Patent 12252506

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 (1)

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.

1 active
Pending
Filed
Jun 22, 2026
Last modified
Jun 23, 2026
Petitioner
Thorne Research, Inc. et al.
Inventor
Marie MIGAUD et al

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.

✓ Generated

Proceedings overview

There is no PTAB activity on file for US Patent 12252506.

Strategic summary

As of the current date, US Patent 12252506 has no PTAB trial proceedings on file. This means all claims (1-43) remain untested by AIA trial mechanisms like IPR, PGR, or CBM. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, this signifies that the patent claims have not been challenged or narrowed through these administrative review processes.

The absence of PTAB activity is notable, especially for a patent issued in March 2025 that is part of a larger, actively managed patent family. Well-asserted patents, particularly those covering commercially significant technologies like nicotinamide riboside and its derivatives, often become targets for IPRs or other AIA trials. The lack of such proceedings could indicate several things: either the patent has not yet been asserted in a way that would provoke an IPR filing, potential infringers have not yet identified strong prior art grounds, or there is an ongoing evaluation of the patent's validity by potential petitioners.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US Patent 12252506, a defendant facing assertion would need to consider a de novo validity analysis. The primary course of action would involve conducting a thorough prior art search to identify potential grounds for invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, and potentially § 112. If strong prior art is found, filing an IPR petition would be a viable defensive strategy.

Generated 5/29/2026, 9:07:12 PM