PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

A search of USPTO Open Data Portal and public dockets reveals no AIA trial proceedings on file for US patent 10423918B2. This means the patent has not been subjected to Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) review. Therefore, all claims of the patent remain active and unchallenged by these administrative trial processes, which gives the patent owner a strong, unhardened defensive posture as all claims are untested by PTAB challenges.

Strategic summary

Currently, all 19 claims of US10423918B2 (claims 1-7 for the method, claims 8-12 for the computer program product, and claims 13-19 for the system) are SUSTAINED and UNTESTED by any AIA trial proceeding. There are no canceled or invalidated claims from PTAB proceedings.

The estoppel landscape is entirely open. Since no PTAB proceedings have been initiated or reached a final written decision, a potential defendant facing assertion of this patent is not estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from raising any prior-art grounds that they raised or reasonably could have raised in an IPR. All prior art grounds (§ 102 and § 103) are theoretically still available for a new challenge.

There are no observable patterns of challenges, as no proceedings have been filed. This absence of PTAB activity is a notable signal; for a patent issued in September 2019, the lack of challenges might suggest either that it hasn't been heavily asserted in litigation yet, or that potential challengers have not found sufficiently compelling prior art to warrant a petition.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US10423918B2, the recommended next steps for a defendant facing assertion of this patent would be to:

1. Conduct a thorough prior art search: Given the patent has not been tested, a robust prior art search is critical to identify potential invalidity grounds for an IPR or district court litigation.
2. Evaluate for potential IPR/PGR challenge: Assess whether the identified prior art is strong enough to likely meet the institution threshold and ultimately invalidate claims in an IPR (for § 102/103 grounds) or PGR (for a broader range of grounds, including § 112, but with a narrower filing window).
3. Monitor for future PTAB filings: Keep an eye on the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End (PTAB E2E) system for any newly filed petitions against US10423918B2, as the situation could change rapidly if the patent owner begins aggressive assertion.## Proceedings overview

A search of USPTO records and public dockets reveals no AIA trial proceedings on file for US patent 10423918B2. This means the patent has not been subjected to Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) review. All claims of the patent are therefore active and have not been challenged or invalidated through these administrative trial processes. This situation gives a defendant a posture where all claims are untested by PTAB challenges.

No PTAB activity on file.

• Type: N/A
• Filed: N/A
• Status: No AIA trial proceedings found.
• Judge panel: N/A
• Petition grounds: N/A
• Institution decision: N/A
• Final Written Decision: N/A
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: N/A
• Defensive value: All claims of US10423918B2 are currently unchallenged by PTAB proceedings. This means there are no prior art findings or claim constructions from the PTAB that would bind a future challenger, leaving all invalidity arguments open for a defendant.

Strategic summary

Currently, all 19 claims of US10423918B2 (claims 1-7 for the method, claims 8-12 for the computer program product, and claims 13-19 for the system) are SUSTAINED and UNTESTED by any AIA trial proceeding. There are no canceled or invalidated claims resulting from PTAB actions.

The estoppel landscape is entirely open. Since no PTAB proceedings have been initiated or reached a final written decision, a potential defendant facing assertion of this patent is not estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from raising any prior-art grounds that they raised or reasonably could have raised in an IPR. All prior art grounds (§ 102 and § 103) are theoretically still available for a new challenge.

There are no observable patterns of challenges, as no proceedings have been filed. This absence of PTAB activity, for a patent issued in September 2019, suggests either that it has not been heavily asserted in litigation yet, or that potential challengers have not found sufficiently compelling prior art to warrant a petition.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US10423918B2, the recommended next steps for a defendant facing assertion of this patent would be to:

1. Conduct a thorough prior art search: Given the patent has not been tested, a robust prior art search is critical to identify potential invalidity grounds for an IPR or district court litigation.
2. Evaluate for potential IPR/PGR challenge: Assess whether the identified prior art is strong enough to likely meet the institution threshold and ultimately invalidate claims in an IPR (for § 102/103 grounds) or PGR (for a broader range of grounds, including § 112, but with a narrower filing window).
3. Monitor for future PTAB filings: Continuously monitor the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End (PTAB E2E) system for any newly filed petitions against US10423918B2, as the situation could change rapidly if the patent owner begins aggressive assertion.