Patent 12452192
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: Umbra Technologies Ltd.
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
There are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) on file for US Patent 12,452,192 as of the current date. This means the patent's claims have not been challenged in an AIA trial at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), providing a defendant with no pre-adjudicated invalidity findings from the PTAB.
Strategic summary
As of May 29, 2026, all claims (1-15) of US Patent 12,452,192 remain untested in AIA trial proceedings at the PTAB. There have been no IPRs, PGRs, or CBMs filed or concluded against this patent. This implies that the patent owner, Umbra Technologies Ltd., has not yet had to defend the patentability of its claims before the PTAB in these specific types of challenges.
The absence of AIA trial proceedings means there is no estoppel landscape established by the PTAB for this patent under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). Therefore, a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent is not barred from raising any prior-art grounds in a future PTAB petition, assuming they meet the statutory requirements for filing. The patent is relatively new, having issued on October 21, 2025, which might partially explain the lack of completed AIA trials, though an ex parte reexamination was initiated by Unified Patents on April 27, 2026, in response to litigation. It is important to distinguish this ex parte reexamination from an AIA trial proceeding.
Recommended next steps
Since no PTAB activity in the form of AIA trial proceedings exists for US Patent 12,452,192, a potential defendant has a clear path to initiate such a challenge if they deem it strategically advantageous. The absence of these proceedings can be seen as a signal that the patent's validity, specifically under the more rigorous standards and faster timelines of AIA trials, has yet to be fully vetted.
Given the ongoing litigation (Case No. 2:25-cv-01063) and the ex parte reexamination initiated by Unified Patents, a defendant should closely monitor the progress of these proceedings. While the ex parte reexamination is not an AIA trial, its outcome could impact the patent's claims. A defendant might consider filing an IPR, especially if the grounds identified in the prior art analysis (e.g., US 9,237,492 B2 and US 9,912,636 B2) are strong, as this would provide an independent validity challenge to the district court litigation.
Generated 5/29/2026, 9:07:02 PM