Patent 10404366
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.
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
There are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) on file for U.S. Patent 10,404,366 as of the date of this analysis. This means the patent's claims remain untested at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
Strategic summary
As of May 29, 2026, all claims of U.S. Patent 10,404,366 (claims 1-18) are UNTESTED in AIA trial proceedings at the PTAB. No claims have been canceled or sustained through IPR, PGR, or CBM.
While no PTAB proceedings have been filed, Unified Patents initiated a PATROLL contest to find prior art for U.S. Patent 10,404,366, specifically targeting claim 1. This contest concluded with winning prior art identified, including U.S. Patent 8,805,185, U.S. Patent 6,529,316, and Japanese Patent Publication 2000041026. This activity indicates that potential prior art has been identified that could form the basis for future IPR petitions, particularly given that Radiant Patents LLC, the current assignee, is asserting the patent against Nokia.
The absence of PTAB proceedings suggests that the patent's validity has not yet been directly challenged in this forum. However, the existence of a prior art contest by Unified Patents signals that potential challenges are being explored by third parties.
Recommended next steps
- For a potential defendant: The absence of PTAB activity means there is no estoppel against raising any prior art grounds. The prior art identified by Unified Patents' PATROLL contest (US 8,805,185, US 6,529,316, and JP 2000041026) could be a starting point for developing a strong invalidity petition should an assertion arise. It is recommended to thoroughly analyze these references, and others, against all asserted claims.
- For the patent owner: The ongoing litigation and the Unified Patents activity suggest that future IPR filings are a possibility. Having reviewed and understood the prior art identified by Unified Patents can help in preparing a defense against potential PTAB challenges.
Generated 5/29/2026, 9:03:02 PM