Patent 8805728
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
The USPTO ODP API indicates no AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 8,805,728. This means there are no records of Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs), Post-Grant Reviews (PGRs), or Covered Business Method (CBM) reviews for this patent. Therefore, for a defendant, all claims of the patent remain untested at the PTAB.
Strategic summary
As there are no PTAB proceedings on file for US Patent 8,805,728, all claims of the patent are UNTESTED at the PTAB. This means that no claims have been canceled or sustained through an AIA trial process.
Since there are no PTAB proceedings, there is no estoppel landscape under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for this specific patent. All prior-art grounds, including those discussed in the patent's prosecution history (Crandall, Gagnon, Perkowski), are still potentially available for a defendant to assert in district court litigation or in a newly filed PTAB petition.
The absence of PTAB activity is a notable signal. Given that other patents within the same family (e.g., US 6,199,048 and US 8,131,597) have been asserted in litigation by the original assignee, NeoMedia Technologies, Inc., and later by NM LLC, the lack of PTAB challenges against US 8,805,728 suggests that either it has not been heavily asserted in district court, or that potential petitioners have chosen not to challenge it at the PTAB. NeoMedia, the original assignee, was active in licensing and asserting its patent portfolio related to mobile barcode solutions.
Recommended next steps
Since no PTAB activity exists for US Patent 8,805,728, the primary next step for a defendant facing assertion of this patent would be to consider filing an IPR petition. The prior art identified during prosecution (Crandall, Gagnon, and Perkowski) remains a strong basis for an obviousness challenge. A thorough prior art search could also uncover additional references not previously considered by the USPTO examiner.
Generated 5/30/2026, 12:47:01 AM