PTAB challenges

Proceedings Overview

Based on a thorough review of the USPTO's public databases and available records, there have been no Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or other AIA trial proceedings filed against U.S. Patent No. 11,021,737 as of May 12, 2026. This means the patent has not yet faced a validity challenge at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), giving a defendant the full range of available prior art arguments in a first-instance challenge.

---

Strategic Summary

The absence of any PTAB proceedings for U.S. Patent 11,021,737 is a critical data point. Despite the patent being asserted in high-stakes litigation by an exclusive licensee, 10x Genomics, against multiple competitors since 2022, no defendant or third party has yet filed an IPR or PGR petition. This is unusual for a patent central to a competitive and litigious technology space.

• Claim Status: All claims of U.S. Patent 11,021,737 remain as originally granted. No claims have been canceled, sustained, or amended through a PTAB trial.
• Estoppel Landscape: For a defendant currently facing an assertion of this patent, the estoppel landscape is clear. Because no prior IPRs have been filed, there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel in play. A defendant is free to petition for IPR based on any prior art patents or printed publications they identify, without restriction from a prior PTAB final decision. All grounds that could be raised in an IPR are available.
• Pattern Signals: The lack of PTAB challenges could suggest several strategic possibilities:
  • Potential challengers and their counsel may believe the patent is strong and an IPR would have a low probability of success.
  • Parties may be opting to litigate validity exclusively in district court, forgoing the parallel PTAB track.
  • Settlements in past litigation, such as the one between 10x Genomics and Vizgen, may have occurred before an IPR could be filed or completed.

---

Recommended Next Steps

For a defendant, such as Element Biosciences, which was recently sued on May 8, 2026, the path to challenging patent validity at the PTAB is entirely open.

1. Conduct a Thorough Prior Art Search: Given that no prior art has been vetted by the PTAB for this patent, a comprehensive search for patents and printed publications that predate the December 22, 2011, priority date is the immediate first step. The focus should be on grounds of anticipation (§ 102) and obviousness (§ 103).
2. Evaluate IPR as a Strategic Option: An IPR offers a faster and often less expensive route to invalidate a patent compared to district court litigation. The standard of proof is lower ("preponderance of the evidence" vs. "clear and convincing evidence" in court), and the judges are technically expert Administrative Patent Judges.
3. Monitor Statutory Deadlines: A defendant has a one-year window to file an IPR petition from the date they are served with an infringement complaint. For Element Biosciences, served on or after May 8, 2026, this deadline would be in May 2027. Careful tracking of this date is essential.
4. No PTAB Activity on File: To be clear, there are no active proceedings to monitor. The primary recommendation is to initiate the first such proceeding if a meritorious invalidity case can be built. The absence of PTAB history means a petitioner has the advantage of making a first impression on the Board with their invalidity arguments.