PTAB challenges

PTAB Proceedings on File

The USPTO ODP API indicates no AIA trial proceedings for US Patent 11,724,003 as of the most recent ingest. My web search confirms this, as of May 30, 2026, there are no publicly available records of Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) patent proceedings filed against US Patent 11,724,003.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 11,724,003. This means that all claims (1-14) of the patent remain untested by PTAB challenges. For a defendant, this indicates that the patent has not yet faced validity challenges at the PTAB, and all claims are presumed valid as granted.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims (1-14) of US Patent 11,724,003 are UNTESTED by any AIA trial proceedings. There are no claims that have been canceled or sustained by the PTAB.

Since no IPRs, PGRs, or CBMs have been filed, the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) do not apply. This means that if a defendant were to face an assertion of this patent, all prior-art grounds (e.g., novelty under § 102 or obviousness under § 103) would still be available for a potential AIA trial petition or in district court litigation.

The absence of PTAB activity can signal a few things: either the patent has not been heavily asserted, or any assertions to date have not led to a challenger initiating PTAB proceedings. There are no patterns of multiple IPR filings by the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner, as no proceedings exist.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US Patent 11,724,003, there are no active proceedings, FWDs to review, or specific milestones to track. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, the primary takeaway is that the claims have not been subjected to the rigorous validity challenges common in PTAB proceedings. This leaves the door open for a defendant to consider filing an IPR petition if they identify strong prior art grounds against the asserted claims.

It is advisable to conduct a thorough prior art search if facing an assertion based on this patent, as the lack of PTAB challenges might indicate that no one has yet discovered or put forth the best prior art. The absence of PTAB activity is a signal that this patent has not yet been subjected to the scrutiny that often accompanies well-asserted patents.## PTAB Proceedings on File

The USPTO ODP API indicates no AIA trial proceedings for US Patent 11,724,003 as of the most recent ingest. My web search confirms this, as of May 30, 2026, there are no publicly available records of Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) patent proceedings filed against US Patent 11,724,003.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 11,724,003. This means that all claims (1-14) of the patent remain untested by PTAB challenges. For a defendant, this indicates that the patent has not yet faced validity challenges at the PTAB, and all claims are presumed valid as granted.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims (1-14) of US Patent 11,724,003 are UNTESTED by any AIA trial proceedings. There are no claims that have been canceled or sustained by the PTAB.

Since no IPRs, PGRs, or CBMs have been filed, the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) do not apply. This means that if a defendant were to face an assertion of this patent, all prior-art grounds (e.g., novelty under § 102 or obviousness under § 103) would still be available for a potential AIA trial petition or in district court litigation.

The absence of PTAB activity can signal a few things: either the patent has not been heavily asserted, or any assertions to date have not led to a challenger initiating PTAB proceedings. There are no patterns of multiple IPR filings by the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner, as no proceedings exist.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US Patent 11,724,003, there are no active proceedings, FWDs to review, or specific milestones to track. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, the primary takeaway is that the claims have not been subjected to the rigorous validity challenges common in PTAB proceedings. This leaves the door open for a defendant to consider filing an IPR petition if they identify strong prior art grounds against the asserted claims.

It is advisable to conduct a thorough prior art search if facing an assertion based on this patent, as the lack of PTAB challenges might indicate that no one has yet discovered or put forth the best prior art. The absence of PTAB activity is a signal that this patent has not yet been subjected to the scrutiny that often accompanies well-asserted patents.