Patent 10311707B2
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: Ricmic, 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
As of today, 2026-06-24, a comprehensive search indicates there are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) on file for US Patent 10311707B2.
Strategic summary
The absence of any AIA trial proceedings means that all claims (1-26) of US10311707B2 remain untested by the PTAB. This implies that the patent has not been subjected to validity challenges based on prior art or other statutory grounds that could lead to claims being canceled or narrowed.
For a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent, the estoppel landscape is entirely open. Since no PTAB proceedings have occurred, there are no prior art grounds that a potential petitioner (or their privies) would be barred from raising under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). This provides a broad scope for initiating an IPR, PGR, or CBM if desired, utilizing any relevant prior art.
The lack of PTAB activity could signal several things: either the patent has not yet been aggressively asserted, leading to no defensive challenges; or the asserted claims are considered strong against typical AIA trial grounds; or potential challengers have opted for other strategies (e.g., district court litigation defenses).
Recommended next steps
Since no PTAB activity exists for US10311707B2, the absence is a significant signal. Well-asserted patents often attract IPRs. If facing an assertion of this patent, a defendant should:
- Conduct a robust prior art search: A thorough search would be the first step to identify potential grounds for an AIA trial.
- Evaluate claims against prior art: Assess the strength of claims 1-26 against any newly identified prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103, and potentially § 112 if applicable for PGR/CBM.
- Consider filing an AIA petition: If strong grounds are found, an AIA trial (likely IPR given the patent's age and general subject matter) could be a viable defense strategy. This would be a first attempt to test the validity of the patent's claims at the PTAB.
Given no proceedings exist, there are no specific FWDs or appeal dispositions to cite.
Generated 6/24/2026, 6:46:22 AM