PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US patent 10348471. The USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings, and web searches did not surface any older or recently-filed proceedings. This means all claims of the patent are currently untested by PTAB challenges, giving a defendant a clear field for potential IPRs if asserted.

Strategic summary

As of 2026-05-31, all claims of US patent 10348471 are UNTESTED by any AIA trial proceedings. There are no records of IPRs, PGRs, or CBMs having been filed against this patent.

The estoppel landscape is entirely open. Since no PTAB proceedings have occurred, there are no prior art grounds that are barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for any potential petitioner or its privies. This means a wide range of prior art and statutory bases (§ 102 and § 103) could be brought in a new IPR petition if a defendant were to face assertion of this patent.

The absence of PTAB activity is a notable signal. Well-asserted patents, especially those involved in litigation (as indicated by the "Family has litigation" section on Google Patents), often attract IPR filings. The lack of such challenges for US10348471 could indicate that it has not been aggressively asserted in a way that typically provokes IPRs, or that prior art challenging its claims has not yet been identified or leveraged by potential petitioners. However, two US cases have been filed in the Texas Eastern District Court related to this patent family, which might suggest future PTAB activity is possible.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US10348471, the recommended next steps for a defendant facing assertion of this patent are as follows:

1. Conduct a comprehensive prior art search: A thorough search should be undertaken to identify prior art relevant to the claims of US10348471, focusing on §§ 102 and 103 grounds, which are permitted in IPRs.
2. Evaluate claims for IPR/PGR eligibility: Assess the strength of the identified prior art against the patent's claims to determine the viability of filing an IPR (for § 102/103 challenges) or PGR (if the patent's earliest priority date allows, and for § 101/112 challenges).
3. Monitor for new filings: Regularly check the USPTO PTAB E2E system and public dockets for any newly filed IPR, PGR, or CBM petitions against US10348471, as the landscape can change rapidly, especially with ongoing litigation.
4. Consider a defensive IPR strategy: If a strong prior art position is established, preparing an IPR petition may be a valuable defensive maneuver to challenge the patent's validity in parallel with any district court litigation.

The absence of PTAB activity means there is no pre-existing PTAB record to analyze for claim construction, expert testimony, or estoppel implications. Any potential PTAB challenge would be a first-impression review by the Board.


https://patents.google.com/patent/US10348471/en