PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There is no PTAB activity on file for US Patent No. 10,299,071 as of the most recent ingest from the USPTO Open Data Portal. A review of web search results also does not reveal any Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings specifically challenging this patent. Therefore, all claims of US10299071 remain untested in AIA trial proceedings.

Strategic summary

As of today, all claims of US Patent No. 10,299,071 are UNTESTED by any AIA trial proceedings (IPR, PGR, or CBM) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. This means there is no estoppel landscape established by the PTAB regarding this specific patent. Any potential petitioner would not be barred by 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from raising any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in a prior IPR, PGR, or CBM because no such proceedings exist for this patent.

It is important to note that while the provided "Litigation Summary" mentions X One, Inc. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case Number: 19-1164 at the Federal Circuit, further investigation reveals this appeal concerned U.S. Patent No. 8,798,593, not U.S. Patent No. 10,299,071. The Federal Circuit indeed reversed a PTAB decision, finding claims of US8798593 unpatentable as obvious. This distinction is critical as it means the outcomes of that proceeding do not directly impact the patentability of claims in US10299071.

The absence of PTAB activity for US10299071, despite its relation to a patent family that has faced IPR (e.g., US8798593), could be due to several factors, such as the patent being newer or its claims being perceived as distinct and not vulnerable to the same prior art challenges.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of US Patent No. 10,299,071, the absence of PTAB activity means:

• No claims have been invalidated by the PTAB. Therefore, an infringement theory built on any of the claims of US10299071 would not be immediately undermined by a PTAB final written decision.
• An IPR, PGR, or CBM remains a viable defensive option. If the patent is being asserted against you, you could consider filing your own petition to challenge its validity before the PTAB. This would require a thorough prior art search and analysis to identify strong grounds for unpatentability under §§ 102 or 103.
• The initial hurdle for any PTAB challenge is institution. The PTAB would first need to decide to institute a trial based on the merits of your petition.

As there is no PTAB activity on file, there are no trial-stage milestones (institution decision deadline, oral hearing, FWD due date) to track for this specific patent. The absence of PTAB activity for a patent that is part of a litigated family can be a signal, and any decision to pursue a PTAB challenge should be made after careful consideration of the asserted claims and available prior art.