PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) on file for US patent 11490647 as of 2026-05-29. This means the patent's claims remain untested by the PTAB, and its defensive posture is currently unhardened by PTAB trials.

No PTAB proceedings on file for US11490647.

• Type: N/A
• Filed: N/A
• Status: N/A
• Judge panel: N/A
• Petition grounds: N/A
• Institution decision: N/A
• Final Written Decision (if issued): N/A
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: N/A
• Defensive value: The absence of PTAB challenges means all claims of US11490647 are currently presumed valid as granted, without any PTAB determination on their patentability.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims (1-10) of US patent 11490647 remain untested by AIA trial proceedings. This means no claims have been canceled or found unpatentable by the PTAB. Consequently, all claims are presently considered "SUSTAINED" in the sense that they have not been challenged and invalidated through an IPR, PGR, or CBM. The patent has not been narrowed through PTAB review.

The estoppel landscape is entirely open for any potential petitioner. Since no proceedings have been filed, there are no prior art grounds that are barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for any entity. A defendant facing assertion of this patent would have all statutory bases (§ 102, § 103, § 112) and any prior art available to challenge the patent's claims in a new PTAB petition.

There are no observable pattern signals regarding PTAB activity for this patent, as there have been no filings. The lack of PTAB activity, despite the patent being active since November 2022 and having reported litigation (US 1:24-cv-08606 and 1:25-cv-01380) [cite: The provided patent text], could suggest either that the litigation is in early stages, the asserted claims are perceived as robust, or potential challengers have not yet acted.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US patent 11490647, the recommended next steps for a potential defendant are as follows:

• Perform a robust prior art search: Given the absence of PTAB reviews, a comprehensive prior art search is crucial to identify potential invalidity grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 that could form the basis of a future IPR petition.
• Evaluate claims for potential IPR/PGR challenges: Analyze claims 1-10 of US11490647 against any newly found prior art to determine the strength of potential IPR or PGR petitions.
• Monitor for future PTAB filings: Continuously monitor the USPTO PTAB End-to-End system (or similar search tools) for any new IPR, PGR, or CBM petitions filed against US11490647, as the absence of activity is itself a signal that might change if the patent owner becomes more aggressive in assertion.
• Consider filing an IPR/PGR: If strong prior art grounds are identified, consider initiating an IPR or PGR proceeding to challenge the patentability of the asserted claims. This is a common defensive strategy when faced with patent infringement allegations.
• Analyze litigation in Illinois Northern District Court: Although the specific details of the ongoing litigation (1:24-cv-08606 and 1:25-cv-01380) are not publicly provided in the patent text, these cases may offer insights into the patent owner's assertion strategy and the specific claims being targeted. Accessing these court dockets could inform a PTAB strategy.