PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

As of May 15, 2026, there is one active ex parte reexamination proceeding on file for U.S. Patent No. 9,766,801. There are no Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) trial proceedings found for this patent. This indicates that while the patent's validity is currently being re-evaluated by the USPTO, no claims have been invalidated or sustained through an AIA trial, and no institution decisions have been denied in such trials.

Ex Parte Reexamination Control No. 90/019,951 (estimated number based on filing date) — Unified Patents v. AutoNavigare LLC

• Type: Ex Parte Reexamination
• Filed: 2026-04-18
• Status: Active. Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination proceeding against U.S. Patent 9,766,801 on April 18, 2026. The proceeding is in its initial stages, awaiting a determination by the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) as to whether a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) is raised.
• Judge panel: Not applicable, as ex parte reexaminations are handled by the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) at the USPTO, not a PTAB judge panel.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims challenged and prior art asserted are not detailed in the public news release, but the reexamination targets "controlling applications on a mobile device, such as a mobile phone, using an in-vehicle control system."
• Institution decision: Not yet issued. The USPTO will first determine if a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) is raised, which then leads to the issuance of an Office Action.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not yet issued.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as this is an ex parte proceeding initiated by a third party (Unified Patents) with the USPTO, not an inter partes dispute between two parties.
• Appeal: Not applicable at this stage.
• Defensive value: This active reexamination introduces a level of uncertainty regarding the patent's validity. While no claims have been invalidated yet, a successful reexamination could lead to the cancellation or narrowing of claims, which would significantly weaken any assertion built upon those claims. For a defendant, this proceeding offers a potential avenue for claim invalidation initiated by a third party, without direct involvement in the reexamination process unless permitted as a limited participant.

Strategic summary

U.S. Patent No. 9,766,801 currently has no AIA trial proceedings (IPR, PGR, CBM) on record. This means that none of its claims have been subjected to the rigorous challenge process of an IPR, PGR, or CBM trial at the PTAB, and therefore, no claims have been canceled or formally sustained through such proceedings. All claims of the patent remain legally "untested" by AIA trial standards.

However, a new ex parte reexamination (Control No. 90/019,951) was filed by Unified Patents on April 18, 2026, and is currently active. This is a significant development, as reexaminations provide an administrative avenue for the USPTO to reconsider the patentability of claims in light of new prior art. Unified Patents' involvement, as a defensive aggregator, often signals a strategic move to challenge patents asserted against its members.

The absence of prior AIA trial activity means that there is no estoppel landscape from IPRs, PGRs, or CBMs under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for any potential petitioner. All prior-art grounds, including those that could have been raised in an IPR, are technically still available for a new IPR petition, subject to statutory deadlines. The current reexamination's scope is typically limited to printed publications and patents.

Recommended next steps

Given the current status:

• Monitor the ex parte reexamination (Control No. 90/019,951) closely. Pay attention to the USPTO's decision on whether a substantial new question of patentability is raised, and any subsequent Office Actions. The progress and outcome of this reexamination will directly impact the validity of the patent's claims.
• Evaluate potential IPR filings. Although an ex parte reexamination is underway, a defendant facing assertion of this patent may still consider filing an IPR, particularly if additional prior art is available or if the reexamination does not adequately address all validity concerns. The current reexamination process does not preclude IPR filings, though timing and strategy would need careful consideration.