PTAB challenges

Proceedings Overview

As of the current date, May 29, 2026, a comprehensive search of public records and databases, including the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) search systems and general web searches, indicates that there are no Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) trial proceedings on file for U.S. Patent 9,792,361.

This means that the patent claims have not been challenged in an AIA trial before the PTAB, and therefore, no claims have been invalidated or sustained through these specific mechanisms. The patent's defensive posture for a defendant facing assertion remains largely dependent on its ex parte reexamination status and other factors, as no PTAB trial activity has hardened or narrowed the claims.

Strategic Summary

Currently, all claims of US Patent 9,792,361 are UNTESTED in the context of AIA trial proceedings (IPR, PGR, CBM) before the PTAB. There are no claims that have been formally canceled or sustained by the PTAB in such trials.

Given the absence of AIA trial proceedings, the estoppel landscape under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) is not applicable, as there are no previous IPRs or PGRs to create estoppel bars against petitioners (or their privies). This means that all prior-art grounds that could be raised under § 102 (novelty) or § 103 (obviousness) based on patents or printed publications are still available for a potential future IPR petition. Furthermore, PGRs allow challenges under §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112 (except best mode) and are available for patents that issued from applications filed on or after March 16, 2013, if filed within nine months of grant.

The prior analysis mentions that Unified Patents initiated an ex parte reexamination of US patent 9,792,361 on October 29, 2025. While Unified Patents is known for filing post-grant challenges, including IPRs and reexaminations, the ex parte reexamination is a distinct proceeding from an AIA trial. The outcome of the ex parte reexamination could impact the patentability of the claims but is not an AIA trial proceeding. The lack of IPR/PGR/CBM filings, despite the patent being asserted in district court litigation by Mimzi LLC and Unified Patents' involvement in an ex parte reexamination, is noteworthy.

Recommended Next Steps

• Monitor the Ex Parte Reexamination: While not an AIA trial, the ongoing ex parte reexamination initiated by Unified Patents is a critical development. Defendants should closely monitor the progress and outcome of this reexamination, as it could lead to the amendment or cancellation of claims in US9792361. The status and documents for this reexamination can be found via the USPTO's Patent Center by searching the patent number.
• Consider Initiating an AIA Trial: For a defendant facing assertion, the absence of prior IPR/PGR/CBM proceedings means that initiating one of these trials remains a viable option. A thorough prior art search, beyond what was considered during prosecution and the ex parte reexamination, would be crucial to identify strong grounds for invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103. Given the patent's priority date of July 29, 2008, an IPR would be the appropriate type of AIA trial, as the nine-month window for a PGR has long passed.