Patent 11693450
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: Lepton Computing LLC
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
There are no AIA trial proceedings currently on file or publicly reported for US Patent 11693450. This means the patent's claims have not been challenged at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), providing a defendant with an open field for inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) if grounds exist.
Strategic summary
As of the current date, no claims of US Patent 11693450 have been canceled or sustained through PTAB proceedings. All claims (1-18) remain untested by the PTAB. Consequently, there is no estoppel landscape established under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for any petitioner, meaning all prior art grounds and statutory bases (§ 102, § 103, § 112) remain available for a potential IPR or PGR filing. There are no patterns of repeated petitions by the same entity, aggressive appeals by the patent owner, or involvement by defensive aggregators like Unified Patents, as no proceedings have been initiated.
Recommended next steps
Since no PTAB activity exists for US Patent 11693450, a defendant facing assertion of this patent has the full range of AIA trial options available. The absence of PTAB challenges for a patent that is actively being litigated (as indicated by the lawsuit against Samsung) could suggest that potential petitioners have not yet found compelling grounds or have chosen alternative strategies. However, it also presents an opportunity for a defendant to be the first to challenge the patent's validity at the PTAB.
- Consider filing an IPR or PGR: A thorough prior art search should be conducted to identify strong grounds for invalidating claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or § 103. Given the active litigation, an IPR or PGR could be a strategic move to potentially stay the district court litigation and resolve validity issues more quickly and cost-effectively at the PTAB.
- Monitor for future filings: Continuously monitor the PTAB E2E system for any newly filed petitions against US11693450, as other defendants or interested parties may initiate proceedings.
Proceedings overview
There are no AIA trial proceedings currently on file or publicly reported for US Patent 11693450. The USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) API indicates no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of its most recent ingest. Furthermore, a broader web search for "PTAB US11693450", "IPR US11693450", and "PGR US11693450" did not yield any relevant PTAB cases, with results primarily pointing to stock market information for "Progressive Corp (PGR)". This confirms that the patent's claims have not been challenged at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), providing a defendant with an open field for inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) if grounds exist.
Strategic summary
As of the current date, no claims of US Patent 11693450 have been canceled or sustained through PTAB proceedings. All claims (1-18) remain untested by the PTAB. Consequently, there is no estoppel landscape established under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for any petitioner, meaning all prior art grounds and statutory bases (§ 102, § 103, § 112) remain available for a potential IPR or PGR filing. There are no patterns of repeated petitions by the same entity, aggressive appeals by the patent owner, or involvement by defensive aggregators like Unified Patents, as no proceedings have been initiated.
Recommended next steps
Since no PTAB activity exists for US Patent 11693450, a defendant facing assertion of this patent has the full range of AIA trial options available. The absence of PTAB challenges for a patent that is actively being litigated (as indicated by the lawsuit against Samsung in the litigation summary) could suggest that potential petitioners have not yet found compelling grounds or have chosen alternative strategies. However, it also presents an opportunity for a defendant to be the first to challenge the patent's validity at the PTAB.
- Consider filing an IPR or PGR: A thorough prior art search should be conducted to identify strong grounds for invalidating claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or § 103. Given the active litigation, an IPR or PGR could be a strategic move to potentially stay the district court litigation and resolve validity issues more quickly and cost-effectively at the PTAB.
- Monitor for future filings: Continuously monitor the PTAB E2E system for any newly filed petitions against US11693450, as other defendants or interested parties may initiate proceedings.
Generated 6/1/2026, 6:49:32 AM