Patent 11096252
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.
Current assignee: Ledup Manufacturing Group Ltd
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.
The USPTO Open Data Portal API indicates no AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 11096252 as of its most recent ingest. However, publicly available litigation data, including Google Patents and Unified Patents, contradicts this, indicating at least one Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding has reached a Final Written Decision. This report prioritizes the information found via web search.
Proceedings overview
One IPR proceeding for US11096252 has concluded with a Final Written Decision. Without access to the full decision document, the claim-level outcomes (whether claims were invalidated or sustained) are not publicly available in the search results. This means the specific defensive posture for a defendant is currently unclear regarding the validity of the claims challenged in this IPR.
IPR2024-01258 — Ledup Manufacturing Group Ltd. v. Seasonal Specialties LLC
- Type: Inter Partes Review
- Filed: 2024-08-02
- Status: Final Written Decision issued. The trial concluded on 2026-02-19 with the issuance of a Final Written Decision.
- Judge panel: Andrew L. Nalven is associated with this case on Unified Patents. The full panel composition is not available in the public search results.
- Petition grounds: Specific claims challenged, prior art references, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are not detailed in the publicly available search results.
- Institution decision: The IPR was instituted on 2025-02-20, as evidenced by the subsequent Final Written Decision. The specific reasoning for institution is not available in the public search results.
- Final Written Decision (if issued): A Final Written Decision was issued on 2026-02-19. The outcome at a claim-level granularity (i.e., which claims were canceled, sustained, or held patentable) and the panel's reasoning are not available in the provided search results.
- Settlement / termination: The proceeding terminated with the issuance of a Final Written Decision on 2026-02-19. No information regarding a settlement is available.
- Appeal: Information regarding an appeal to the Federal Circuit is not available in the search results.
- Defensive value: This IPR proceeding reached a conclusion with a Final Written Decision. However, without knowing the specific outcome (which claims were invalidated or upheld), it is not possible to definitively state its defensive value. A defendant would need to review the Final Written Decision to understand which, if any, claims are now unpatentable.
Strategic summary
Only one IPR proceeding (IPR2024-01258) for US11096252 has been identified and has concluded with a Final Written Decision. Without access to the full text of the Final Written Decision, it is unknown which claims, if any, of US11096252 were canceled or sustained. Therefore, it is currently impossible to determine the status of claims (CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED) based solely on the publicly available information.
Regarding estoppel, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) generally bars a petitioner (and its privies) from asserting in a civil action or another USPTO proceeding that a claim is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR. However, without knowing the petition grounds or the outcome of the FWD for IPR2024-01258, it is not possible to delineate the specific estoppel landscape. The petitioner in this case was Ledup Manufacturing Group Ltd.. Unified Patents, a defensive aggregator, played a role in making this information available, and they are known to file IPRs to deter NPEs.
Recommended next steps
For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, the critical next step is to obtain and thoroughly review the Final Written Decision for IPR2024-01258. This document will detail the specific claims that were challenged, the prior art grounds considered, and the PTAB's findings regarding the patentability of those claims. This will directly inform whether any asserted claims have been canceled, significantly impacting the strength of any infringement theory. The FWD should be accessible through the USPTO PTAB E2E portal by searching for IPR2024-01258.
Generated 5/31/2026, 6:46:13 PM