PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US patent 10098402. This indicates that the patent has not yet faced validity challenges before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) through Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings. For a defendant, this means the patent has not been subjected to the scrutiny of an AIA trial, and all claims (1-18) remain untested in this forum.

Strategic summary

As there are no PTAB proceedings on file for US10098402, all 18 claims of the patent are currently UNTESTED in the context of AIA trial proceedings.

The absence of PTAB activity suggests that either the patent has not yet been extensively asserted in litigation, or potential challengers have opted against filing IPRs, PGRs, or CBMs. Well-asserted patents often attract IPRs, as these proceedings offer a relatively accelerated and cost-effective way to challenge patent validity compared to district court litigation.

There is no estoppel landscape to consider from AIA trials for this patent, as no such trials have occurred. Therefore, all prior-art grounds that meet the statutory requirements for IPR (anticipation or obviousness based on patents or printed publications) or PGR (broader grounds including § 101 and § 112) remain available to a potential petitioner.

Recommended next steps

Given the absence of PTAB activity, a defendant facing assertion of US10098402 should consider the following:

• Evaluate the strength of potential invalidity grounds: Conduct a thorough prior art search to identify strong anticipation or obviousness arguments against the asserted claims. If robust prior art exists, an IPR petition could be a viable strategy.
• Consider filing an IPR petition: If strong invalidity grounds are found, initiating an IPR against US10098402 could be a powerful defensive tool. IPRs have a lower burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) compared to district court litigation (clear and convincing evidence) and are generally faster. The statutory deadline for the PTAB to issue a final written decision is one year from institution.
• Timing of IPR filing: If parallel district court litigation is a possibility, the timing of an IPR filing is crucial. The PTAB may exercise its discretion to deny institution of an IPR if a district court trial date is imminent, considering factors such as the proximity of the trial date to the IPR's final written decision deadline and the overlap of issues. Therefore, filing an IPR petition as early as possible in the litigation lifecycle is generally advisable.
• No PTAB activity to date: The lack of prior PTAB challenges is a signal in itself. While it could mean the patent owner has not aggressively asserted the patent, it also means the patent's claims have not been "hardened" by surviving PTAB scrutiny. This could make it a more attractive target for an IPR.