Patent 11929073
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: Cerence Operating Company
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
As of May 29, 2026, there is no PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) activity on file for U.S. Patent 11,929,073. This means the patent has not been challenged in an AIA trial proceeding, and all claims currently remain in their originally granted form. This gives a defendant no immediate PTAB-related leverage for invalidation based on prior art.
Strategic summary
Currently, all claims of U.S. Patent 11,929,073 are UNTESTED by any AIA trial proceedings at the PTAB. There are no canceled or sustained claims through IPR, PGR, or CBM.
The estoppel landscape is entirely open, meaning a potential defendant being asserted against by this patent is not barred by § 315(e)(2) from raising any ground they might have raised or reasonably could have raised in a PTAB proceeding. All prior-art grounds are still available.
Given the recent filing of patent infringement litigation by Cerence Operating Company against Amazon (May 4, 2026), and against Apple (September 4, 2025), it is possible that PTAB challenges could be initiated in the near future by these defendants. The absence of PTAB activity to date is not unusual for a patent that issued on March 12, 2024, as the statutory windows for filing IPRs (9 months after issuance or reissue, or termination of any post-grant review) or PGRs (within 9 months of issuance) are still relatively recent or have just passed for PGR. However, IPRs can be filed at any time after the 9-month PGR window, as long as a district court complaint has not been served for more than one year.
Recommended next steps
If you are a defendant facing assertion of U.S. Patent 11,929,073, the absence of PTAB activity means that the patent claims have not been subjected to the scrutiny of an AIA trial. Therefore, pursuing an IPR could be a viable defensive strategy, as there is no existing PTAB decision to overcome. Given the recent district court litigation filings, it would be prudent to:
- Conduct a thorough prior art search specifically tailored to the claims being asserted in the district court litigation.
- Evaluate the strength of potential IPR petitions against claims 1, 14, and 15 (and any dependent claims being asserted), considering the prior art discussed in the "Obviousness" section of this analysis.
- Monitor the district court dockets for any motions or disclosures that might provide further insight into the patent owner's infringement theories or any prior art they are relying on.
- Consider the timing for filing an IPR petition, keeping in mind the statutory deadlines relative to any service of the district court complaint.
Generated 5/29/2026, 9:03:03 PM