PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

The USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) API currently indicates no AIA trial proceedings on file for U.S. Patent No. 12,031,784. A comprehensive web search also yielded no public records of Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings initiated against this patent. Therefore, all claims of the patent remain untested at the PTAB, which means a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent has all prior art grounds available for a potential PTAB challenge.

Strategic summary

As of June 1, 2026, all six claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,031,784 are currently UNTESTED at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This patent was issued on July 9, 2024. The window for filing a Post-Grant Review (PGR) petition, which is nine months from the patent grant date, would have closed on April 9, 2025, and no such petition appears to have been filed. However, Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions can generally be filed at any time after the PGR window closes, provided the patent is not involved in a district court litigation where the petitioner has been served with a complaint for infringement for more than one year.

Given the ongoing district court litigation (as noted in the "Litigation summary" section) where ABC IP, LLC is asserting this patent against multiple defendants, it is notable that no PTAB challenges have yet become public. This could be due to various reasons, including strategic decisions by defendants or ongoing confidential settlement discussions.

The absence of PTAB activity means there is no estoppel landscape established under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). Therefore, for any defendant currently being asserted against, all prior-art grounds (including those based on 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) remain available for a potential IPR petition. There is no public record indicating a pattern of PTAB challenges or appeals for this specific patent.

Recommended next steps

• Absence of PTAB Activity: The fact that no PTAB challenges have been filed against U.S. Patent No. 12,031,784, despite ongoing district court litigation, is a significant signal. Well-asserted patents often attract IPRs, especially when defendants seek to challenge validity efficiently.
• Evaluate IPR Strategy: If facing assertion, a defendant should conduct a thorough prior art search, especially focusing on the obviousness grounds identified in the "Obviousness" section (e.g., combining U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223 and U.S. Patent No. 9,151,557). Filing an IPR petition could be a viable defense strategy to challenge the patent's validity.
• Monitor Litigation Dockets: Closely monitor the district court litigation dockets mentioned in the "Litigation summary" for any new developments, including potential PTAB filings that may not yet be publicly indexed or for any stay requests pending potential PTAB proceedings.
• Prior Art Review: Re-evaluate the prior art landscape. Since the patent has not been subjected to PTAB scrutiny, any defendant has the opportunity to present novel or re-framed prior art arguments.