- Filed
- Oct 31, 2025
- Last modified
- Mar 28, 2026
- Petitioner
- Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC
- Inventor
- Charles Cordray et al
Patent 9860595
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Active provider: Google · gemini-2.5-flash
Proceedings on file (1)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Proceedings overview
One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US Patent 9,860,595. This Inter Partes Review (IPR) was terminated prior to institution, leaving all claims untested by the PTAB. This means the patent's validity has not been challenged on the merits at the PTAB, leaving a defendant in a neutral defensive posture with respect to PTAB proceedings.
IPR2026-00055 — Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v. Adeia Guides Inc.
- Type: Inter Partes Review
- Filed: 2025-10-31
- Status: Terminated (2026-03-28). The proceeding was marked as "Procedural Termination" by the PTAB.
- Judge panel: Not applicable, as the proceeding was terminated prior to an institution decision where a panel would typically be assigned and identified.
- Petition grounds: The petition was filed by Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC against claims of US Patent 9,860,595. Specific details regarding the challenged claims, prior art references, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are not publicly available due to the procedural termination prior to institution.
- Institution decision: Not issued. The proceeding was terminated before a decision on institution was reached.
- Final Written Decision: Not issued, as the proceeding was terminated procedurally prior to institution.
- Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated on 2026-03-28 as a "Procedural Termination". This often indicates a settlement between the parties or a decision by the petitioner to withdraw the petition before institution, making the specific terms confidential.
- Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal was filed, as there was no Final Written Decision on the merits to appeal.
- Defensive value: This proceeding offers no direct defensive value as no claims were invalidated or confirmed by the PTAB. The patent remains untested by the PTAB. The procedural termination suggests a pre-institution resolution between the parties, the terms of which are confidential.
Strategic summary
All claims of US Patent 9,860,595 remain untested by the PTAB. The single IPR filed, IPR2026-00055, was terminated procedurally before an institution decision was rendered, meaning the merits of the patent's claims were not evaluated by the PTAB. Consequently, there are no claims canceled or sustained by the PTAB, and all claims are currently considered "untested."
Regarding estoppel, since IPR2026-00055 was terminated prior to institution, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel provisions, which bar petitioners and their privies from raising grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised, do not apply. This means a new defendant facing assertion of this patent would theoretically have all prior-art grounds available for a potential new IPR filing, assuming they are not in privity with Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC. The petitioner in this case was "Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC," and the patent owner, as per the patent record, is "Adeia Guides Inc.". The involvement of Unified Patents in the public record (though not as the official petitioner) often signals a defensive aggregator's interest in challenging the patent.
Recommended next steps
Since there are no active PTAB proceedings and no claims have been invalidated by the PTAB, a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent should consider conducting a thorough prior art search to assess the patent's validity independently. If strong prior art is found, filing a new IPR petition might be a viable defensive strategy, as no estoppel applies from the terminated IPR2026-00055. The absence of a completed PTAB trial on the merits means the patent's claims have not yet been "hardened" against validity challenges.
Relevant PTAB URL:
Generated 5/26/2026, 12:48:26 AM