PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) on file for U.S. Patent No. 11,589,880 as of May 29, 2026. This means the patent's claims have not been challenged at the PTAB, leaving its defensive posture untested through these specific mechanisms.

Strategic summary

As of the current date, U.S. Patent No. 11,589,880 has not been subject to any Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Consequently, all claims (1, 15, and 20, along with their respective dependent claims) remain untested by these AIA trial mechanisms. This means there are no canceled or sustained claims from PTAB proceedings to consider.

The absence of PTAB activity suggests that the patent has not yet faced a direct administrative challenge to its validity based on prior art. For a defendant currently being asserted against, this implies that all prior-art grounds remain available for potential PTAB petitions or district court litigation. There is no estoppel landscape under § 315(e)(2) from previous PTAB trials to contend with, as no petitioner has challenged the patent via these avenues.

While the patent is currently involved in a district court litigation where AngioDynamics, Inc. alleges infringement by Endovascular Engineering, Inc., this does not preclude the defendant from filing an IPR or PGR petition. The lawsuit, filed on April 23, 2026, claims infringement by Endovascular Engineering's Hēlo Thrombectomy System, particularly regarding "self-expanding funnel technology". The absence of PTAB challenges for this patent, despite its assertion in a recent lawsuit, indicates an open field for a potential petitioner to challenge its validity.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for U.S. Patent No. 11,589,880, a defendant facing assertion of this patent (such as Endovascular Engineering, Inc.) has several options:

• Consider filing an IPR/PGR: Given the litigation filed on April 23, 2026, Endovascular Engineering has a statutory one-year window from the date it was served with the complaint to file an IPR petition challenging the asserted claims. A Post-Grant Review (PGR) is not available as the patent was not issued from an application subject to PGR (i.e., it was not filed on or after March 16, 2013). This would involve identifying strong prior art (such as the Fischell, Jolly, or Cragg references discussed in the obviousness analysis) that clearly anticipates or renders obvious the claims of the '880 patent.
• Deepen prior art search: While the provided prior art analysis is a good starting point, a comprehensive search for additional, even more relevant, prior art is recommended to strengthen any potential PTAB petition or district court invalidity defense.
• Monitor for future PTAB filings: Stay vigilant for any IPR petitions filed by other parties against this patent, as such filings could provide insights into successful (or unsuccessful) challenge strategies.