Patent 9133837
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
There are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) on file for US patent 9133837. This means the patent has not been challenged in an AIA trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This gives a defendant a strong defensive posture in terms of PTAB history, as all claims remain untested by this specific challenge mechanism.
Strategic summary
As of May 27, 2026, all claims of US patent 9133837 (claims 1-20) are UNTESTED by any AIA trial proceeding at the PTAB. There are no claims that have been canceled or sustained through IPR, PGR, or CBM trials.
Since no AIA trial proceedings have been initiated against US patent 9133837, the estoppel provisions of § 315(e)(2) are not applicable. This means that any potential petitioner (or their privies) is not barred from raising any prior-art grounds they could have raised in a past IPR. All prior-art grounds remain available for a future challenge.
There are no pattern signals to discern, such as multiple IPRs filed by the same petitioner, aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner, or involvement of defensive aggregators, due to the complete absence of PTAB activity.
Recommended next steps
If a defendant is currently facing assertion of US patent 9133837, the absence of PTAB activity indicates that an IPR petition remains a viable and unexercised defense strategy. It would be advisable to:
- Conduct a thorough prior art search to identify potential grounds for invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, which could form the basis of an IPR petition.
- Evaluate the strength of these potential grounds against the claims of US patent 9133837 to determine the likelihood of institution and ultimately, invalidation.
- Consider the strategic advantages of initiating an IPR, such as the lower burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) compared to district court litigation, and the potential for a quicker resolution.
Generated 5/27/2026, 12:45:38 PM