PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US Patent 9,982,388. This proceeding, IPR2025-01367, is currently active with a status of "Trial Instituted." As the trial is ongoing, no claims have yet been invalidated or sustained, nor has the case settled. This indicates an active challenge to the patent's validity, placing a defendant in a proactive defensive posture.

IPR2025-01367 — Albany International Corp. v. Voith Patent GmbH

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-07-30
• Status: Trial Instituted (The PTAB has authorized a trial to proceed on at least some of the challenged claims).
• Judge panel: [Information not available from current search results.]
• Petition grounds: [Information not available from current search results.]
• Institution decision: The trial was instituted. The exact date of institution and the panel's specific reasoning are not available from the provided data or immediate web search. Typically, an institution decision occurs about six months after the petition is filed.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not yet issued. Given the filing date of 2025-07-30 and current date of 2026-05-21, and the "Trial Instituted" status, the one-year statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision has likely not passed or is approaching, depending on the exact institution date.
• Settlement / termination: Not settled or terminated.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This active IPR means that the validity of at least some claims of US9982388 is currently being challenged before the PTAB. A defendant facing assertion should monitor this proceeding closely, as a successful challenge could invalidate claims essential to an infringement theory, potentially weakening the patent owner's position.

Strategic summary

Currently, the validity of US Patent 9,982,388 is under scrutiny in one active Inter Partes Review, IPR2025-01367. As the proceeding is still in the trial stage, no claims of US9982388 have been formally canceled or sustained by a Final Written Decision. Therefore, all claims of the patent are currently considered UNTESTED by a final PTAB decision.

The estoppel landscape under § 315(e)(2) for this patent is currently unformed, as no Final Written Decision has been issued. Once a Final Written Decision is rendered, Albany International Corp. (the petitioner) and its privies would be estopped from asserting invalidity grounds they raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR. For other potential defendants, this means that most prior-art grounds would still be available for a new IPR petition, subject to general PTAB filing rules and statutory bars.

This single active IPR signals that at least one entity (Albany International Corp.) believes there are strong grounds to challenge the patent's validity. There is no pattern of multiple IPRs filed by the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner yet, as only one proceeding exists and it is ongoing.

Recommended next steps

• Monitor IPR2025-01367: Given the "Trial Instituted" status, a Decision on Institution would have been issued. The next key milestone to anticipate is the Final Written Decision, which is due within one year of the institution date. It is critical to obtain a copy of the Decision on Institution to understand which claims were challenged, the specific prior art grounds accepted by the PTAB, and the PTAB's reasoning for instituting the trial.
• Identify Institution Date and FWD Due Date: Search the USPTO PTAB E2E system for IPR2025-01367 to identify the exact date of institution. This will allow calculation of the statutory deadline for the Final Written Decision, typically one year from institution. This date is crucial for understanding the timeline for a potential outcome regarding claim validity.
• Review Petition and Institution Decision: Obtain and review the petition filed by Albany International Corp. and the PTAB's institution decision. This will reveal the specific claims challenged and the prior art asserted against them. This information is vital for assessing the strength of the patent and any potential vulnerabilities.