Patent RE48633
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-pro
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.
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.
As a senior PTAB practitioner, my analysis of AIA trial proceedings for US patent RE48633 is as follows.
Proceedings overview
There are zero AIA trial proceedings (IPR, PGR, or CBM) on file for US patent RE48633. For a defendant, this means the patent's validity has not been tested at the PTAB, and its claims remain as originally issued.
No PTAB Proceedings Found
A thorough search of the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) dockets confirms that no inter partes review, post-grant review, or covered business method review has ever been filed against US Patent RE48633.
Strategic summary
The absence of PTAB challenges against RE48633 is a critical data point. All claims of the patent—1 through 20—remain CANCELED: 0, SUSTAINED: 0, and UNTESTED: 20.
Estoppel Landscape: Because no IPRs have been filed, the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) do not apply to any potential petitioner. A defendant facing an assertion of this patent has a full suite of prior-art-based invalidity arguments available for a potential IPR petition. All grounds that could be raised in an IPR are still on the table.
Pattern Signals: The patent's history is notable. The parent patent, U.S. 8,271,974, faced significant district court litigation where its claims were invalidated under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to an abstract idea. RE48633 is a reissue of that patent, and reissues are often undertaken to correct errors and strengthen a patent. Despite this history and very recent district court assertions by "ContentNexus LLC" in April 2026, no entity has yet challenged the reissued patent at the PTAB. This could suggest that defendants are choosing to fight in district court, perhaps on § 101 grounds which have been historically successful for this patent family, rather than filing an IPR focused on prior art under § 102 or § 103.
Recommended next steps
For a defendant currently facing an assertion of US Patent RE48633:
Confirm No Proceedings: The primary finding is that no PTAB proceedings exist for this patent. This is a significant finding in itself, as it means the patent has not been "hardened" by surviving an IPR challenge.
Evaluate IPR as a Defensive Tool: Given the complete absence of PTAB activity, filing an IPR is a viable defensive strategy. A defendant would be the first to challenge the patent's validity before the PTAB, allowing the use of any prior art or arguments that could have been reasonably raised. The litigation history of the parent patent family suggests a focus on § 101 invalidity in district court has been a successful strategy, which may explain the lack of IPR filings to date. However, an IPR focused on strong prior art under § 102/103 could be a powerful and cost-effective alternative or complement to a district court defense.
Monitor for New Filings: Given the recent litigation filed in April 2026, it is highly probable that a defendant in those or future cases may file an IPR. Any entity facing a demand letter should continuously monitor the PTAB docket for new filings against RE48633, as a proceeding initiated by another party could impact defensive strategy and timing.
Generated 5/13/2026, 1:20:08 AM