Patent 10643266

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: Monticello Enterprises LLC

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.

✓ Generated

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 10,643,266. This indicates that, as of the most recent data from the USPTO Open Data Portal and supplementary web searches, the patent has not been subjected to inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR), or covered business method (CBM) patent review. This gives a defendant no specific claim-level invalidation to leverage from PTAB proceedings.

Strategic summary

As there are no PTAB proceedings on file for US Patent 10,643,266, all claims (Claims 1-14) remain untested by the PTAB. This means there are no claims that have been canceled or sustained through an AIA trial process.

Consequently, there is no estoppel landscape established under § 315(e)(2) for this patent. All prior-art grounds and statutory bases (§ 102, § 103, § 112) remain available for a potential defendant to raise in a new PTAB petition or district court litigation.

The absence of PTAB activity suggests that either the patent has not been extensively asserted, or previous assertions have not prompted petitioners to challenge its validity at the PTAB. There is no pattern of multiple IPR filings by the same petitioner, aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner, or involvement of defensive aggregators like Unified Patents.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US Patent 10,643,266, a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent should consider evaluating its claims against prior art to determine the viability of filing an IPR or PGR petition. This absence of prior challenges means the patent has not been "hardened" by surviving PTAB scrutiny.

Generated 5/31/2026, 12:46:16 PM