PTAB challenges

Proceedings Overview

As of May 29, 2026, there are no Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) trial proceedings on file with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for U.S. Patent 9,794,797. Therefore, all claims of the patent remain unchallenged in PTAB proceedings. This means that for a defendant facing assertion of this patent, the claims have not been formally tested and potentially narrowed or invalidated through an AIA trial.

Strategic Summary

All claims of U.S. Patent 9,794,797 (the '797 patent) remain UNTESTED in AIA trial proceedings at the PTAB. There are no claims that have been formally canceled or sustained by a PTAB Final Written Decision. This lack of PTAB activity suggests that the patent claims have not yet undergone the rigorous scrutiny of an IPR, PGR, or CBM.

The estoppel landscape is entirely open. Since no PTAB proceedings have been filed, the statutory estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) (which bar petitioners and their privies from raising any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in a prior IPR/PGR) do not apply. This means that a defendant currently being asserted against has the full range of prior-art grounds available for a potential future PTAB petition, without any preclusive effect from prior PTAB decisions.

A notable recent development, however, is that Unified Patents initiated a "PATROLL contest" in February 2026, seeking prior art on at least claim 1 of the '797 patent. This contest, which awarded a $2,000 prize for a successful prior art submission, closed on March 31, 2026, with a winner announced on April 27, 2026. While this is not a PTAB proceeding itself, it indicates that potential petitioners are actively researching prior art for the '797 patent, particularly claim 1, in the context of the ongoing litigation with Hisense USA Corporation. This activity signals a high likelihood that an IPR petition may be filed in the future, especially given Unified Patents' stated mission to challenge patents owned by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) like Cogent Insights Licensing Inc.

Recommended Next Steps

Given the absence of PTAB proceedings for U.S. Patent 9,794,797, a defendant should consider the following:

• Prior Art Research: Actively continue or initiate comprehensive prior art searches. The fact that Unified Patents found winning prior art for claim 1 suggests that strong invalidity arguments may exist. Any such findings would be crucial for a potential IPR petition or for defense in district court litigation.
• Monitor for Future PTAB Filings: Closely monitor the PTAB's E2E system for any newly filed petitions against US 9,794,797. The Unified Patents' contest results increase the probability of a future IPR filing, potentially by Unified Patents itself or another entity.
• Evaluate IPR Strategy: If facing an assertion, thoroughly evaluate the viability of filing an IPR petition against the asserted claims. With no existing PTAB history, the strategic landscape for a petitioner is clear of estoppel issues. The prior art identified by Unified Patents' contest could serve as a starting point for such an evaluation.