PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 11,610,226 as of the current date, May 29, 2026. The absence of PTAB activity indicates that the patent's claims remain untested by post-grant challenges. This means a defendant facing assertion of this patent would need to initiate a new PTAB proceeding if they wish to challenge its validity before the Board.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US Patent 11,610,226 remain untested by AIA trial proceedings. There are no canceled, sustained, or partially invalidated claims to report. This means that, from a PTAB perspective, the patent has not been subjected to challenges regarding its patentability under §§ 102, 103, or 112.

The estoppel landscape is entirely open. Since no PTAB proceedings have been filed, there are no prior art grounds that would be barred for a new petitioner under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). Any prior art grounds, including those identified in the patent's prosecution history (e.g., O'Phelan '875, Ben-Natan '873, Raux '753), could potentially be used as grounds in a new IPR or PGR petition, assuming the statutory requirements for filing are met (e.g., timing, standing).

There is no pattern of PTAB filings for this specific patent. However, the assignee, Almondnet Inc., is known to be an active litigant in patent enforcement within the ad-tech industry, as noted in the Litigation Summary. It is common for patents that are actively asserted in district court litigation to eventually face PTAB challenges.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of US Patent 11,610,226, the absence of PTAB activity means that the claims have not yet been "hardened" by surviving a Board challenge. Therefore, initiating a PTAB proceeding, such as an Inter Partes Review (IPR), could be a viable defensive strategy to challenge the patent's validity.

Key considerations for potential next steps:

• Novelty (35 U.S.C. § 102) and Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) Challenges: Given the prior art identified during prosecution (O'Phelan '875, Ben-Natan '873, Raux '753), particularly the obviousness arguments presented in the analysis, these references could form strong grounds for an IPR petition.
• PGR (Post-Grant Review) Availability: As the patent was issued on March 21, 2023, the one-year window for filing a Post-Grant Review (PGR) petition, which allows for challenges under all grounds of patentability including 35 U.S.C. § 112 (written description, enablement), has closed (March 21, 2024). Therefore, an IPR would be the primary avenue for a new PTAB challenge.
• Timing: If the patent has been asserted in district court litigation, an IPR petition typically must be filed within one year of being served with a complaint alleging infringement.
• Cost-Benefit Analysis: Evaluate the costs and potential benefits of an IPR versus district court litigation, considering the strengths of the prior art and the specific claims being asserted against you.

The absence of PTAB activity for US Patent 11,610,226 is a significant signal that, despite its assignee's litigious history with other patents, this particular patent has not yet undergone the scrutiny of an AIA trial.