Patent 5132992
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.
Based on the patent's expiration date and a review of available data, here is the analysis of AIA trial proceedings for US patent 5,132,992.
Proceedings overview
There are zero AIA trial proceedings (IPR, PGR, or CBM) on file for US patent 5,132,992 because the patent expired on January 7, 2011, more than a year before the America Invents Act (AIA) established the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and its trial proceedings on September 16, 2012. This means the patent's validity was never challenged in a PTAB forum, and for a defendant facing an assertion today, the patent is unenforceable due to its expiration.
Strategic summary
Claim Status: UNTESTED (at PTAB) and EXPIRED. None of the claims of US patent 5,132,992 were ever subjected to an AIA trial. Their validity was challenged in the numerous district court litigations that occurred between 2004 and 2010. However, the patent has expired and is no longer in force. All claims, regardless of their validity, are now in the public domain.
Estoppel Landscape: As no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings were ever filed against this patent, no statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) or § 325(e) exists.
Pattern Signals: The absence of PTAB proceedings is not a signal of the patent's strength or weakness. It is a direct and necessary consequence of the patent's expiration date predating the existence of the PTAB. The extensive district court litigation history prior to expiration is the more relevant signal, indicating it was heavily asserted by its owner, Acacia Media Technologies Corp.
Recommended next steps
For any defendant receiving a demand letter citing US patent 5,132,992 in the year 2026, the response is straightforward:
No PTAB proceedings exist for this patent. It was legally impossible to file an IPR, PGR, or CBM petition against this patent, as it expired on 2011-01-07, before the PTAB's trial system was created.
The patent is expired and unenforceable. Any attempt to assert this patent for infringement occurring after its expiration date is baseless. A communication asserting this patent should be treated as potentially frivolous, and a response should highlight that the patent is long expired and has no force or effect.
Generated 5/11/2026, 12:03:36 AM