Patent D1101472
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: SharkNinja Sales Co, Sharkninja Operating LLC
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 on file for US patent D1101472 as of 2026-05-30. The USPTO Open Data Portal API indicates no proceedings, and web searches for Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings related to this patent did not yield any results. This means the patent's single claim remains untested by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), leaving its validity unchallenged in this forum.
Strategic summary
As of the current date, US patent D1101472 has not been subjected to any AIA trial proceedings before the PTAB. This means that the ornamental design claimed in the patent's single claim has not been challenged for patentability under §§ 102, 103, or other statutory bases in an IPR, PGR, or CBM context. Consequently, all aspects of the claimed design are currently considered "untested" by the PTAB.
Since no proceedings have been filed, there is no estoppel landscape established under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). Any potential petitioner would be free to raise any valid ground of unpatentability that they could reasonably assert based on prior art consisting of patents or printed publications for an IPR, or broader grounds for a PGR, assuming the timing requirements for such petitions are met.
Recommended next steps
Since no PTAB activity exists for US patent D1101472, the recommended next steps for a defendant facing assertion of this patent would be:
- Conduct a thorough prior art search: A robust prior art search is crucial to identify any designs that could anticipate or render obvious the ornamental design claimed in D1101472. This should focus on visual comparisons to determine if an "ordinary observer" would be deceived.
- Evaluate potential PTAB challenges: If sufficient prior art is found, consider filing a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) if the nine-month window for Post-Grant Review (PGR) has passed, or a PGR if within the statutory window. Given D1101472 is a design patent, only IPR or PGR would generally be applicable, as it's unlikely to qualify as a Covered Business Method patent.
- Monitor for future PTAB filings: Continuously monitor the PTAB's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) for any new filings related to D1101472. The absence of PTAB activity is itself a signal; well-asserted patents often eventually attract IPRs.
Generated 5/30/2026, 6:46:03 AM