PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There are no PTAB trial proceedings (IPR, PGR, or CBM) on file for U.S. Patent No. 10,769,446. Consequently, all claims remain as originally granted, and the patent has not yet been tested in an inter partes review. This presents a clean slate for a potential defendant, who would be the first to challenge the patent's validity before the PTAB.

[No Proceedings Filed]

• Type: N/A
• Filed: N/A
• Status: A search of the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) End to End (E2E) system and other public dockets as of May 12, 2026, shows that no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings have ever been filed against U.S. Patent No. 10,769,446.
• Judge panel: N/A
• Petition grounds: N/A
• Institution decision: N/A
• Final Written Decision: N/A
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: N/A
• Defensive value: The patent's validity has not been challenged or affirmed by the PTAB. This means a defendant has the full range of prior art available to build a case for invalidity without facing arguments that the Board has already considered and rejected similar challenges.

Strategic summary

• Claim Status: All claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,769,446 are currently UNTESTED at the PTAB. No claims have been canceled or confirmed. The patent's original scope remains intact.

• Estoppel Landscape: For a company facing an assertion of this patent, the estoppel landscape is entirely open. Since no prior IPRs have been filed, the limitations of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) do not apply. A defendant is free to file an IPR petition based on any prior art patents or printed publications it deems relevant, without restriction from previous proceedings. The prior art cited during prosecution, particularly US 9,495,788 and US 9,986,227, provides a starting point, but a challenger would need to find art that more directly teaches or suggests the specific method of using unique RGBA values for identifying user-selected bounding boxes.

• Pattern Signals: The absence of PTAB challenges to date suggests the patent has not been heavily litigated or licensed, or that potential licensees have opted for business resolutions rather than validity challenges. The current assignee, Genius Sports SS LLC, is a major operating company in the sports data and technology field, not a non-practicing entity (NPE). This indicates the patent is likely viewed as a strategic asset protecting a core technology, rather than a tool for a pure licensing campaign.

Recommended next steps

As there have been no PTAB proceedings filed against U.S. Patent No. 10,769,446, a defendant's first course of action should be to conduct a comprehensive prior art search. The goal of this search would be to identify patents or printed publications that were not considered by the USPTO examiner and that disclose the key elements of the patent's independent claims (1, 9, and 15).

Specifically, the search should focus on prior art that teaches or suggests:

1. Receiving video data that includes both the video stream and pre-defined bounding boxes for objects within the video.
2. Detecting a user selection on a screen displaying the video.
3. Using a unique identifier, such as a color or RGBA value associated with the bounding box, to determine which object the user selected.
4. Sending this identifier to a renderer or server to retrieve and display context-specific augmented content.

Given the patent's 2014 priority date, a successful invalidity challenge would require identifying art predating this that combines these elements. If strong prior art is found, filing the first IPR against this patent could be a highly effective defensive strategy.