Patent 9043481
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 today, June 10, 2026, there are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 9043481. This means the patent has not been challenged through Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). For a defendant, this signifies that the patent claims have not been subjected to PTAB scrutiny, and therefore, their validity remains untested in this forum.
Strategic summary
The absence of any PTAB proceedings means that all claims of US9043481 (Claims 1-15) are currently untested in an AIA trial. There are no canceled, sustained, or narrowed claims as a result of PTAB challenges.
Regarding the estoppel landscape, since no PTAB proceedings have occurred, there are no estoppel bars under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for any potential petitioner. All prior-art grounds that could be raised under §§ 102 or 103 (for IPR) or any ground of invalidity including §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112 (for PGR or CBM, if applicable) remain available to a challenger.
There is no pattern of PTAB activity to analyze, as no petitions have been filed against this patent. The lack of PTAB challenges for an issued patent, especially one that expired in June 2025, can sometimes indicate that it was not heavily asserted in litigation, or that potential challengers did not find compelling grounds to initiate a review, or simply that the patent owner chose not to enforce it aggressively enough to provoke such actions.
Recommended next steps
Since there is no PTAB activity for US Patent 9043481, a defendant facing assertion of this patent would need to initiate a new PTAB proceeding if they wish to challenge its validity through this avenue. However, given that the patent has expired (on June 8, 2025), the opportunity for new Post-Grant Review (PGR) or Covered Business Method (CBM) reviews is likely closed, as these typically have strict timeframes after patent issuance (9 months for PGR and CBM, with CBM being a temporary program that ended in 2020). While IPRs can be filed later, they are generally initiated within one year of being served with a complaint alleging infringement, and only challenge validity on grounds of novelty or obviousness based on patents or printed publications. The expiration of the patent also means that its value for assertion is significantly diminished, as no new infringement can occur.
Generated 6/10/2026, 6:45:56 PM