PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US patent 11037093 as of the current date. This means the patent has not been challenged in an Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). For a defendant, this indicates that the claims of the patent are currently untested by the PTAB's validity standards, and an IPR or other AIA trial remains a potential avenue for challenging the patent's validity.

Strategic summary

As of 2026-07-02, all claims (1-21) of US11037093 remain untested by AIA trial proceedings at the PTAB. This means that no claims have been canceled or sustained through these administrative review processes. The patent owner, Zest Labs Inc, has not had to defend its claims against prior art challenges in an IPR, PGR, or CBM.

The estoppel landscape is completely open since no PTAB proceedings have occurred. This implies that a potential petitioner is not barred by 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from raising any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in a prior IPR. All prior art grounds are theoretically available for a future challenge. There is no visible pattern of PTAB appeals or defensive aggregators involved, as there is no PTAB history for this patent.

Recommended next steps

Since there is no PTAB activity on file for US11037093, the recommended next steps would be:

• Perform a thorough prior art search: A comprehensive search for prior art, particularly patents and publications that predate the priority date of March 30, 2015, would be crucial to identify potential grounds for an IPR or other invalidity challenge.
• Evaluate claims against prior art: If prior art is found, a detailed analysis of how it anticipates or renders obvious the claims of US11037093 should be conducted, specifically focusing on independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and their dependent claims.
• Consider filing an IPR: If strong prior art grounds are identified, filing an IPR petition could be a strategic move to challenge the validity of the patent claims. The absence of prior PTAB challenges means a petitioner would be the first to test the patent's claims at the Board.
• Monitor for future PTAB activity: Regularly check the USPTO PTAB E2E system for any newly filed petitions against US11037093. The absence of PTAB activity can sometimes be a signal that a patent is not being heavily asserted, or that prior art challenges have not been deemed strong enough to pursue. However, it can also mean it simply hasn't been targeted yet.

The USPTO ODP API reported no AIA trial proceedings for US patent 11037093. My web search confirms this; there are no public records of IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings against US11037093 on the PTAB E2E (now P-TACTS) system or in general news/legal reporting.

It's important to note that while there are no PTAB proceedings, Zest Labs Inc. has been involved in significant litigation related to trade secret misappropriation with Walmart concerning its "Zest Fresh" technology, which shares conceptual ground with the patent's subject matter. A federal jury in Arkansas recently awarded Zest Labs $222 million in compensatory and punitive damages against Walmart for stealing its technology. This case, Zest Labs Inc. et al v. Wal-Mart Inc. (E.D. Ark. 2025), involved allegations that Walmart misappropriated Zest Labs' trade secrets to develop its own competing system and then applied for a patent under its own name. This litigation, while not a PTAB proceeding, highlights the value and controversy surrounding Zest Labs' technology in the food delivery and freshness management space.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US patent 11037093 as of July 2, 2026. This means there are no active, concluded (invalidated/sustained), or settled IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings related to this patent. All claims of US11037093 remain untested by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. This gives a defendant facing assertion of this patent the defensive posture that all claims are currently unchallenged at the PTAB, leaving an IPR as a potential first line of defense.

Strategic summary

As of the current date, US patent 11037093 has not been subjected to any AIA trial proceedings before the PTAB. Consequently, all claims (1-21) are considered untested and remain in force without any PTAB-initiated invalidation or affirmation. This means that a potential challenger would be the first to bring a validity challenge against these claims in an IPR, PGR, or CBM.

The absence of PTAB proceedings implies that the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) do not apply to this patent. Therefore, any prior art grounds that could be raised against the patent's claims are still available for a future petitioner. There is no historical pattern of PTAB challenges, appeals, or involvement of defensive aggregators like Unified Patents related to US11037093.

While there is no PTAB activity, it is noteworthy that the patent owner, Zest Labs Inc., has been involved in significant federal court litigation against Walmart concerning trade secret misappropriation related to its "Zest Fresh" technology. A jury awarded Zest Labs $222 million in damages, finding that Walmart had stolen their technology and incorporated it into a patent under its own name. This parallel litigation underscores the value and innovative nature of the underlying technology covered by US11037093, even though the patent itself has not yet been challenged at the PTAB.

Recommended next steps

Given the absence of any PTAB activity for US11037093:

• No PTAB activity exists. The most critical next step for any party facing assertion of this patent is to conduct a thorough prior art search. This search should aim to uncover any relevant prior art (patents, publications, or other public disclosures) that predates the patent's priority date of March 30, 2015.
• Evaluate potential IPR/PGR grounds. If significant prior art is identified, a detailed analysis should be performed to determine if it provides strong grounds for an invalidity challenge under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103, particularly focusing on independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
• Consider an AIA trial challenge. The lack of prior challenges means that initiating an IPR (or PGR, if eligible) would be the first opportunity to test the patent's validity before the PTAB. This also means that a petitioner would not be estopped by prior PTAB decisions.
• Monitor for future activity. Continuously monitor the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) (which replaced PTAB E2E) for any newly filed petitions against US11037093. The absence of PTAB activity for a patent, especially one associated with significant commercial litigation, can sometimes precede a challenge as other parties become aware of its assertion.