Patent 10528129
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 on file for US Patent 10,528,129 as of June 19, 2026. This means the patent has not been subjected to IPR, PGR, or CBM trials at the PTAB. For a defendant, this indicates the patent claims are untested by these post-grant review mechanisms, and all claims remain patentable as granted, assuming no other invalidity findings have been made in district court litigation (for which no records were found either).
Strategic summary
As no PTAB proceedings have been filed against US Patent 10,528,129, all 19 claims (claims 1-19) remain unchallenged and are presumed valid. There are no canceled or sustained claims through PTAB review, and all claims are currently "untested" by AIA trial proceedings.
Since no IPRs have been instituted, there is no estoppel landscape under § 315(e)(2) for any petitioner or their privies related to this patent. All prior art grounds (e.g., under § 102 or § 103) are still available for a defendant to assert in a district court litigation or a potential future PTAB proceeding.
There is no pattern of PTAB activity to analyze, as no proceedings exist. The absence of PTAB activity could imply several things: either the patent has not yet been asserted aggressively enough to provoke challenges, potential infringers have not identified strong prior art grounds, or the patent's scope is such that it has not yet become a target for these types of proceedings.
Recommended next steps
Given the complete absence of PTAB activity for US Patent 10,528,129:
- For a potential defendant: All claims of the patent are currently presumed valid as granted. If facing assertion of this patent, a defendant would have the full range of invalidity defenses available, including the option to file an IPR, PGR, or CBM petition, without any estoppel limitations from prior PTAB proceedings on this specific patent. This absence also means there is no public record of a PTAB panel's interpretation of the claims in light of prior art, which could be an advantage or disadvantage depending on a defendant's strategy.
- Recommendation: If considering an invalidity defense against this patent, thorough prior art searching should be conducted to identify strong grounds for a potential PTAB petition (e.g., IPR) or district court challenge. The lack of prior PTAB challenges means this patent is "soft" in the sense that its claims have not been subjected to the scrutiny of an AIA trial.
Generated 6/19/2026, 6:01:07 AM