PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

As of May 31, 2026, there are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) on file for US Patent 11,042,890. This means the patent's claims have not been challenged or adjudicated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). For a defendant, this indicates that all claims remain untested by PTAB challenges, and an IPR/PGR-based defensive posture would need to initiate new proceedings.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US Patent 11,042,890 are UNTESTED at the PTAB. No claims have been canceled, sustained, or modified through IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings. This means the patent has not been subjected to the scrutiny of an AIA trial, which can often narrow or invalidate claims.

The absence of PTAB activity implies that the estoppel landscape under § 315(e)(2) is clear, as no petitioner has been barred from raising prior-art grounds against this patent. All potential prior-art grounds (e.g., under § 102 or § 103) remain available for a new challenger.

Given the active litigation campaign noted in the litigation summary, the lack of PTAB challenges is somewhat unusual for a patent being asserted broadly. This could indicate several possibilities:

• The patent was recently issued (June 22, 2021), and the current litigation campaign may have begun before defendants could mount a PTAB challenge.
• Potential petitioners may be negotiating settlements or cross-licensing agreements, or they might be preparing petitions that have not yet been filed or publicly indexed.
• The asserted claims may be perceived as robust enough to discourage PTAB challenges, or the specific prior art required for a strong petition has not yet been identified or effectively deployed.
• The litigations are recent (many filings in 2025 and 2026), suggesting that defendants may still be within the one-year window to file IPR petitions after being served with a complaint (35 U.S.C. § 315(b)).

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US Patent 11,042,890, a defendant facing assertion of this patent currently has an open field to pursue an AIA trial.

1. Prior Art Search: Conduct a comprehensive prior art search specifically targeting the claims being asserted in litigation to identify strong grounds for an IPR or PGR petition.
2. Timing: Be mindful of the one-year statutory bar for filing an IPR petition from the date of service of a complaint alleging infringement (35 U.S.C. § 315(b)).
3. Petition Filing: If strong prior art is found, consider filing an IPR petition. An IPR can be a cost-effective way to challenge patent validity compared to district court litigation. The absence of prior PTAB challenges means there's no institutional precedent or estoppel to navigate.
4. Monitor PTAB Docket: Continuously monitor the USPTO PTAB End-to-End (E2E) system for any newly filed petitions related to US11042890, as other defendants in the ongoing litigation may initiate proceedings.My search confirms that the USPTO ODP API's information is correct: there are no completed or active PTAB proceedings listed for US11042890. The search results show recent patent infringement lawsuits filed by Alpha Modus Corp. against various retailers, many of which are recent (late 2025, early 2026). This timeline suggests that defendants may still be within the window to file IPR petitions, or are in the early stages of preparing such filings. The patent itself was issued in June 2021, making it relatively new for comprehensive PTAB challenges to have run their course.

Therefore, the initial assessment that there are no PTAB proceedings on file remains accurate based on current public records.

My response should clearly state this absence, as instructed, and then provide the strategic implications.

Confidence Score: 5/5 - The search results confirm the initial data, and the implications of no PTAB activity are straightforward.## Proceedings overview

As of May 31, 2026, there are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) on file for US Patent 11,042,890. This means the patent's claims have not been challenged or adjudicated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). For a defendant, this indicates that all claims remain untested by PTAB challenges, and an IPR/PGR-based defensive posture would need to initiate new proceedings.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US Patent 11,042,890 are UNTESTED at the PTAB. No claims have been canceled, sustained, or modified through IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings. This means the patent has not been subjected to the scrutiny of an AIA trial, which can often narrow or invalidate claims.

The absence of PTAB activity implies that the estoppel landscape under § 315(e)(2) is clear, as no petitioner has been barred from raising prior-art grounds against this patent. All potential prior-art grounds (e.g., under § 102 or § 103) remain available for a new challenger.

Given the active litigation campaign noted in the litigation summary, the lack of PTAB challenges is somewhat unusual for a patent being asserted broadly. US Patent 11,042,890 was issued on June 22, 2021, and many of the reported infringement lawsuits by Alpha Modus Corp. against various retailers were filed in late 2025 and early 2026. This timeline suggests that defendants may still be within the one-year window to file IPR petitions after being served with a complaint (35 U.S.C. § 315(b)), or are in the early stages of preparing such filings.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US Patent 11,042,890, a defendant facing assertion of this patent currently has an open field to pursue an AIA trial.

1. Prior Art Search: Conduct a comprehensive prior art search specifically targeting the claims being asserted in litigation to identify strong grounds for an IPR or PGR petition.
2. Timing: Be mindful of the one-year statutory bar for filing an IPR petition from the date of service of a complaint alleging infringement (35 U.S.C. § 315(b)).
3. Petition Filing: If strong prior art is found, consider filing an IPR petition. An IPR can be a cost-effective way to challenge patent validity compared to district court litigation. The absence of prior PTAB challenges means there's no institutional precedent or estoppel to navigate.
4. Monitor PTAB Docket: Continuously monitor the USPTO PTAB End-to-End (E2E) system for any newly filed petitions related to US11042890, as other defendants in the ongoing litigation may initiate proceedings.