Patent 9529918
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: HyperQuery 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 (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method reviews) on file for US Patent 9,529,918 as of today, 2026-05-29.
Strategic summary
While there are no AIA trial proceedings against US Patent 9,529,918, Unified Patents initiated an ex parte reexamination proceeding on November 5, 2024, finding substantial new questions of patentability on all challenged claims as of December 17, 2024. This administrative challenge, though not an AIA trial, indicates that the patent's validity is actively being contested before the USPTO. The outcome of this reexamination could significantly impact the enforceability of all claims of US9529918. For a defendant, the "no PTAB activity" implies that the claims have not yet been tested in an IPR, PGR, or CBM setting, meaning a new AIA petition might still be a viable defensive strategy, should new prior art be identified or new arguments formulated.
Recommended next steps
- Monitor Ex Parte Reexamination: Closely monitor the ongoing ex parte reexamination initiated by Unified Patents. The findings of "substantial new questions of patentability on all challenged claims" are a strong signal that the patent's validity is in question. The specific prior art cited in the reexamination (e.g., US 8392282, US 20110307354, and US 20050022182) should be thoroughly analyzed for its applicability to a defendant's specific product or service.
- Evaluate for New AIA Trial Petition: Given the absence of prior IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings, a defendant could consider filing their own AIA trial petition (IPR/PGR) if relevant prior art is discovered that was not considered during initial prosecution or the current ex parte reexamination. This would provide an independent challenge avenue.
- Leverage Reexamination in Litigation: If litigation is ongoing, the fact that "substantial new questions of patentability on all challenged claims" have been found in the ex parte reexamination can be a powerful tool for stays, claim construction leverage, and settlement negotiations.
The USPTO Patent Center for US9529918 should be consulted for the latest documents and status of the ex parte reexamination.
Generated 5/29/2026, 9:01:17 PM