PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review) on file for US patent 10306389 as of 2026-05-30. This means the patent has not been challenged at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) through these specific mechanisms. The absence of PTAB activity indicates that all claims of the patent remain untested in an AIA trial setting.

Strategic summary

As of the current date, no claims of US10306389 have been CANCELED, SUSTAINED, or even TESTED in an AIA trial proceeding at the PTAB. This means the patent's validity, as granted, has not been subjected to the scrutiny of an IPR, PGR, or CBM. The full scope of the patent's claims remains intact from a PTAB perspective.

Given the lack of PTAB proceedings, the estoppel landscape for this patent is currently clear. No potential petitioner (or their privies) would be barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from raising prior art grounds in a new IPR, PGR, or CBM, as no such proceedings have been initiated or concluded. Therefore, all prior-art grounds that meet the statutory requirements for these trial types (e.g., patents or printed publications for IPRs) are still available for a defendant to assert in a future PTAB challenge.

The absence of PTAB challenges for US10306389 could be interpreted in several ways. It might suggest that the patent has not yet been aggressively asserted in a manner that would provoke such challenges, or that potential challengers have not identified sufficiently strong grounds for invalidation to warrant a petition. However, it is noteworthy that this patent is currently involved in District Court litigation (Solos Technology Limited v. EssilorLuxottica and Meta Platforms, case 1:26-cv-10304), which often serves as a trigger for IPR filings. The lack of corresponding PTAB activity, despite ongoing litigation, is a signal that potential petitioners may be pursuing other defensive strategies or evaluating the strength of the patent in light of the asserted claims.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US10306389, the primary recommendation is to conduct a thorough prior art search and invalidity analysis to identify potential grounds for an AIA trial. Given no PTAB activity exists for this patent, the opportunity to challenge the patent at the PTAB remains fully open.

Specifically, consider:

• Prior Art Search: Perform a comprehensive search for prior art, particularly patents and printed publications, that could be used to challenge the patentability of claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103 in an Inter Partes Review (IPR).
• Claim Analysis: Carefully analyze the asserted claims in any demand letter or complaint in conjunction with the identified prior art to determine the strongest grounds for invalidity.
• IPR Feasibility: Evaluate the feasibility of filing an IPR petition. Factors to consider include the strength of the invalidity arguments, the cost-benefit analysis of an IPR versus District Court litigation, and the 9-month window after patent grant for filing a Post-Grant Review (PGR) if applicable (though for US10306389, granted in 2019, the PGR window has passed, leaving IPR as the primary AIA trial option).
• Litigation Context: The ongoing District Court litigation against EssilorLuxottica and Meta Platforms (1:26-cv-10304) indicates that the patent owner is actively enforcing this patent. This increases the strategic importance of considering a PTAB challenge as a parallel defense strategy.