Patent 10629024

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 (1)

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: Unified Patents

1 active
Trial Instituted
Filed
May 30, 2025
Last modified
May 21, 2026
Petitioner
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al.
Inventor
Todd Haushalter

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.

✓ Generated

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding is on file for US patent 10629024. This proceeding is currently active with a "Trial Instituted" status. This indicates that the patent's validity is currently under review at the PTAB, introducing uncertainty for any defendant facing assertion of this patent.

IPR2025-01073 — Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. v. Evolution Malta Ltd

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2025-05-30
  • Status: Trial Instituted (the PTAB has determined that the petition met the threshold for review, and an IPR trial is currently ongoing).
  • Judge panel: The specific judge panel has not been publicly identified in the available information. Given the USPTO Director's policy effective October 20, 2025, institution decisions are centrally made by the Director, often via summary notices without detailed explanations or named panels, unless novel or important factual or legal issues are present.
  • Petition grounds: Specific challenged claims, prior art, and statutory basis for IPR2025-01073 are not explicitly detailed in the search results. However, a related IPR (IPR2025-01072, also by Light & Wonder Inc. against Evolution Malta Ltd. on a related patent) cited "Kido & Baron prior art as anticipating 22 claims with pre-spin enhanced payout selection". This suggests similar grounds (anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102) might be at play in IPR2025-01073, targeting claims related to pre-spin enhanced payout selection.
  • Institution decision: Instituted on 2025-12-16. The decision was likely a summary notice granting institution, consistent with the USPTO Director's new policy for IPR and PGR proceedings that became effective shortly before this date.
  • Final Written Decision (if issued): Not yet issued. The Final Written Decision is due by 2026-12-16 (one year from the institution date).
  • Settlement / termination: No information regarding settlement or termination has been found, which is expected as the trial is ongoing.
  • Appeal: Not applicable as a Final Written Decision has not been issued.
  • Defensive value: This active IPR proceeding means that the validity of patent 10629024 is currently being challenged at the PTAB. While the outcome is uncertain, the existence of an instituted IPR creates significant leverage for a defendant, as the patent claims cited in the petition may be invalidated. An IPR-based defense is currently viable and ongoing.

Strategic summary

Currently, only one AIA trial proceeding, IPR2025-01073, has been identified for US patent 10629024. This proceeding is in the "Trial Instituted" phase, meaning the PTAB has found a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable and has initiated a trial. All claims of patent 10629024 are currently UNTESTED in terms of final PTAB rulings, as the Final Written Decision for IPR2025-01073 has not yet been issued.

The specific claims challenged and prior art cited in IPR2025-01073 are not publicly detailed in the available search results. However, based on a related IPR (IPR2025-01072) filed by the same petitioner against a related patent from the same owner, it is plausible that IPR2025-01073 challenges claims of US10629024 for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, potentially utilizing "Kido & Baron" prior art and focusing on features related to pre-spin enhanced payout selection.

Regarding estoppel, since the IPR is still active and a Final Written Decision has not been issued, no statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) has attached yet. If the IPR proceeds to a Final Written Decision, Light & Wonder, Inc., and parties in privity with them, would be estopped from asserting invalidity grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPR against the claims that survived the proceeding. For other potential defendants, prior-art grounds not addressed or that could not have been raised in this IPR would still be available. There is no indication of a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents in the chain; Light & Wonder, Inc. is the named petitioner.

Recommended next steps

Since IPR2025-01073 is an active proceeding with a "Trial Instituted" status, any defendant facing assertion of US patent 10629024 should closely monitor its progression. The Final Written Decision for IPR2025-01073 is due by 2026-12-16. This date marks a critical milestone, as it will determine the patentability of the challenged claims.

A defendant should:

  • Track the IPR docket for IPR2025-01073 via the USPTO PTAB E2E system to obtain all publicly available documents, including the petition, institution decision, patent owner response, and petitioner reply. This will provide precise details on the claims challenged, the prior art asserted, and the PTAB's reasoning for institution.
  • Prepare for potential outcomes. If claims are invalidated, the patent owner's infringement theories may be significantly weakened or eliminated. If claims are sustained, a subsequent IPR challenge on the same grounds by the same party would be estopped.
  • Consider engaging with the petitioner (Light & Wonder, Inc.) if their interests align in challenging the patent's validity.

Generated 5/16/2026, 12:48:27 AM