Patent 9602649
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 (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) on file for U.S. Patent 9,602,649. The USPTO Open Data Portal API returns no such proceedings as of its most recent ingest, and a live web search did not uncover any PTAB cases specifically challenging this patent.
Strategic summary
As of May 29, 2026, all claims (Claims 1-26) of U.S. Patent 9,602,649 remain untested by any AIA trial proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This means that all claims are currently considered sustained in the absence of any invalidation decisions from the PTAB.
The absence of PTAB activity indicates that, to date, no party has successfully challenged the patentability of these claims through an IPR, PGR, or CBM trial. Consequently, there is no PTAB-based estoppel landscape for this patent, and all prior-art grounds, including those previously examined or unexamined, remain theoretically available for a potential future PTAB petition, subject to statutory time bars (e.g., the one-year bar from service of a complaint for IPR).
While Unified Patents is mentioned in the patent's Google Patents entry as having charted prior art against US Patent 9,602,649, this activity has not, as of yet, translated into a filed PTAB petition.
Recommended next steps
If you are a defendant facing an assertion of U.S. Patent 9,602,649, the absence of PTAB proceedings means that the claims have not been subjected to the scrutiny of an AIA trial. This presents both opportunities and risks:
- Opportunity: The claims have not been "hardened" by surviving PTAB challenges. A well-constructed IPR, PGR, or CBM petition could still be a viable defensive strategy, potentially leading to the cancellation of claims or a favorable settlement.
- Risk: Without prior PTAB decisions, there is no existing roadmap regarding the Board's interpretation of the claims or the strength of various prior art combinations. The first petitioner would be blazing a new trail.
It is advisable to conduct a thorough prior art search, beyond what was considered during prosecution, to identify strong grounds for unpatentability, particularly focusing on the differences highlighted in the obviousness analysis. If considering a PTAB challenge, ensure compliance with all statutory requirements, including the one-year time bar if litigation has already commenced.
Generated 5/29/2026, 9:07:01 PM