Patent 11383405
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-pro
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.
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 2026-05-12, there are no AIA trial proceedings (IPR, PGR, or CBM) on file at the PTAB for US patent 11,383,405. This gives a defendant a clear field for potential invalidity challenges, as the patent's claims remain untested in post-grant proceedings.
Strategic Summary
The absence of any PTAB challenges against US patent 11,383,405 means that all of its issued claims—including independent claims 1 and 6—are currently sustained and untested in an AIA trial context. The patent was issued on 2022-07-12, so the nine-month window to file a Post-Grant Review (PGR), which allows for a broader range of invalidity challenges, has closed. However, the patent remains eligible for Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenges based on prior art patents and printed publications.
From an estoppel perspective, the landscape is entirely open. Because no petitioner has filed a challenge, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not apply. A potential defendant is free to raise any invalidity ground based on patents or printed publications that they can identify in a future IPR petition. There are no patterns to analyze regarding petitioners or the patent owner's defensive strategies at the PTAB for this specific patent.
Recommended Next Steps
For a defendant facing an assertion of US patent 11,383,405, the primary takeaway is that the patent's validity has not been vetted through the rigorous PTAB trial process. This lack of a challenge history is not uncommon for a patent that is less than four years old.
The recommended next step is to conduct a thorough prior art search to assess the strength of potential invalidity arguments under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. If strong prior art is found, filing an Inter Partes Review at the PTAB would be a viable strategic option to challenge the patent's validity in a forum known for its technical expertise and faster timelines compared to district court litigation. All claims of US patent 11,383,405 are currently open to such a challenge.
Generated 5/12/2026, 12:45:47 PM