PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US Patent 9622032. This single proceeding, IPR2025-01258, was terminated with a discretionary denial of institution, meaning no claims were formally challenged through a trial, and the patent has therefore survived its initial PTAB scrutiny. This outcome generally strengthens the patent's defensive posture, especially against the petitioner.

IPR2025-01258 — [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) v. Avant Location Technologies LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-11
• Status: Discretionary Denial — The petition for inter partes review was not instituted by the Director of the USPTO.
• Judge panel: John A. Squires, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Institution decisions by the Director are made in consultation with at least three PTAB judges, though specific panel members are not publicly listed in summary denial notices.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged and the prior art references asserted by Apple Inc. were not detailed in the summary notice of denial.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-01-09. The denial was issued by Director John A. Squires "pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and § 324(a), after review of discretionary considerations". These summary orders typically provide no specific reasoning or analysis, only listing the denied IPR numbers.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding terminated with a discretionary denial of institution. There is no public indication of a settlement.
• Appeal: Not applicable. Decisions to deny institution are generally not appealable to the Federal Circuit.
• Defensive value: The patent owner, Avant Location Technologies LLC, prevailed at the institution stage. This means no claims of US9622032 were formally reviewed for patentability by the PTAB in this proceeding. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, an IPR-based defense will be harder for Apple Inc. (or those in privity with them) on the specific grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in this petition.

Strategic summary

As of the current date, US Patent 9622032 has been subject to one PTAB inter partes review proceeding, IPR2025-01258. This proceeding resulted in a discretionary denial of institution on 2026-01-09, meaning the PTAB did not proceed to an full trial on the merits. Consequently, all claims of US9622032 remain UNTESTED by the PTAB and are considered SUSTAINED in the context of this specific IPR. There are no canceled claims from this proceeding.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) generally bars a petitioner (and its privies) from asserting in other proceedings any ground that it raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR. Since IPR2025-01258 was denied institution based on discretionary factors by the Director, without delving into the merits of the patentability challenges, the precise scope of estoppel for Apple Inc. and its privies is uncertain without knowing the specific grounds presented in the petition. However, they may be estopped from challenging the patent again on grounds that were, or reasonably could have been, included in the denied petition. For other defendants, prior art grounds remain available as no claims were actually litigated and confirmed as patentable by the PTAB.

This is the only PTAB proceeding on file, which means there isn't a pattern of multiple IPR filings against this patent. The discretionary denial by the Director reflects a current USPTO policy where institution decisions are centralized, and some petitions are denied without detailed reasoning for "discretionary considerations."

Recommended next steps

• For any defendant facing assertion of US9622032, it is important to understand the specific prior art and arguments Apple Inc. presented in its petition for IPR2025-01258, even though the petition was denied. While the summary denial notice does not detail these, the underlying petition documents would contain this information. This can inform whether a new IPR by a different party might successfully navigate the Director's discretionary denial framework.
• Given that the denial was based on discretionary factors, and not a full review of the merits, a new petitioner could potentially file an IPR using different prior art or addressing the discretionary factors in a manner that might lead to institution.
• Accessing the full record for IPR2025-01258 through the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) would be advisable to review the petition and any patent owner responses regarding discretionary factors.