PTAB challenges

As a senior PTAB practitioner analyzing U.S. Patent 11,076,735, the primary finding is that there is no record of any America Invents Act (AIA) trial proceedings having been filed against this patent.

Proceedings overview

There have been zero AIA trial proceedings filed against U.S. Patent 11,076,735. This provides a defendant with a completely open field for a potential validity challenge at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), as no claims have been previously litigated, invalidated, or sustained in this forum.

---

No PTAB proceedings were found for U.S. Patent 11,076,735.

Strategic summary

• Claim Status: All claims of U.S. Patent 11,076,735 remain as they were granted by the USPTO. No claims have been CANCELED, and none have been officially deemed patentable in the face of a PTAB challenge (SUSTAINED). All claims are currently UNTESTED before the PTAB.

• Estoppel Landscape: For a defendant currently facing an infringement assertion, the path to filing an Inter Partes Review (IPR) is clear. There are no estoppel limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from prior PTAB proceedings. A new petitioner is free to raise any invalidity ground based on prior art patents or printed publications that they can find.

• Pattern Signals: The absence of PTAB challenges is significant. It may indicate that previous disputes settled before reaching the PTAB or that potential challengers have not yet identified prior art they believe would succeed in an IPR. The patent owner, Bissell Inc., has shown a willingness to aggressively defend its intellectual property in district court and at the International Trade Commission (ITC), which might deter some from filing PTAB petitions.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant accused of infringing U.S. Patent 11,076,735, the absence of prior PTAB activity presents a clear opportunity.

• Conduct a Prior Art Search: A comprehensive search for prior art that predates the January 8, 2019, priority date should be the immediate first step. The focus should be on art that teaches the core concept of the independent claims: a surface cleaning system with a docking station that performs a self-cleaning or "cleanout" cycle, wherein the battery charging function is disabled during that cycle.

• Consider Filing an IPR: If strong prior art is uncovered, filing an IPR petition is a highly recommended defensive measure. An IPR offers a faster and often less expensive path to invalidating patent claims compared to district court litigation. Furthermore, the standard of proof is a "preponderance of the evidence," which is lower than the "clear and convincing evidence" standard required in a district court.

• Key Takeaway: The lack of PTAB history for this patent means that a well-supported IPR petition would be the first test of its validity in this specialized forum. While the patent has been successfully asserted in other venues against specific products, its resilience against a dedicated prior art challenge at the PTAB remains unknown. This provides a significant strategic opening for any currently accused infringer.