Patent 9247299
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
No AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review) for US Patent 9247299 were found on file with the USPTO Open Data Portal as of the most recent ingest. A comprehensive web search for PTAB proceedings related to US9247299 also did not yield any results. Therefore, there is no PTAB activity on this patent.
Strategic summary
As of the current date, US Patent 9247299 has not been subjected to any AIA trial proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This means all claims (claims 1-24) of the patent remain untested and are currently sustained as granted by the USPTO.
The absence of PTAB challenges for this patent implies that no estoppel has been triggered under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). Therefore, a defendant facing assertion of this patent would theoretically have all prior-art grounds available for challenging validity, either in district court litigation or through a newly filed AIA trial proceeding at the PTAB, provided they meet all statutory and regulatory requirements, including time-bars.
The lack of PTAB activity could be interpreted in several ways: the patent may not have been asserted widely enough to attract challenges, or potential petitioners may have evaluated the claims and found IPR/PGR challenges less viable for strategic or technical reasons. However, well-asserted patents often do eventually attract IPRs, especially given the ongoing litigation detailed previously.
Recommended next steps
Since no PTAB activity exists for US9247299, the recommended next steps for a defendant facing assertion of this patent are as follows:
- Evaluate potential PTAB challenges: Conduct a thorough prior art search and claim analysis to determine the viability of filing an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against US9247299. Given the patent's issue date of January 26, 2016, and the priority date of April 2, 2007, an IPR would be the appropriate type of AIA trial, as Post-Grant Review (PGR) is typically only available for patents with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, and only for nine months after grant or reissue.
- Consider grounds for challenge: Focus on grounds of patentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (novelty) and 103 (obviousness) based on patents or printed publications.
- Assess time-bar: Ensure that any potential petitioner is not time-barred from filing an IPR, typically one year from the date of service of a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.
- Coordinate with litigation strategy: Integrate any potential PTAB filing into the broader litigation strategy, considering how an IPR could impact district court proceedings (e.g., potential for a stay).
Generated 5/21/2026, 12:02:27 PM