Patent 11418466
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: Disintermediation 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
The USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) API indicates there are no AIA trial proceedings on file for U.S. Patent 11,418,466 as of the most recent ingest. This means no Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs), Post-Grant Reviews (PGRs), or Covered Business Method (CBM) reviews have been initiated against this patent. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, this indicates the patent claims are currently untested by the PTAB, presenting both opportunities and risks.
Strategic summary
As of the current date, all claims of U.S. Patent 11,418,466 (Claim 1 through Claim 20) are UNTESTED by any AIA trial proceeding at the PTAB. There are no canceled or sustained claims from PTAB review.
The absence of PTAB activity means there is currently no estoppel landscape under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for this patent. A defendant facing assertion can therefore raise any prior art grounds for invalidity, including those based on 35 U.S.C. § 102 (anticipation) and § 103 (obviousness), without being constrained by previous PTAB rulings on these grounds for this specific patent. The patent owner has not pursued PTAB appeals aggressively, as there have been no PTAB trials to appeal. There is no signal of defensive aggregator involvement like Unified Patents in the PTAB context for this patent.
Recommended next steps
Given the absence of PTAB activity, a defendant being asserted against this patent has a clear path to consider filing an AIA trial petition (e.g., IPR) if strong prior art exists. This would be a first-impression challenge at the PTAB.
Key considerations for a defendant:
- Prior Art Search: Conduct a comprehensive prior art search, beyond what was considered by the USPTO examiner during prosecution (which was none, according to the prior art section). The obviousness analysis section of this report suggests a strong argument for obviousness based on known technologies pre-2011.
- Cost-Benefit Analysis: Evaluate the costs and potential benefits of filing an IPR, weighing it against the litigation expenses and potential settlement value.
- Timing: Consider the statutory deadlines for filing an IPR (e.g., within one year of being served with a complaint for infringement).
- Claims Charting: Develop robust claim charts against any identified prior art to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim, which is required for institution.
Generated 5/29/2026, 6:30:21 AM