Patent 10123456
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.
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 (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) on file for US Patent 10,123,456. This means the patent has not been challenged at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and all claims remain untested in this forum.
Strategic summary
As of today's date, all 21 claims of US Patent 10,123,456 remain UNTESTED at the PTAB. There are no claims that have been canceled or sustained in an AIA trial proceeding.
Since no PTAB proceedings have been filed, there is currently no estoppel landscape to consider under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). All prior-art grounds, whether previously considered by the USPTO or new, remain available for a potential future PTAB challenge. There are no discernible patterns of repeat petitioners or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner, as no activity has occurred.
Recommended next steps
Given the absence of any PTAB activity for US Patent 10,123,456:
- For a potential defendant: The patent's claims have not been subjected to the scrutiny of an AIA trial proceeding. This suggests that while the patent has survived traditional examination, it has not yet faced the often more rigorous and expedited challenge process available at the PTAB. Any party facing assertion of this patent would have the full range of PTAB trial options available (IPR, or potentially PGR if the filing window were still open, which it is not given the issue date). The absence of PTAB challenges could be a signal that the patent owner has not been aggressively asserting the patent or that prior art challenges have not been deemed strong enough to warrant an IPR filing by potential infringers.
- Absence as a signal: The fact that no PTAB proceedings exist could indicate that the patent has not been widely asserted in litigation, or if it has, potential defendants have chosen other avenues (e.g., district court litigation, settlement) rather than pursuing an IPR. Well-asserted patents often attract IPRs.
- Investigate prior art further: Without PTAB review, there hasn't been a secondary adversarial review of the patent's validity beyond the initial USPTO examination. A potential defendant should conduct a thorough prior art search to assess the patent's vulnerability to an IPR challenge, especially considering the obviousness arguments previously identified regarding additive manufacturing and PCM heat sink designs.
Generated 5/29/2026, 9:04:55 PM