Patent 10609904
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.
Current assignee: Zhende Tech, Defendants Identified IN Schedule A
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
As of May 30, 2026, there are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) on file for U.S. Patent 10,609,904 according to the USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) API. A comprehensive web search for PTAB proceedings related to this patent also did not reveal any active, terminated, or settled cases. This indicates that all claims of U.S. Patent 10,609,904 are currently untested by AIA trial challenges, presenting a different defensive posture for a defendant compared to a patent with invalidated or sustained claims.
Strategic summary
Currently, all claims of U.S. Patent 10,609,904 remain unchallenged by AIA trial proceedings. This means there are no canceled or sustained claims from PTAB decisions, and all claims are considered "untested" in this context. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, this implies that the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) do not yet apply, leaving open the possibility of initiating an IPR against the patent, provided the timing requirements are met (e.g., within one year of service of a complaint alleging infringement).
The absence of PTAB activity suggests that either the patent owner, Swift Paws Inc., has not yet aggressively enforced the patent in a manner that would provoke an IPR, or potential challengers have opted for other defensive strategies. Without prior PTAB review, a defendant has the full range of prior art and statutory grounds (§ 102 and § 103) available for a potential IPR petition, subject to the statutory time limits.
Recommended next steps
Since no PTAB activity currently exists for U.S. Patent 10,609,904, a defendant considering challenging this patent would need to evaluate whether an IPR is a viable and desirable strategy.
- Prior Art Search: Conduct a thorough prior art search, focusing on the priority date of December 17, 2013, to identify strong anticipation (§ 102) or obviousness (§ 103) grounds against the claims, particularly independent claims 1 and 11. The obviousness analysis performed earlier identified US 7,614,626 B1 to Aanerud as a strong primary reference.
- Timing Assessment: If litigation has been initiated, carefully assess the one-year statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) for filing an IPR petition.
- Claim Construction: Perform detailed claim construction for all asserted claims to identify potential weaknesses and inform the prior art search.
- Cost-Benefit Analysis: Weigh the costs and benefits of an IPR against other defensive strategies, such as district court litigation defenses (e.g., invalidity, non-infringement).
The absence of PTAB activity, while not indicative of patent strength, means that potential challengers have a clean slate to bring forward their best invalidity arguments before the PTAB.
Generated 5/30/2026, 6:45:10 PM