Patent 11240183
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: Disintermedation Services Inc.
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 May 30, 2026, there are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) on file for U.S. Patent 11,240,183 based on USPTO ODP API data. Web searches for recent or older proceedings did not surface any active or concluded PTAB trials specifically targeting this patent.
Strategic summary
Currently, all claims of U.S. Patent 11,240,183 remain UNTESTED in AIA trial proceedings. This means that no claims have been challenged, canceled, or sustained through the PTAB process.
The absence of PTAB activity suggests that potential challengers have either not yet initiated IPRs/PGRs against this patent, or any challenges have not been publicly recorded or concluded. Given the extensive litigation history noted in the patent summary, it is somewhat unusual for a patent actively asserted in multiple district court cases not to have faced PTAB challenges, especially considering the priority date (October 17, 2011) makes it eligible for IPR.
Without any PTAB proceedings, the estoppel landscape is clear: there are no prior art grounds that have been adjudicated by the PTAB and thus no statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) applies. Any defendant facing assertion of this patent would still have the full range of prior art invalidity arguments available, both in district court and potentially through new PTAB petitions.
Recommended next steps
Since there is no PTAB activity on file for U.S. Patent 11,240,183:
- For a potential defendant: The absence of PTAB challenges means the patent's claims have not been subjected to the heightened scrutiny of an IPR or PGR. This presents an opportunity for a defendant to consider filing an IPR petition if a strong prior art case can be made, potentially leading to a stay of district court litigation and/or invalidation of asserted claims. The prior art discussed in the initial analysis (Paden, Gladwin, Agarwal) could serve as a starting point for developing such a petition.
- For the patent owner: The lack of PTAB challenges means the patent claims are currently "unhardened." While this avoids the risk of invalidation at the PTAB, it also means the claims have not been affirmed by the Board, which can be a valuable asset in district court litigation.
Generated 5/30/2026, 12:45:34 AM