Patent 10734481

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: Greenthread Ltd

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 seven AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 10,734,481. Of these, three have resulted in Final Written Decisions (FWDs), with outcomes regarding claim validity, three have settled, and one is currently pending institution. This gives a defendant a mixed defensive posture: some claims have been challenged and determined, offering clarity on their validity, while others remain active or settled under confidential terms.

IPR2024-00001 — Cirrus Logic, Inc., OmniVision Technologies, Inc., AMS Sensors USA, Inc., OSRAM GmbH, AMS-OSRAM AG, and GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc. v. Greenthread, LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2023-10-12
  • Status: Final Written Decision
  • Judge panel: To be determined from FWD.
  • Petition grounds: Based on typical IPR grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, challenging specific claims of US10734481. The exact claims and prior art would be detailed in the institution decision and FWD.
  • Institution decision: Instituted (details to be found in search).
  • Final Written Decision: A Final Written Decision has been issued. Specific claims found unpatentable or patentable need to be retrieved from the FWD.
  • Settlement / termination: Not applicable, FWD issued.
  • Appeal: The patent text does not indicate an appeal for this specific IPR.
  • Defensive value: The outcome of the FWD will directly determine the patentability of the challenged claims. If claims are invalidated, it significantly weakens the patent owner's position for any assertion based on those claims.

IPR2024-00264 — Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC, d/b/a onsemi, and onsemi Semiconductor Corporation v. Greenthread, LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2023-12-11
  • Status: Final Written Decision
  • Judge panel: To be determined from FWD.
  • Petition grounds: Based on typical IPR grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, challenging specific claims of US10734481. The exact claims and prior art would be detailed in the institution decision and FWD.
  • Institution decision: Instituted (details to be found in search).
  • Final Written Decision: A Final Written Decision has been issued. Specific claims found unpatentable or patentable need to be retrieved from the FWD.
  • Settlement / termination: Not applicable, FWD issued.
  • Appeal: The patent text does not indicate an appeal for this specific IPR.
  • Defensive value: The FWD will provide a definitive ruling on the patentability of the challenged claims. Any invalidated claims cannot be asserted, providing strong defensive leverage.

IPR2024-00772 — Texas Instruments Incorporated v. Greenthread, LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2024-04-10
  • Status: Final Written Decision
  • Judge panel: To be determined from FWD.
  • Petition grounds: Based on typical IPR grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, challenging specific claims of US10734481. The exact claims and prior art would be detailed in the institution decision and FWD.
  • Institution decision: Instituted (details to be found in search).
  • Final Written Decision: A Final Written Decision has been issued. Specific claims found unpatentable or patentable need to be retrieved from the FWD.
  • Settlement / termination: Not applicable, FWD issued.
  • Appeal: The patent text does not indicate an appeal for this specific IPR.
  • Defensive value: The FWD for this proceeding will conclusively determine the validity of the challenged claims. If claims are canceled, it creates strong estoppel against the patent owner.

IPR2024-00551 — Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v. Greenthread, LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2024-03-18
  • Status: Pending - Instituted
  • Judge panel: To be determined from institution decision.
  • Petition grounds: Based on typical IPR grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, challenging specific claims of US10734481. The exact claims and prior art would be detailed in the institution decision.
  • Institution decision: Instituted. (Details of reasoning to be found in search).
  • Final Written Decision: Not yet issued.
  • Settlement / termination: Not applicable, currently pending institution.
  • Appeal: This IPR is related to the CAFC case Greenthread, LLC v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., docket number 26-1722, filed on April 22, 2026, which indicates an appeal from a district court case, not directly from this PTAB proceeding at this stage. However, any eventual FWD would be appealable.
  • Defensive value: This active proceeding creates uncertainty but also a potential pathway for invalidating claims. The eventual FWD will be critical.

IPR2023-00260 — Intel Corporation v. Greenthread, LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2022-11-28
  • Status: Settlement
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available due to settlement.
  • Petition grounds: Challenged specific claims of US10734481, likely on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
  • Institution decision: Instituted (implied by settlement occurring after petition filing).
  • Final Written Decision: Not applicable, settled before FWD.
  • Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated due to a settlement. Terms are typically confidential.
  • Appeal: Not applicable.
  • Defensive value: As the case settled, there is no public decision on the merits of the challenged claims. This means the claims that were challenged by Intel are not subject to estoppel for other parties.

IPR2023-00375 — Sony Group Corporation, Sony Corporation, Sony Semiconductor Solutions Corporation, Sony Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation, Sony Taiwan Ltd., Sony Corporation of America, Sony Electronics, Inc., Dell, Inc., and Dell Technologies, Inc. v. Greenthread, LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2022-12-19
  • Status: Settlement
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available due to settlement.
  • Petition grounds: Challenged specific claims of US10734481, likely on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
  • Institution decision: Instituted (implied by settlement occurring after petition filing).
  • Final Written Decision: Not applicable, settled before FWD.
  • Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated due to a settlement. Terms are typically confidential.
  • Appeal: Not applicable.
  • Defensive value: Similar to IPR2023-00260, the settlement means no public ruling on claim validity, so no estoppel applies to non-parties for the grounds raised.

IPR2023-00507 — Dell Technologies, Inc., and Dell, Inc. v. Greenthread, LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2023-01-27
  • Status: Settlement
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available due to settlement.
  • Petition grounds: Challenged specific claims of US10734481, likely on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
  • Institution decision: Instituted (implied by settlement occurring after petition filing).
  • Final Written Decision: Not applicable, settled before FWD.
  • Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated due to a settlement. Terms are typically confidential.
  • Appeal: Not applicable.
  • Defensive value: As with the other settled IPRs, the claims challenged by Dell are not subject to a public validity determination, leaving them open for challenge by other parties.

Strategic summary

The patent US10734481 has been the subject of significant PTAB activity, with seven IPRs filed. Three of these have reached Final Written Decision (IPR2024-00001, IPR2024-00264, IPR2024-00772), three have settled prior to a final decision (IPR2023-00260, IPR2023-00375, IPR2023-00507), and one is pending an FWD after institution (IPR2024-00551). The specific claims challenged and their outcomes in the FWDs are critical but require access to the full FWD documents, which are not directly embedded here. Without the detailed FWDs, it's impossible to state definitively which claims are CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED. However, the sheer volume of challenges suggests the patent owner has actively defended this patent.

The estoppel landscape is important. For the three settled IPRs, the petitioners (Intel, Sony/Dell, and Dell) and their privies are barred from raising any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in those proceedings. However, because these cases settled without an FWD, other defendants are not estopped from raising those same prior-art grounds against the patent. For the three IPRs that went to FWD, the specific claims found unpatentable are canceled, and the petitioners and their privies would be estopped from challenging those claims again on the same or reasonably could have raised grounds. Claims found patentable would be considered hardened, making future challenges more difficult on the same grounds. The active IPR (IPR2024-00551) still poses a risk for the patent owner's claims.

A pattern signal is the involvement of Unified Patents as the "Petitioner" for some listed cases on their portal, acting as a defensive aggregator. Also, the involvement of major technology companies like Intel, Sony, Dell, Texas Instruments, and GlobalFoundries indicates widespread interest in challenging the patent's validity. The existence of a CAFC appeal (26-1722) related to a district court case involving Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (who is also the petitioner in IPR2024-00551) further highlights the litigious nature surrounding this patent family.

Recommended next steps

  • Obtain and review the Final Written Decisions for IPR2024-00001, IPR2024-00264, and IPR2024-00772 from the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal to understand precisely which claims, if any, were invalidated. This is paramount for assessing the current strength of the patent.
  • Monitor IPR2024-00551 closely. Note that PTAB has a statutory one-year deadline for issuing a Final Written Decision from the date of institution.
  • For any claims found unpatentable in the FWDs, explicitly quote the disposition and cite the FWD. These claims are effectively dead, making any infringement theory built upon them highly vulnerable.
  • Analyze the prior art used in the instituted IPRs to identify grounds that may still be available for a new challenge, especially considering the settled cases where no public validity determination was made.
  • Investigate the details of the Greenthread, LLC v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. CAFC case (docket number 26-1722) to understand the underlying district court dispute and how it might interact with the ongoing PTAB proceedings.
  • Given the multiple IPRs and settlements, consider the potential for "serial petitioning" by related entities or challenges by different entities over time.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US10734481/en

Generated 5/30/2026, 6:47:26 AM