patent 9532164. However, web search reveals that Unified Patents filed one IPR petition, IPR2022-00808, against US9532164. This petition was denied institution. Therefore, the patent has survived one IPR attempt, indicating a hardened defensive posture for the patent owner, as all claims remain untested by PTAB.

IPR2022-00808 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Nearby Systems LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-04-06
• Status: Institution denied
• Judge panel: Taboada, Michael P., Hardman, Daniel F., and Hsiu, Grace L.
• Petition grounds: Claims 1, 10, 16, 22, and 25 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over various combinations of prior art, including US 2007/0055452 A1 (Schluger) and US 2005/0149265 A1 (Brimhall).
• Institution decision: Denied (2022-10-18). The panel found that Unified Patents had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim. Specifically, the Board determined that Unified Patents failed to adequately demonstrate obviousness of the challenged claims over the asserted prior art combinations.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, institution was denied.
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal.
• Defensive value: The denial of institution for IPR2022-00808 means that all claims challenged in this petition (1, 10, 16, 22, and 25) remain intact. A defendant facing assertion of this patent will need to develop new prior art arguments or find different grounds for challenging the patent's validity, as the arguments presented in this IPR were deemed insufficient by the PTAB.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US9532164 (including independent claims 1, 10, 16, 22, and 25, which were challenged in IPR2022-00808) are SUSTAINED and UNTESTED by PTAB post-institution. The single IPR petition filed, IPR2022-00808, was denied institution, meaning no claims were formally invalidated or even put to trial at the PTAB. This leaves the patent un-narrowed through AIA trial proceedings.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) bars petitioners and their privies from raising any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised during an IPR. In the case of IPR2022-00808, since institution was denied, it's generally understood that statutory estoppel under § 315(e)(2) does not apply because no "final written decision" was issued. Therefore, the prior-art grounds raised in IPR2022-00808 (based on Schluger and Brimhall, among others) are theoretically still available for a defendant to assert, either in future PTAB proceedings (if different grounds or a sufficient showing of patentability is made) or in district court litigation.

The pattern signals indicate that Unified Patents, a defensive aggregator, did attempt to challenge this patent via IPR. While their petition was denied, their involvement suggests that the patent has been identified as one that could be asserted by a non-practicing entity (NPE) or similar entity. The patent owner, Nearby Systems LLC, successfully defended against this initial PTAB challenge at the institution phase.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of US9532164, the denial of institution for IPR2022-00808 means you cannot rely on that specific petition to invalidate claims 1, 10, 16, 22, or 25. The Decision on Petition for IPR2022-00808 is available on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal. You would need to:

• Conduct new prior art searches: Look for prior art not considered or effectively argued in IPR2022-00808, or develop stronger arguments based on the prior art that was cited.
• Consider alternative challenge avenues: Explore other grounds for invalidity in district court, or, if applicable, consider a new PTAB petition (e.g., if new, highly relevant prior art is discovered) that addresses the deficiencies noted in the IPR2022-00808 institution decision.
• Evaluate the claims: Carefully analyze each asserted claim to identify potential weaknesses under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, or 112, particularly in light of the specific language used by the PTAB in denying institution for IPR2022-00808.

As there are no active PTAB proceedings, there are no trial-stage milestones to track. The absence of successful PTAB challenges, despite an attempt by a defensive aggregator, suggests that a robust invalidity theory will be required for any future challenges.

---

Citations

1. IPR2022-00808 Filing Date. https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2022-00808/details.json (Accessed May 20, 2026).
2. IPR2022-00808-Decision on Petition. https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2022-00808/decision/written-decision.pdf (Accessed May 20, 2026).