PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

As of May 30, 2026, a search for AIA trial proceedings related to U.S. Patent 11,461,828 indicates there are no PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) proceedings on file. This suggests that the patent has not yet been challenged through Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) review. The patent therefore remains untested at the PTAB, meaning all claims are currently sustained and subject to direct assertion.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of U.S. Patent 11,461,828 are UNTESTED at the PTAB. There are no claims that have been CANCELED or SUSTAINED through an IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding.

Given the absence of PTAB activity, there is no estoppel landscape established under § 315(e)(2). Therefore, any potential defendant facing assertion of this patent is not barred from raising any prior-art grounds that could have been raised in an IPR, PGR, or CBM. The prior art discussed in the "Prior art" and "Obviousness" sections of this analysis (e.g., U.S. Patent No. 9,734,510 (Ayoub et al.), U.S. Patent No. 9,633,293 (Chaudhri), U.S. Patent No. 8,639,634 (Halla et al.), and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0226759 (Rastogi et al.)) remains fully available for use in any future PTAB petition or district court defense.

The lack of PTAB activity, despite ongoing litigation against major mobile payment providers (Apple, Samsung, Google), is a notable signal. Well-asserted patents often become targets for IPRs or other AIA trials, particularly if there are strong prior art arguments. The absence could indicate several possibilities, such as: (1) the ongoing district court cases are in early stages where PTAB challenges have not yet matured or been strategically filed; (2) potential petitioners have not yet identified sufficiently strong grounds for invalidity that meet the PTAB's institution standards; or (3) there might be strategic reasons (e.g., settlement discussions, other defensive maneuvers) for delaying or avoiding PTAB challenges.

Recommended next steps

Since there is no PTAB activity on file for U.S. Patent 11,461,828, a defendant facing assertion of this patent should consider the following steps:

1. Conduct a comprehensive prior art search: Revisit and expand upon the prior art analysis to identify any additional art not considered during patent prosecution that could form strong grounds for an IPR, PGR, or CBM petition.
2. Evaluate filing an AIA trial petition: If strong prior art is identified, assess the viability of filing an IPR (or PGR/CBM if applicable based on filing dates and patent type) against the claims being asserted. This could provide an efficient way to challenge patent validity in parallel with district court litigation.
3. Monitor for new PTAB filings: Continuously monitor the PTAB E2E system for any new filings against U.S. Patent 11,461,828, as this landscape can change rapidly.
4. Leverage existing prior art analysis: Utilize the detailed prior art review (Ayoub et al., Chaudhri, Halla et al., Rastogi et al.) and obviousness analysis from earlier in this report to inform any validity challenges in district court or in a future PTAB petition. The arguments regarding "single function action" and "single-interaction confirmation" against the cited prior art remain pertinent.

The absence of PTAB proceedings means that the patent owner, Monticello Enterprises LLC, has not yet had to defend the patent's claims at the PTAB, and thus, the patent's validity has not been tested in this forum. This presents both an opportunity (for a new petitioner) and a challenge (as no claims have been definitively invalidated).

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 11,461,828 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This means all claims of the patent are currently sustained and untested by the PTAB, giving a defendant no PTAB-based invalidity findings to leverage in its defensive posture.

There are no individual proceedings to report on, as none were found via the USPTO Open Data Portal API or subsequent web searches on USPTO PTAB Decisions.

Strategic summary

All claims of U.S. Patent 11,461,828 are currently UNTESTED by the PTAB. No claims have been CANCELED or SUSTAINED through any IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding.

Since no PTAB proceedings have been filed, the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) are not yet applicable. This means that a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent is not estopped from raising any prior-art grounds that they might bring in a future PTAB petition or district court challenge. All prior art references (e.g., U.S. Patent No. 9,734,510 (Ayoub et al.), U.S. Patent No. 9,633,293 (Chaudhri), U.S. Patent No. 8,639,634 (Halla et al.), and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0226759 (Rastogi et al.)) discussed in the "Prior art" and "Obviousness" sections of this analysis remain fully available.

The absence of PTAB activity, despite the patent being actively asserted in district court against prominent companies like Apple, Samsung, and Google, is a notable observation. While it is not uncommon for litigation strategies to unfold over time, the lack of immediate PTAB challenges could suggest that potential petitioners have not yet identified sufficiently strong grounds for invalidity that meet the PTAB's institution thresholds, or that other strategic considerations are at play in the ongoing district court cases.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for U.S. Patent 11,461,828, a defendant should consider the following:

• Comprehensive Prior Art Review: Given the aggressive assertion of this patent, conducting an even deeper and broader prior art search is critical. The goal would be to identify any highly relevant prior art that may have been overlooked during the initial examination or that could form compelling grounds for an AIA trial.
• Evaluation of an AIA Trial Petition: If a strong prior art reference or combination is found, an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition should be seriously considered. IPRs can offer a faster and often less expensive route to challenging patent validity compared to district court litigation, though the institution threshold and claim construction standards differ.
• Continuous Monitoring: Actively monitor the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) for any new IPR, PGR, or CBM petitions filed against U.S. Patent 11,461,828 by any party. The first to file with strong grounds may set the tone for all subsequent challenges.
• Leverage Existing Analysis for District Court: Even without PTAB proceedings, the "Prior art" and "Obviousness" analyses already performed remain valuable for formulating invalidity defenses in district court. These analyses highlight potential weaknesses in the patent's claims based on previously considered and related art.