PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

The USPTO Open Data Portal API indicates no AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 9,123,034 as of the most recent ingest. A supplementary web search also did not reveal any Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs), Post-Grant Reviews (PGRs), or Covered Business Method (CBM) reviews for this patent.

This means that all claims of US9123034 remain untested and legally robust against these specific types of challenges before the PTAB. For a defendant, this implies that the patent has not been subjected to the scrutiny of an AIA trial, and therefore, an IPR-based defense would represent a fresh challenge rather than building on prior outcomes.

Strategic summary

As no PTAB proceedings have been identified for US9123034, all claims (1-32) are currently UNTESTED in this forum. There are no canceled or sustained claims through PTAB trials to report. This means that if a defendant is facing assertion of this patent today, they are not constrained by any estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) regarding prior art grounds that could have been raised in a prior IPR. All prior art grounds are theoretically available for a new petition.

The absence of PTAB activity is notable, especially given the patent's issue date of September 1, 2015, and its involvement in multi-district litigation as part of Neo Wireless, LLC's portfolio. Well-asserted patents often become targets for IPRs from defendants seeking to invalidate claims. The lack of IPRs could suggest that prior art challenges have not been deemed strong enough to pursue in this forum, or that the ongoing litigation has focused on other aspects.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US9123034, there are no prior institution decisions, Final Written Decisions, or appeals to cite. For a defendant considering challenging this patent:

• Conduct a thorough prior art search: Without any prior PTAB challenges, a defendant has a clean slate to identify and present the strongest possible prior art against the patent's claims. This is a critical first step for any potential IPR.
• Evaluate claim construction: Analyze the claims of US9123034 carefully to identify potential indefiniteness issues under § 112 or to pinpoint specific claim limitations that could be addressed by prior art under § 102 or § 103.
• Consider filing an IPR petition: If strong prior art is found, an IPR could be a viable strategy to challenge the patentability of the claims. The initial MDL proceedings mentioned in the litigation summary suggest that the defendants have already started looking into prior art, claim construction, and infringement issues. An IPR could provide a cost-effective alternative or complement to district court litigation for challenging patent validity.