Patent 5758328
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.
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
As of July 4, 2026, there are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) on file for US Patent 5,758,328 in the USPTO Open Data Portal. Web searches for PTAB activity also did not surface any such proceedings. This indicates that the patent has not been subjected to validity challenges through the AIA trial process at the PTAB.
Since no PTAB proceedings have been found for US Patent 5,758,328, there are no specific proceedings to detail.
Strategic summary
Currently, all claims of US Patent 5,758,328 remain untested by AIA trial proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The absence of PTAB challenges means there is no estoppel against potential petitioners or defendants under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for any specific prior art grounds that could have been raised in an IPR, PGR, or CBM.
This situation suggests that either the patent owner has not aggressively asserted the patent in contexts that typically trigger PTAB challenges, or, given the patent's expiration in 2016, potential challengers deemed PTAB proceedings less worthwhile or timely. Without any PTAB history, there are no patterns of petitioner activity, patent owner's appeal strategies, or involvement of defensive aggregators to observe.
Recommended next steps
Given the absence of PTAB proceedings for US Patent 5,758,328, a defendant facing assertion of this patent has a clear path to consider initiating an AIA trial if the assertion warrants it, without concern for existing estoppel. However, it is important to note that the patent expired on February 22, 2016. IPRs can only be filed against unexpired patents, or patents where a civil action alleging infringement was filed before the patent expired. CBM reviews have specific requirements, including that the patent must be a "covered business method patent" and that a civil action alleging infringement must have been filed. Post-Grant Review (PGR) applies to patents that issued from applications filed on or after March 16, 2013, which is not the case for US5758328 (filed 1996-02-22). Therefore, the utility of a new PTAB challenge for this expired patent would be limited and highly dependent on the specific circumstances of any ongoing litigation or assertion.
Generated 7/4/2026, 12:45:47 AM