Patent 6772229
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: Sampo IP, Inc.
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
A search of the USPTO Open Data Portal and public web sources did not yield any AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review) for U.S. Patent 6,772,229. This means there are no active PTAB proceedings, nor have any claims of this patent been invalidated or sustained through PTAB trials.
Strategic summary
As of May 29, 2026, all claims of U.S. Patent 6,772,229 remain untested by AIA trial proceedings. This indicates that the patent has not been subjected to challenges at the PTAB, which is a common occurrence for patents involved in litigation.
Regarding estoppel, since no IPR or PGR proceedings have been instituted or concluded, there are no statutory estoppel bars under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) that would prevent a defendant from raising any prior-art grounds. All prior art (patents or printed publications for IPR, and any invalidity ground for PGR, including §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112) is theoretically available for use in a new PTAB petition or district court litigation.
The absence of PTAB activity suggests that either the patent has not been heavily asserted in district court litigation, or any past assertions did not lead to PTAB challenges by defendants. Typically, well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs, especially given the lower cost and faster resolution compared to district court litigation.
Recommended next steps
Since no PTAB activity exists for U.S. Patent 6,772,229, a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent should consider evaluating its claims for vulnerability to invalidity challenges under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (using prior art patents and printed publications) through an Inter Partes Review. If the patent were to be considered a "covered business method patent" and meet other criteria, a Covered Business Method review (which can address additional grounds like § 101 and § 112) might also be an option, though the program for new CBM petitions ended on September 16, 2020.
The absence of prior PTAB challenges means that a fresh review of the prior art landscape could offer a significant defensive strategy, without the constraints of estoppel from previous proceedings.
Generated 5/29/2026, 5:59:24 PM