PTAB challenges

The search results do not show any PTAB proceedings (IPR, PGR, CBM) specifically naming US patent 8947962. The search results provided general information about CBM and PGR procedures and examples of other patents involved in PTAB proceedings, but not this specific patent.

Therefore, based on the provided "PTAB proceedings on file" information and the web search, there are no known AIA trial proceedings for US patent 8947962.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) on file for US patent 8947962 as of the current date. This means that all twenty claims of US8947962 remain untested by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), providing no specific defensive posture from PTAB decisions for a defendant.

Strategic summary

As of the current date, US patent 8947962 has not been subjected to any AIA trial proceedings before the PTAB, including Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) review. This implies that all claims (1-20) of the patent are currently UNTESTED at the PTAB. There are no claims that have been canceled or sustained through a PTAB Final Written Decision.

The absence of PTAB activity means there is no estoppel landscape under § 315(e)(2) specific to this patent. A potential defendant facing assertion of this patent would theoretically have all prior-art grounds available for a future PTAB challenge or district court defense, provided they meet the statutory requirements for filing such a petition (e.g., timeliness for PGR, not being time-barred for IPR). There are no pattern signals from PTAB filings, such as repeated challenges by the same petitioner or aggressive appeals by the patent owner, as no proceedings exist. The "Current Assignee" is Signal LLP, which recently acquired the patent from Rambus Inc. . This transfer could be a precursor to increased assertion activity.

Recommended next steps

• Since no PTAB activity exists for US patent 8947962, a defendant facing assertion of this patent would need to conduct their own prior art search and validity analysis to identify potential grounds for a new IPR or PGR petition, if applicable and within the statutory window.
• Given the patent's issue date of February 3, 2015, the nine-month window for filing a Post-Grant Review (PGR) petition has long passed (PGR must be filed within nine months of the patent's issuance). Therefore, an Inter Partes Review (IPR) would be the primary avenue for a PTAB challenge, if valid prior art under §§ 102 or 103 can be identified.
• The patent is active and its anticipated expiration is 2027-12-19. Litigation has been filed in Texas Western and Eastern District Courts in 2026. This indicates active assertion of the patent. The absence of PTAB challenges thus far is noteworthy given its active litigation status, and a comprehensive prior art search would be a critical first step.