PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 9860450. This proceeding, IPR2026-00181, resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, meaning no claims were invalidated or sustained on the merits. This outcome provides a strong defensive posture for the patent owner at this early stage of challenge.

IPR2026-00181 — Google LLC v. Clear Imaging Research LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-01-29
• Status: Discretionary Denial — The petition for IPR was denied institution based on the Board's discretion, meaning the trial on the merits did not proceed.
• Judge panel: Information not publicly available in the provided data.
• Petition grounds: Information not publicly available in the provided data.
• Institution decision: Denied (date not specified in provided data; last modified 2026-05-26). The petition was denied institution on a discretionary basis, as indicated by the status "Discretionary Denial." This implies the Board chose not to institute the review for reasons other than the merits of the obviousness/anticipation arguments, potentially due to parallel litigation, timing, or other factors.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: The patent owner successfully prevented the institution of an IPR, meaning the patent's claims remain untested on the merits by this petitioner in this proceeding. This strengthens the patent owner's position against a future challenge from Google LLC (or its privies) on grounds that could have reasonably been raised in this petition, subject to estoppel rules.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US9860450 remain UNTESTED in AIA trial proceedings, as the single filed IPR (IPR2026-00181) was denied institution on discretionary grounds. This means that, from a PTAB perspective, no claims have been canceled or sustained on the merits. The patent has not been narrowed through IPR.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since IPR2026-00181 was denied institution on a discretionary basis, the full estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) may not apply in the same way as with a FWD. However, the petitioner (Google LLC) and its privies may still be precluded from raising the same grounds or grounds that could have reasonably been raised in a subsequent PTAB petition, even without a merits-based FWD, depending on how "reasonably could have raised" is interpreted in the context of a discretionary denial. This generally means the prior art and arguments presented in the IPR2026-00181 petition are likely unavailable to Google LLC and its privies for future PTAB challenges against this patent. For other potential defendants not in privity with Google LLC, all prior-art grounds remain available for challenging the patent in a new IPR or litigation.

As for pattern signals, only one IPR has been filed against this patent by Google LLC, which resulted in a discretionary denial. This does not indicate a pattern of aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner, nor does it immediately signal a consistent defensive aggregation effort, although Google LLC itself can act defensively. The discretionary denial suggests the PTAB is managing its docket or applying evolving discretionary institution standards.

Recommended next steps

Since IPR2026-00181 was denied institution, there is no Final Written Decision to link to for claim invalidation. No active proceedings are currently pending that would lead to trial-stage milestones. The absence of a merits-based PTAB decision means the patent's claims are entirely untested at the PTAB.