Patent 7426633
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
There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 7426633 according to the USPTO Open Data Portal API as of the most recent ingest. A comprehensive web search also did not reveal any active or concluded Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings against this patent. This gives a defendant a strong defensive posture in terms of PTAB-related estoppel, as all prior art grounds remain available for challenge.
Strategic summary
As there are no PTAB proceedings on file for US7426633, all claims (claims 1-24) remain untested by AIA trial challenges. This means that, from a PTAB perspective, the patent's claims are currently unhardened and have not been subjected to the scrutiny of an IPR, PGR, or CBM.
The absence of PTAB activity implies that any potential petitioner (or defendant facing assertion) would have full flexibility in choosing prior art grounds to challenge the patent's validity, as there are no estoppel bars under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from prior PTAB decisions. This contrasts sharply with patents that have survived multiple IPRs, where subsequent challenges are often significantly more difficult due to estoppel.
The current assignee, Flash Uplink LLC, acquired the patent in March 2024. The presence of litigation filings in the Texas Eastern District Court (case numbers 2:26-cv-00085 and 2:26-cv-00072) suggests that the patent is currently being asserted. Given the patent's active status and ongoing litigation, the absence of PTAB challenges might indicate either recent assertion efforts (not enough time for IPRs to be filed) or that potential challengers have opted for district court invalidity defenses instead. However, for a newly asserted patent, the lack of PTAB history presents an open field for a defendant considering an IPR.
Recommended next steps
Given that there are no PTAB proceedings on file for US7426633:
- For a defendant currently being asserted against: If considering a validity challenge, an Inter Partes Review (IPR) remains a fully open and viable option. All claims (1-24) are untested, and there are no prior institution decisions or final written decisions to navigate for estoppel or panel reasoning. This allows for a fresh challenge presenting any strong prior art grounds.
- The absence of PTAB activity is a notable signal. Well-asserted patents often attract IPRs. The current litigation in the Texas Eastern District Court (filed in 2026) indicates the patent is actively being asserted. This could mean that potential IPR filings are imminent, or that defendants are opting for other strategies.
- Monitor for new filings: Given the active litigation, it would be prudent to monitor the USPTO's PTAB E2E system for any newly filed petitions related to US7426633.
Generated 6/19/2026, 6:45:40 PM