Patent 9135418
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: Congruent Media Resourcing 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
There are no AIA trial proceedings currently on file with the USPTO Open Data Portal for US patent 9135418. A comprehensive web search also did not reveal any PTAB (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) activity for this patent as of today, 2026-05-30.
Strategic summary
The absence of any PTAB proceedings means that all claims of US9135418 remain UNTESTED by AIA trials. There is no estoppel landscape from prior PTAB decisions to consider, as no petitions have been filed, instituted, or adjudicated. This patent has not been subjected to the scrutiny of an AIA trial.
Recommended next steps
Since there is no PTAB activity on file for US9135418, a potential defendant facing assertion of this patent would find all prior-art grounds still available to them. The absence of PTAB challenges for a patent granted in 2015 can sometimes be a signal that it has not been heavily asserted, or that prior art challenging its claims has not been readily identified by potential infringers. However, it could also mean the patent has been asserted in contexts where PTAB challenges were not deemed the most effective defensive strategy, or that challenges were contemplated but never filed.
For a defendant, this means:
- Prior Art Search: A thorough prior art search would be a critical first step to identify potential grounds for invalidity, which could then be used in a new PTAB petition (e.g., IPR) or in district court litigation.
- Evaluating PTAB vs. District Court: The decision to pursue an IPR would depend on the strength of the newly identified prior art and a cost-benefit analysis compared to district court litigation.
- Statutory Deadline: If an IPR is considered, the one-year statutory deadline for filing from the date of service of a complaint in district court would be a key consideration.
Generated 5/30/2026, 12:45:22 PM