Patent 9371096
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 on file for US Patent 9371096 as of the most recent ingest from the USPTO Open Data Portal. This means there are no active, invalidated, sustained, settled, or institution denied PTAB proceedings directly targeting this patent. Therefore, for a defendant, the patent is currently unhardened by PTAB trials, and all claims remain untested by this administrative review process.
Recommended next steps
Since there is no PTAB activity on file for US9371096, the absence of IPRs or other AIA trial proceedings is a significant signal. While the Google Patents page indicates "Family has litigation," suggesting district court activity, the patent has not yet faced validity challenges before the PTAB. For a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent, this means:
- Opportunity for PTAB Challenge: The patent is "untested" at the PTAB. A defendant could consider filing an IPR petition to challenge the validity of the asserted claims. This approach could be advantageous given the lower burden of proof at the PTAB (preponderance of the evidence) compared to district court (clear and convincing evidence).
- Prior Art Search: A thorough prior art search would be crucial to identify strong grounds for an IPR petition, focusing on anticipation (§ 102) and obviousness (§ 103) arguments.
- Timing Considerations: If district court litigation is already underway, a defendant would need to carefully consider the "Fintiv factors" as applied by the PTAB when deciding whether to institute an IPR, particularly regarding the proximity of any district court trial date. The PTAB may exercise its discretion to deny institution if a district court trial is imminent and overlaps significantly with the IPR.
Generated 7/1/2026, 12:04:09 PM