PTAB challenges

Based on the provided information and a thorough web search, there is no record of any AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review) ever having been filed against US patent 10,372,793 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Proceedings Overview

There are no PTAB AIA trial proceedings on file for US patent 10,372,793. The patent's claims have never been challenged or reviewed by the PTAB, leaving them completely untested in this forum.

Strategic Summary

Claim Status: UNTESTED
All claims of US patent 10,372,793, including independent claims 1 and 23, remain untested at the PTAB. No claims have been canceled or sustained through an IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding. For a defendant, this means the patent has not been "hardened" by surviving a PTAB challenge, which can be an advantage.

Estoppel Landscape
Since no PTAB proceedings have been initiated, the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) do not apply. A defendant is free to challenge the patent's validity at the PTAB on any grounds based on prior art patents or printed publications, subject to the one-year time bar after being served with an infringement complaint. All prior-art-based invalidity arguments are available for a potential first IPR petition.

Pattern Signals
The absence of PTAB challenges is a notable signal. This patent has been asserted in district court litigation, and defensive organizations like Unified Patents are actively soliciting prior art against it. This suggests that while the patent is being monetized, defendants have so far opted to resolve disputes through district court litigation or settlement rather than challenging the patent's validity at the PTAB. The patent owner, Aloft Media, LLC, is a known non-practicing entity (NPE).

Recommended Next Steps

For a defendant facing an assertion of US patent 10,372,793:

• Acknowledge the Absence of PTAB Activity: The most critical takeaway is that no prior defendant has attempted to invalidate this patent at the PTAB. This is a significant data point. It could mean prior defendants saw risks in filing an IPR, or it could mean they settled for business reasons before a challenge was necessary.
• Conduct a Thorough Prior Art Search: Given that the patent is untested at the PTAB and has a priority date of March 20, 2006, a comprehensive search for prior art is the essential next step. The fact that Unified Patents has a contest seeking prior art for claim 23 indicates a belief that invalidating art may exist.
• Consider a Proactive IPR Filing: As a defendant, you have the opportunity to be the first to challenge this patent at the PTAB. An Inter Partes Review offers a faster and often more cost-effective path to invalidating claims compared to district court litigation. A successful IPR could neutralize the threat entirely. The key will be uncovering strong prior art that presents a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.