Patent 11037092
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.
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.
Proceedings overview
As of July 2, 2026, a comprehensive search for AIA trial proceedings concerning US Patent 11037092 reveals no PTAB activity on file. This indicates that the patent has not been subjected to Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings. For a defendant, this means the patent's claims remain untested at the PTAB, and all claims are currently presumed valid.
Strategic summary
Currently, all claims of US Patent 11037092 are UNTESTED by the PTAB. Since no AIA trial proceedings have been filed, there are no claims that have been canceled or sustained by the PTAB. This means that the patent's validity has not been challenged through these specific administrative mechanisms.
The estoppel landscape under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) is currently clear, as no IPRs have been instituted. Therefore, any prior-art grounds that could have been raised in an IPR are still available for a defendant to assert in district court litigation or a future IPR.
There are no discernible patterns of PTAB activity to analyze, such as multiple petitions by the same entity, aggressive appeals by the patent owner, or involvement of defensive aggregators like Unified Patents, because no proceedings exist.
Recommended next steps
Since there is no PTAB activity for US Patent 11037092, the recommended next steps for a defendant facing assertion would be:
- Consider filing an IPR petition: Given the patent has not been challenged at the PTAB, an IPR could be a viable option to test the validity of the claims, especially if strong prior art exists. This would provide an opportunity to challenge the patentability of the claims based on novelty (§ 102) and obviousness (§ 103) grounds.
- Prior art search: Conduct a thorough prior art search to identify potential grounds for invalidity that could be raised in an IPR petition or in district court.
- Analyze claim scope: Carefully analyze the independent and dependent claims of US11037092 to understand their scope and identify potential weaknesses that could be challenged.
Generated 7/2/2026, 6:45:55 PM