PTAB challenges

Despite extensive efforts, including direct searches on the USPTO Patent Public Search system and Google Patents, the official patent document for U.S. Design Patent D933,333, including its claims and specification, remains unobtainable through public databases as of May 30, 2026. This aligns with the previous patent summary's conclusion that the document could not be located. While a known litigation case (Hexin Holding Limited v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Case Number: 1:26-cv-04387) confirms the patent's existence and assertion, the full text and drawings necessary for a detailed analysis of its design claims are not publicly accessible.

Therefore, without access to the actual claim language of D933,333, a detailed analysis of claim-level outcomes from any potential PTAB proceedings, or the impact of such proceedings on specific claims, cannot be performed.

PTAB proceedings on file

The USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) API currently returns no AIA trial proceedings for U.S. Design Patent D933,333 as of its most recent ingest. Independent web searches for "PTAB D933333", "IPR D933333", and "PGR D933333" also yielded no results indicating any filed or concluded AIA trial proceedings for this patent.

Proceedings overview

There are no known AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review) on file for U.S. Design Patent D933,333. Consequently, there is no PTAB-driven defensive posture established for a defendant.

Strategic summary

As there are no PTAB proceedings on file for U.S. Design Patent D933,333, all claims of the patent are currently untested by the PTAB. There are no claims that have been canceled or sustained through IPR, PGR, or CBM trials. The estoppel landscape is entirely open, meaning any potential petitioner would not be barred from raising any ground of invalidity that they raised or reasonably could have raised, as no prior PTAB trial has occurred. The absence of PTAB activity provides no signals regarding petitioner patterns, patent owner defense strategies, or involvement of defensive aggregators.

Recommended next steps

Given the absence of PTAB activity, the recommended next steps for a defendant facing assertion of U.S. Design Patent D933,333 are as follows:

• Attempt to locate the patent document: The first and most critical step is to obtain the actual patent document for D933,333, including its claim and drawings. Without this, a thorough assessment of any alleged infringement and potential invalidity arguments is severely hampered. It is possible the patent is very recently issued and has not yet been fully indexed across all public search systems, or there might be an issue with the patent number itself.
• Conduct a prior art search: Since the patent claims are currently untested, a comprehensive prior art search should be conducted to identify potential invalidity grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 against the design patent's claims.
• Consider a PTAB petition: If a strong prior art case is identified, an AIA trial petition (likely an IPR for a design patent, though PGR could be an option if filed within nine months of issuance) could be a viable defensive strategy. The absence of prior PTAB challenges means the path is clear for a new petitioner.
• Monitor PTAB dockets: Continuously monitor the USPTO PTAB E2E system and other public patent databases for any newly filed proceedings against D933,333, as the existence of active litigation often prompts defensive PTAB filings.
• Review litigation documents: Examine the publicly available litigation documents for Hexin Holding Limited v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (Case Number: 1:26-cv-04387) for any mention of the patent's specific design features, effective filing date, or other details that might shed light on its scope or the asserted infringement.