PTAB challenges

Proceedings Overview

As of May 30, 2026, a review of the USPTO Open Data Portal and supplementary web searches indicates that there are no active or concluded AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review) on file for U.S. Patent 11,349,787. This means the patent has not been subjected to PTAB challenges regarding the validity of its claims.

Strategic Summary

Currently, all claims of U.S. Patent 11,349,787 remain untested by the PTAB. There are no claims that have been canceled or sustained through IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings. This implies that the patent has not been narrowed by these administrative challenges, and its full scope as granted by the USPTO remains intact from a PTAB perspective.

Since there are no PTAB proceedings, the estoppel landscape under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) is not applicable to this patent. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, any prior-art grounds, whether previously cited during prosecution or newly discovered, are still available for potential invalidity challenges in district court or, if applicable, through a future PTAB petition.

The absence of PTAB activity is a notable signal. Patents that are actively asserted in district court litigation often become targets for IPRs by defendants seeking to challenge validity in a more expedited and often less expensive forum. While the patent family has been involved in multiple district court litigations (as outlined in the "Litigation summary"), the '787 patent itself has not yet attracted a PTAB challenge, according to the available data. This could indicate various factors, such as pending litigation discovery not yet yielding strong PTAB prior art, or strategic decisions by defendants to focus on other invalidity avenues or settlement.

Recommended Next Steps

Given that no PTAB activity exists for U.S. Patent 11,349,787, a defendant facing assertion of this patent should consider the following:

• Prior Art Search: Conduct a comprehensive prior art search to identify strong invalidity references that could form the basis of an IPR petition. The prior art cited during the patent's prosecution (e.g., US 9,413,812; US 8,364,741; US 8,930,480; US 2011/0040854 A1) provides a starting point, but a new, more targeted search may reveal stronger, uncited references.
• IPR Feasibility Analysis: If robust prior art is identified, perform a thorough analysis to determine the strength of an IPR petition against the asserted claims, considering the legal standards for institution and final written decision at the PTAB.
• Timing Considerations: Be mindful of the one-year statutory bar for IPR petitions, which generally prohibits a petitioner from filing an IPR more than one year after being served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.
• Litigation Strategy Integration: Coordinate any potential PTAB strategy with the ongoing district court litigation strategy, weighing the benefits of PTAB review against potential Fintiv discretionary denials (though recent policy shifts may impact this) and the impact of PTAB proceedings on the district court schedule.