Patent 9253616
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
As of today, 2026-06-03, there are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review) on file for US Patent 9,253,616 based on the USPTO Open Data Portal and subsequent web searches. This means all claims of US9253616 remain untested by PTAB challenges.
Strategic summary
Currently, all claims of US9253616 are UNTESTED by any AIA trial proceedings. This implies that no claims have been canceled or sustained by the PTAB.
Since no PTAB proceedings have been instituted, there is no estoppel landscape under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for any potential petitioner or its privies. All prior-art grounds remain available for a future PTAB petition, should one be filed. There are no patterns of filings or appeals to analyze at this time.
Recommended next steps
If you are a defendant facing an assertion of US9253616 today, the absence of PTAB activity means the patent claims have not been subjected to the scrutiny of an AIA trial. This can be a double-edged sword: there's no prior PTAB decision to leverage for invalidity, but also no estoppel for a new challenge.
Consider conducting a robust prior art search to assess the validity of the claims, particularly in light of the patent's priority date of 2005-04-04. If strong prior art is found, initiating an IPR (or potentially PGR, depending on the earliest priority date and filing date of the patent) could be a viable defensive strategy. The statutory 1-year trial deadline from institution means an IPR can provide a relatively quick resolution compared to district court litigation.
Generated 6/3/2026, 6:46:07 PM