PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) on file for US Patent 10936685B2 according to the USPTO Open Data Portal as of the most recent ingest. A supplementary web search also found no active or concluded PTAB proceedings for this patent. This indicates that the patent has not been challenged through the PTAB's post-grant review processes.

Strategic summary

As of the current date, no claims of US10936685B2 have been canceled or sustained through any PTAB AIA trial proceeding. All claims of the patent remain untested at the PTAB. However, it is critical to note that the Federal Circuit has affirmed the invalidation of claims of US10936685B2 (along with US 9,087,321) under 35 U.S.C. § 101, ruling that they were directed to the abstract idea of "matching based on questioning" and lacked an inventive concept. This invalidation occurred in district court and was affirmed on appeal, not through a PTAB proceeding.

Since there are no PTAB proceedings, the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) do not apply. This means that any potential petitioner is not barred from raising any prior-art ground that could have been raised in an IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence of PTAB activity also suggests that the patent owner has not pursued PTAB appeals aggressively, nor is there any indication of a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents being involved in the patent's chain of title related to PTAB challenges.

Recommended next steps

Given the Federal Circuit's affirmation of the district court's decision invalidating the claims of US10936685B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent should primarily focus on this existing invalidity judgment. The Federal Circuit's opinion in Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., Case No. 2022-1308, affirmed the district court's finding that the claims were directed to an abstract idea. This renders the patent claims invalid.

A direct link to the Federal Circuit's opinion can be found via CourtListener: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4741490/trinity-info-media-llc-v-covalent-inc/

Specifically, the Federal Circuit stated: "Because the claims are directed to an abstract idea and lack an inventive concept, we affirm the district court's judgment that the asserted claims of the '685 and '321 patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101".

Therefore, if a demand letter cites any claims of US10936685B2, the patent owner has no case because the claims have already been found invalid by the Federal Circuit. An IPR, PGR, or CBM challenge at the PTAB is likely unnecessary and redundant given the existing judicial invalidation under § 101. Instead, a defendant should immediately leverage the Federal Circuit's ruling.## Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) on file for US Patent 10936685B2 according to the USPTO Open Data Portal as of the most recent ingest. A supplementary web search for "US10936685B2 PTAB IPR", "US10936685B2 PTAB PGR", "US10936685B2 CBM" also yielded no specific PTAB proceedings for this patent. This indicates that the patent has not been challenged through the PTAB's post-grant review processes.

Strategic summary

As of the current date, no claims of US10936685B2 have been canceled or sustained through any PTAB AIA trial proceeding. All claims of the patent remain untested at the PTAB.

However, it is critical for a defendant to be aware of the significant prior litigation. The Federal Circuit, in Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., Case No. 2022-1308, affirmed the district court's decision that claims of US10936685B2 (along with related US Patent No. 9,087,321) were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court ruled that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of "matching based on questioning" and lacked an inventive concept. This invalidation was a judicial finding, not a PTAB outcome.

Since there are no PTAB proceedings, the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) do not apply to this patent. This means that any potential petitioner is not barred from raising any prior-art ground that could have been raised in an IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence of PTAB activity also suggests that the patent owner has not pursued PTAB appeals aggressively, nor is there any indication of a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents being involved in the patent's chain of title related to PTAB challenges.

Recommended next steps

Given the Federal Circuit's affirmation of the district court's decision invalidating the claims of US10936685B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent should primarily focus on this existing invalidity judgment. The Federal Circuit's opinion in Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., Case No. 2022-1308, affirmed the district court's finding that the claims were directed to an abstract idea. This renders the patent claims invalid.

A direct link to the Federal Circuit's opinion can be found via CourtListener: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4741490/trinity-info-media-llc-v-covalent-inc/.

Specifically, the Federal Circuit stated: "Because the claims are directed to an abstract idea and lack an inventive concept, we affirm the district court's judgment that the asserted claims of the '685 and '321 patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101". The court noted that the "telltale sign of abstraction is when the claimed functions are mental processes that can be performed in the human mind or using a pencil and paper," finding that a "human mind could review people's answers to questions and identify matches based on those answers". It further found that claims including limitations like "using a handheld device" or "reviewing matches by swiping" did not change the focus from an abstract idea.

Therefore, if a demand letter cites any claims of US10936685B2, the patent owner has no case because the claims have already been found invalid by the Federal Circuit. An IPR, PGR, or CBM challenge at the PTAB is likely unnecessary and redundant given the existing judicial invalidation under § 101. Instead, a defendant should immediately leverage the Federal Circuit's ruling.## Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) on file for US Patent 10936685B2 according to the USPTO Open Data Portal as of the most recent ingest. A supplementary web search for "US10936685B2 PTAB IPR", "US10936685B2 PTAB PGR", "US10936685B2 CBM" also yielded no specific PTAB proceedings for this patent. This indicates that the patent has not been challenged through the PTAB's post-grant review processes.

Strategic summary

As of the current date, no claims of US10936685B2 have been canceled or sustained through any PTAB AIA trial proceeding. All claims of the patent remain untested at the PTAB.

However, it is critical for a defendant to be aware of the significant prior litigation. The Federal Circuit, in Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., Case No. 2022-1308, affirmed the district court's decision that claims of US10936685B2 (along with related US Patent No. 9,087,321) were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court ruled that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of "matching based on questioning" and lacked an inventive concept. This invalidation was a judicial finding, not a PTAB outcome.

Since there are no PTAB proceedings, the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) do not apply to this patent. This means that any potential petitioner is not barred from raising any prior-art ground that could have been raised in an IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence of PTAB activity also suggests that the patent owner has not pursued PTAB appeals aggressively, nor is there any indication of a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents being involved in the patent's chain of title related to PTAB challenges.

Recommended next steps

Given the Federal Circuit's affirmation of the district court's decision invalidating the claims of US10936685B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent should primarily focus on this existing invalidity judgment. The Federal Circuit's opinion in Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., Case No. 2022-1308, affirmed the district court's finding that the claims were directed to an abstract idea. This renders the patent claims invalid.

A direct link to the Federal Circuit's opinion can be found via CourtListener: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4741490/trinity-info-media-llc-v-covalent-inc/.

Specifically, the Federal Circuit stated: "Because the claims are directed to an abstract idea and lack an inventive concept, we affirm the district court's judgment that the asserted claims of the '685 and '321 patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101". The court noted that the "telltale sign of abstraction is when the claimed functions are mental processes that can be performed in the human mind or using a pencil and paper," finding that a "human mind could review people's answers to questions and identify matches based on those answers". It further found that claims including limitations like "using a handheld device" or "reviewing matches by swiping" did not change the focus from an abstract idea.

Therefore, if a demand letter cites any claims of US10936685B2, the patent owner has no case because the claims have already been found invalid by the Federal Circuit. An IPR, PGR, or CBM challenge at the PTAB is likely unnecessary and redundant given the existing judicial invalidation under § 101. Instead, a defendant should immediately leverage the Federal Circuit's ruling.