Patent 9198261
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: Vannisi, WANMIKECHUANGUS, Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified ON Schedule A, Feisate, VANEXISSUS, Youshengus, Manbala
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 Open Data Portal currently shows no AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 9,198,261. This indicates that as of the most recent data ingest, no Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings have been formally filed or concluded against this patent at the PTAB.
Strategic summary
Given the absence of PTAB proceedings, all claims (1-19) of US Patent 9,198,261 remain untested by these specific administrative trial processes. This means that a defendant facing assertion of this patent today does not benefit from any claims being invalidated or narrowed through IPR, PGR, or CBM. The patent owner has not had to defend the patentability of its claims before the PTAB in these types of proceedings.
The estoppel landscape is entirely open; since no PTAB trials have occurred, there are no prior art grounds that would be barred from being raised in a future PTAB petition (assuming the defendant is not otherwise estopped, e.g., by prior litigation). The absence of PTAB activity could imply that the patent has not yet been asserted aggressively enough to provoke such challenges, or that potential petitioners have not identified strong enough grounds for an IPR/PGR/CBM, or have chosen other avenues to challenge validity.
Recommended next steps
Since no PTAB activity exists for US Patent 9,198,261, the recommended next steps for a defendant facing assertion would be to:
- Conduct a comprehensive prior art search: Identify potential prior art references that could be used to challenge the patentability of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This is crucial for evaluating the strength of the patent and formulating a defense.
- Evaluate IPR/PGR/CBM options: Based on the prior art search, assess whether there are strong grounds to file an IPR, PGR, or CBM petition against US Patent 9,198,261. An IPR is generally available nine months after patent grant, while a PGR must be filed within nine months of grant or reissue. A CBM review has specific applicability to business method patents.
- Monitor for future PTAB filings: Continuously monitor the USPTO PTAB E2E system and other public dockets for any newly filed IPR, PGR, or CBM petitions against this patent. This will provide early warning of potential challenges and allow for strategic adjustments. The PTAB has a statutory one-year deadline for issuing a final written decision after institution, which can be extended by up to six months for good cause.
Generated 5/30/2026, 8:47:07 AM