Patent 9092428
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: Linfo IP, LLC
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 reports no AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 9092428. A web search for Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings related to US9092428 confirms this, showing no PTAB activity. This means all claims of US9092428 remain untested by AIA trial proceedings, which offers a defendant a wide range of prior-art grounds still available to challenge the patent's validity.
Recommended next steps
Since there is no PTAB activity on file for US9092428, all claims remain untested by AIA trial proceedings. The absence of PTAB challenges for a patent that has been actively litigated (as indicated in the "Litigation summary" section) could be an interesting signal. A defendant facing assertion of this patent should consider initiating an IPR to challenge the patentability of the claims based on prior art. This would be a crucial step in a defensive strategy, as many of the inventor's own prior applications (as detailed in the "Prior art" and "Obviousness" sections) appear highly relevant and could form strong grounds for an IPR petition.
Generated 5/29/2026, 9:00:17 PM