Patent 10121186
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 (0)
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.
Current assignee: Monticello Enterprises LLC
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
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
There are no AIA trial proceedings (IPR, PGR, or CBM) on file for US Patent 10,121,186 as of the most recent ingest and confirmed by web search. This indicates that the patent has not been challenged via these mechanisms at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board. For a defendant, this means the patent's claims remain untested by the PTAB's validity standards.
Strategic summary
Currently, all claims of US Patent 10,121,1186 are UNTESTED by AIA trial proceedings. There have been no IPR, PGR, or CBM petitions filed against this patent.
The absence of PTAB proceedings means there is no estoppel landscape under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for this patent. All prior art grounds are theoretically available to a defendant facing assertion of this patent, provided they meet the statutory requirements for any potential PTAB petition they might file.
The lack of PTAB activity can be a signal that the patent either has not been widely asserted yet, or that previous assertions have not prompted defendants to seek IPR/PGR, possibly due to licensing agreements or early settlements. Given that the patent has active litigation in district courts and at the Federal Circuit, the lack of PTAB challenges is noteworthy.
Recommended next steps
Since no PTAB activity exists for US Patent 10,121,186, a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent would need to evaluate the patentability of the claims from a first-principles perspective. Considerations for potential PTAB challenges would include:
- Prior Art Search: Conduct a thorough prior art search to identify any strong references that could form the basis of an IPR or PGR petition.
- Claim Analysis: Perform a detailed analysis of the claims of US10121186 against any newly discovered or existing prior art to identify potential invalidity grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, or 112.
- Timing: Consider the statutory deadlines for filing IPR (e.g., within one year of being served with a complaint alleging infringement) or PGR (e.g., within nine months of patent grant).
- Litigation Strategy: Assess whether filing an IPR or PGR aligns with the overall litigation strategy, considering factors such as potential stays of district court litigation and the PTAB's lower burden of proof for invalidity.
Generated 6/1/2026, 12:46:40 AM