PTAB challenges

Proceedings Overview

Only one AIA trial proceeding, IPR2026-00054, has been filed against US patent 9762639, and it has been terminated. As no claims were invalidated, the patent's claims remain untested by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), indicating that an IPR-based defense has not yet been successful against this patent.

---

IPR2026-00054 — Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v. Albert John McGowan et al

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-11-05
• Status: Terminated (Procedural Termination) — This status indicates that the proceeding ended without the PTAB issuing a Final Written Decision on the merits of patentability.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific Administrative Patent Judge (APJ) panel for this proceeding is not publicly available given the procedural termination.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged, prior art cited, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for the petition are not publicly detailed in the available information.
• Institution decision: A formal institution decision on the merits was not issued. The proceeding was terminated before reaching this stage.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): No Final Written Decision on the merits of patentability was issued for this IPR.
• Settlement / termination: The IPR was terminated on March 28, 2026. This "procedural termination" likely occurred due to either a settlement between Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC and the patent owner, Adeia Media Holdings Inc., in their concurrent district court litigation, or a discretionary denial of institution by the PTAB under new policies that became effective around March 2026. The terms of any settlement would typically be confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal was made to the Federal Circuit as there was no Final Written Decision on the merits to appeal.
• Defensive value: This IPR did not result in the invalidation of any claims of US9762639. Therefore, from this proceeding alone, a defendant facing assertion of this patent cannot claim that any specific claims are canceled. The patent claims remain presumptively valid as far as PTAB proceedings are concerned.

Strategic Summary

All claims of US9762639 remain untested and sustained by the PTAB, as the sole IPR filed against it, IPR2026-00054, was terminated procedurally without a decision on the merits. This means the patent has not been narrowed through PTAB challenges.

Regarding estoppel, since IPR2026-00054 was terminated prior to a Final Written Decision, § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not apply to the petitioner (Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC) or its privies. This implies that Disney or related entities could potentially raise the same or new prior-art grounds in other forums (e.g., district court) against US9762639.

A clear pattern signal is that Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC, a defendant in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Adeia Media Holdings Inc. (the current assignee of US9762639), filed this IPR. This indicates a defensive strategy using PTAB challenges in response to litigation. The procedural termination, occurring shortly after new PTAB policies were announced in March 2026, could suggest an influence from those policies (e.g., discretionary denial) or a confidential settlement of the underlying litigation.

Recommended Next Steps

As a defendant, it's important to note that no claims of US9762639 have been invalidated by the PTAB.

The patent US9762639 is currently being asserted in active litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, case number 1:24-cv-01231, filed by Adeia Technologies Inc., Adeia Guides Inc., and Adeia Media Holdings LLC against The Walt Disney Company and several subsidiaries. This litigation, initiated on November 7, 2024, asserts "one or more claims" of the '639 patent, among others. Any defensive strategy should account for the ongoing district court proceedings.

It would be prudent to attempt to obtain the specific order or filing that led to the procedural termination of IPR2026-00054 from the USPTO PTAB E2E system to understand the precise reason for termination, especially if it was a discretionary denial under new rules or a settlement. This information could offer insights into the patent owner's strategies or the PTAB's current approach to similar petitions.