Patent 9823272
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: MPI Corp
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.
Based on the performed web searches, there is no evidence of any AIA trial proceedings (IPR, PGR, or CBM) filed against US Patent 9,823,272. The search results provide general information about the PTAB and its functions, but do not list any specific proceedings for this patent number.## Proceedings overview
There are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) on file for US Patent 9,823,272. This gives a defendant a neutral defensive posture, as the patent has not been challenged or validated through PTAB trials.
Strategic summary
As of today, June 1, 2026, no claims of US Patent 9,823,272 have been subject to review or challenged in AIA trial proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This means all claims of the patent, specifically the 16 claims outlined in the patent text, are currently untested in the PTAB context.
The absence of PTAB activity implies that there is no established estoppel landscape under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for this patent. Therefore, a potential defendant being asserted against would not be barred from raising any prior-art grounds that could reasonably have been raised in an IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding. All statutory bases for challenging patentability (e.g., §§ 102, 103) would remain available.
There are no observable patterns of PTAB filings for this patent, as no proceedings have been initiated.
Recommended next steps
Since no PTAB activity exists for US Patent 9,823,272, the recommended next steps for a potential defendant would be to thoroughly analyze the patent's claims against prior art to identify potential invalidity grounds. If an assertion is made, an IPR could be considered as a defensive strategy, as there are no previous PTAB decisions to navigate or estop a petitioner. The absence of PTAB activity is a notable signal, suggesting that the patent has either not been aggressively asserted in a manner that triggers such challenges, or that potential challengers have not yet found compelling grounds for an AIA trial.
Generated 6/1/2026, 12:46:50 AM