Patent 12264358
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-pro
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.
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.
As a senior PTAB practitioner analyzing US patent 12,264,358 for a client, my assessment is based on the provided USPTO data and a comprehensive search for any related AIA trial proceedings as of May 12, 2026.
Proceedings Overview
There have been no inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR), or covered business method (CBM) proceedings filed against US patent 12,264,358. This gives a defendant a clean slate, as the patent's claims are entirely untested before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and no prior art has been vetted in an AIA trial context.
(No proceedings on file)
Strategic Summary
The complete absence of PTAB proceedings for US patent 12,264,358 means that all claims currently stand as issued by the USPTO, and none have been canceled or sustained through an AIA trial. For a defendant, this is a double-edged sword. On one hand, the patent is not "hardened" by surviving a previous challenge, and there is no adverse PTAB history to overcome. On the other hand, there is no existing invalidity case to build upon, meaning any defensive effort at the PTAB would start from scratch.
Because no IPR or PGR has been filed, the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 315(e) and 325(e) do not apply. A defendant is free to challenge any claim in a future IPR based on any prior art patents or printed publications that could have been raised. All potential invalidity grounds are still available. The patent was granted on April 1, 2025, so the nine-month window to file a broader PGR (which can raise § 101 or § 112 issues) has closed. Any future PTAB challenge will be limited to IPRs, which are restricted to novelty and obviousness challenges under §§ 102 and 103.
Recommended Next Steps
For a defendant currently facing an assertion of US patent 12,264,358, the most critical next step is to conduct a thorough prior-art search. Since no PTAB proceedings exist, your legal team will be the first to formally vet the patent's validity against the universe of prior art in this forum.
Given the lack of any PTAB activity, this signals that:
- The patent may be newly asserted, and you are among the first targets.
- Potential challengers have not yet identified prior art they believe is strong enough to prevail in an IPR.
The absence of a challenge is not evidence of patent strength. A defendant should proceed with a full validity analysis to determine whether filing the first IPR against this patent is a viable defensive strategy.
Generated 5/12/2026, 6:45:43 AM