Patent US5768528
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: Gigex, Inc.
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.
The search results provide general information about IPR, PGR, and CBM proceedings but do not specifically mention any PTAB trials for US5768528. I did not find any specific proceeding numbers or details for this patent in the search results. Therefore, I will conclude that there is no PTAB activity on file based on the provided ODP API statement and my web search.## Proceedings overview
As of May 30, 2026, there are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) on file for US Patent US5768528 with the USPTO. This indicates that the patent has not been subjected to these administrative validity challenges.
Strategic summary
There are no recorded PTAB proceedings for US Patent US5768528, meaning all claims (1-40) remain untested by IPR, PGR, or CBM trials at the USPTO. Consequently, there is no estoppel landscape from PTAB decisions to consider. The absence of PTAB activity suggests that potential prior art challenges or legal strategies against this patent have not been pursued through these specific administrative avenues. This also implies that the claims of US5768528 have not been narrowed or found unpatentable in any PTAB trial.
Recommended next steps
Since no PTAB activity exists for US5768528, a defendant facing assertion of this patent today would approach its validity challenge without the benefit or burden of prior PTAB decisions. The absence of PTAB activity is a notable signal; for a patent that has been asserted in litigation (as noted in the "Litigation summary" section), the lack of PTAB challenges might suggest several things, such as strategic choices by litigants or the timing of the patent's expiration (May 24, 2016).
Given the patent's expired status as of May 24, 2016, any current assertion would be for past infringement. If facing assertion, consider:
- Prior Art Search: Conduct a thorough prior art search, building on the "Prior art" and "Obviousness" analyses provided previously, particularly focusing on the PointCast Network and other contemporaneous technologies from before the May 24, 1996, priority date.
- Validity Opinion: Obtain a legal opinion on the patent's validity in light of the identified prior art, especially regarding claims 1, 14, 32, and the error recovery method of claim 38, which was considered the most novel aspect against the PointCast system. The arguments regarding obviousness for claim 38, combining resume capability (e.g., FTP) with CRC for integrity, would be particularly relevant.
- Non-infringement Analysis: Develop a robust non-infringement defense, if applicable, based on the specific wording of the claims and the accused product/service.
Generated 5/30/2026, 12:46:37 AM