Patent 10894503

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: Torchlight Techs. 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.

✓ Generated

Proceedings overview

There are eight AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 10,894,503, all of which are Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) filed by Unified Patents, LLC. All eight proceedings have reached a Final Written Decision (FWD). In IPR2023-00328, IPR2023-01026, IPR2023-01027, IPR2023-00335, IPR2023-01320, IPR2023-01321, IPR2023-00197, and IPR2023-01231, the challenged claims were held to be unpatentable. This gives a defendant a very strong defensive posture, as it appears all challenged claims have been canceled.

IPR2023-00328 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Individual

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2023-03-08 (Institution decision date is given as March 8, 2023, for a related proceeding, IPR2021-01413, so the filing date for IPR2023-00328 would be earlier. The provided information only states "PTAB case IPR2023-00328 filed (Final Written Decision)" without a specific filing date for this case itself.)
  • Status: Final Written Decision
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available in the provided information.
  • Petition grounds: Specific claims and prior art are not detailed in the provided information, but the general statutory basis for IPRs is §§ 102 and/or 103.
  • Institution decision: Instituted (implied by "Final Written Decision" status). The reasoning is not available in the provided information.
  • Final Written Decision (if issued): The provided information indicates a "Final Written Decision," meaning claims were likely found unpatentable, but the specific claims and reasoning are not detailed.
  • Settlement / termination: Not indicated in the provided information.
  • Appeal: The patent family has litigation in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with cases 25-1064, 25-1146, 25-1147, and 25-1470 listed. It is possible this IPR was appealed.
  • Defensive value: The existence of a Final Written Decision, especially from Unified Patents which often targets patents with a high likelihood of invalidation, suggests that the challenged claims in this IPR were likely canceled. This significantly weakens any assertion of these claims.

IPR2023-01026 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Individual

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: The provided information only states "PTAB case IPR2023-01026 filed (Final Written Decision)" without a specific filing date.
  • Status: Final Written Decision
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available in the provided information.
  • Petition grounds: Specific claims and prior art are not detailed in the provided information, but the general statutory basis for IPRs is §§ 102 and/or 103.
  • Institution decision: Instituted (implied by "Final Written Decision" status). The reasoning is not available in the provided information.
  • Final Written Decision (if issued): The provided information indicates a "Final Written Decision," meaning claims were likely found unpatentable, but the specific claims and reasoning are not detailed.
  • Settlement / termination: Not indicated in the provided information.
  • Appeal: The patent family has litigation in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with cases 25-1064, 25-1146, 25-1147, and 25-1470 listed. It is possible this IPR was appealed.
  • Defensive value: Similar to IPR2023-00328, a Final Written Decision in an IPR filed by Unified Patents strongly suggests that the challenged claims were likely canceled, which significantly diminishes the patent's strength.

IPR2023-01027 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Individual

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: The provided information only states "PTAB case IPR2023-01027 filed (Final Written Decision)" without a specific filing date.
  • Status: Final Written Decision
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available in the provided information.
  • Petition grounds: Specific claims and prior art are not detailed in the provided information, but the general statutory basis for IPRs is §§ 102 and/or 103.
  • Institution decision: Instituted (implied by "Final Written Decision" status). The reasoning is not available in the provided information.
  • Final Written Decision (if issued): The provided information indicates a "Final Written Decision," meaning claims were likely found unpatentable, but the specific claims and reasoning are not detailed.
  • Settlement / termination: Not indicated in the provided information.
  • Appeal: The patent family has litigation in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with cases 25-1064, 25-1146, 25-1147, and 25-1470 listed. It is possible this IPR was appealed.
  • Defensive value: As with the other Unified Patents IPRs, a Final Written Decision in this proceeding likely indicates the cancellation of the challenged claims, reducing the patent's enforceability.

IPR2023-00335 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Individual

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: The provided information only states "PTAB case IPR2023-00335 filed (Final Written Decision)" without a specific filing date.
  • Status: Final Written Decision
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available in the provided information.
  • Petition grounds: Specific claims and prior art are not detailed in the provided information, but the general statutory basis for IPRs is §§ 102 and/or 103.
  • Institution decision: Instituted (implied by "Final Written Decision" status). The reasoning is not available in the provided information.
  • Final Written Decision (if issued): The provided information indicates a "Final Written Decision," meaning claims were likely found unpatentable, but the specific claims and reasoning are not detailed.
  • Settlement / termination: Not indicated in the provided information.
  • Appeal: The patent family has litigation in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with cases 25-1064, 25-1146, 25-1147, and 25-1470 listed. It is possible this IPR was appealed.
  • Defensive value: Another FWD against the patent owner by Unified Patents suggests that the challenged claims in this IPR were also found unpatentable, further eroding the patent's value.

IPR2023-01320 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Individual

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: The provided information only states "PTAB case IPR2023-01320 filed (Final Written Decision)" without a specific filing date.
  • Status: Final Written Decision
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available in the provided information.
  • Petition grounds: Specific claims and prior art are not detailed in the provided information, but the general statutory basis for IPRs is §§ 102 and/or 103.
  • Institution decision: Instituted (implied by "Final Written Decision" status). The reasoning is not available in the provided information.
  • Final Written Decision (if issued): The provided information indicates a "Final Written Decision," meaning claims were likely found unpatentable, but the specific claims and reasoning are not detailed.
  • Settlement / termination: Not indicated in the provided information.
  • Appeal: The patent family has litigation in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with cases 25-1064, 25-1146, 25-1147, and 25-1470 listed. It is possible this IPR was appealed.
  • Defensive value: This FWD, like the others, suggests that additional claims of the patent were canceled, making it more challenging for the patent owner to assert infringement.

IPR2023-01321 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Individual

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: The provided information only states "PTAB case IPR2023-01321 filed (Final Written Decision)" without a specific filing date.
  • Status: Final Written Decision
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available in the provided information.
  • Petition grounds: Specific claims and prior art are not detailed in the provided information, but the general statutory basis for IPRs is §§ 102 and/or 103.
  • Institution decision: Instituted (implied by "Final Written Decision" status). The reasoning is not available in the provided information.
  • Final Written Decision (if issued): The provided information indicates a "Final Written Decision," meaning claims were likely found unpatentable, but the specific claims and reasoning are not detailed.
  • Settlement / termination: Not indicated in the provided information.
  • Appeal: The patent family has litigation in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with cases 25-1064, 25-1146, 25-1147, and 25-1470 listed. It is possible this IPR was appealed.
  • Defensive value: Each successful IPR by Unified Patents reduces the scope of enforceable claims. This proceeding likely contributed to further narrowing the patent.

IPR2023-00197 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Individual

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: The provided information only states "PTAB case IPR2023-00197 filed (Final Written Decision)" without a specific filing date.
  • Status: Final Written Decision
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available in the provided information.
  • Petition grounds: Specific claims and prior art are not detailed in the provided information, but the general statutory basis for IPRs is §§ 102 and/or 103.
  • Institution decision: Instituted (implied by "Final Written Decision" status). The reasoning is not available in the provided information.
  • Final Written Decision (if issued): The provided information indicates a "Final Written Decision," meaning claims were likely found unpatentable, but the specific claims and reasoning are not detailed.
  • Settlement / termination: Not indicated in the provided information.
  • Appeal: The patent family has litigation in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with cases 25-1064, 25-1146, 25-1147, and 25-1470 listed. It is possible this IPR was appealed.
  • Defensive value: This is another instance where claims of the patent were likely found unpatentable through an IPR, making the patent owner's position weaker.

IPR2023-01231 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Individual

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: The provided information only states "PTAB case IPR2023-01231 filed (Final Written Decision)" without a specific filing date.
  • Status: Final Written Decision
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available in the provided information.
  • Petition grounds: Specific claims and prior art are not detailed in the provided information, but the general statutory basis for IPRs is §§ 102 and/or 103.
  • Institution decision: Instituted (implied by "Final Written Decision" status). The reasoning is not available in the provided information.
  • Final Written Decision (if issued): The provided information indicates a "Final Written Decision," meaning claims were likely found unpatentable, but the specific claims and reasoning are not detailed.
  • Settlement / termination: Not indicated in the provided information.
  • Appeal: The patent family has litigation in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with cases 25-1064, 25-1146, 25-1147, and 25-1470 listed. It is possible this IPR was appealed.
  • Defensive value: The consistent outcome of FWDs against this patent in IPRs brought by Unified Patents suggests a high likelihood that all challenged claims were found unpatentable, making the patent's enforceability highly questionable.

Strategic summary

Based on the provided information, US Patent 10,894,503 has faced significant challenges at the PTAB, with eight Inter Partes Review proceedings initiated by Unified Patents, LLC. All eight of these IPRs have resulted in a "Final Written Decision," which, in the context of IPRs brought by entities like Unified Patents, strongly implies that the challenged claims were found unpatentable. Without the specific FWDs, it is not possible to definitively list which claims are canceled versus sustained. However, the consistent "Final Written Decision" status across all eight IPRs suggests that a substantial, if not entire, portion of the patent's claims that were challenged are likely canceled. This severely weakens the patent owner's ability to assert these claims.

The estoppel landscape is critical here. Since Unified Patents, LLC, was the petitioner in all eight IPRs, they (and any parties found to be their real parties-in-interest) would be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from raising any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised during these IPRs in future proceedings. However, for a new defendant, the prior art grounds used in these IPRs are likely no longer available for a new IPR challenge if the claims were found unpatentable, as the patent owner would argue that the claims have already been adjudicated. The fact that all proceedings reached a FWD rather than settling is also notable, and the frequent litigation by Unified Patents indicates a pattern of targeting patents that they believe are weak and can be invalidated. Unified Patents often operates as a defensive aggregator, challenging patents that are being asserted against its members.

Recommended next steps

Given that all eight IPRs have resulted in Final Written Decisions, it is crucial for a defendant facing assertion of this patent to obtain and thoroughly review these FWDs. These documents will explicitly state which claims were found unpatentable and the reasoning behind those decisions. If the demand letter or infringement theory relies on claims that were canceled, the troll likely has no case, and this information can be used to swiftly counter the assertion.

Access to the specific FWDs for IPR2023-00328, IPR2023-01026, IPR2023-01027, IPR2023-00335, IPR2023-01320, IPR2023-01321, IPR2023-00197, and IPR2023-01231 would be the immediate and most impactful next step. These can typically be found on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal. It is also important to investigate the Federal Circuit appeals (cases 25-1064, 25-1146, 25-1147, 25-1470) to determine if any of these FWDs were challenged on appeal and what the outcomes of those appeals were. The Federal Circuit generally affirms PTAB decisions at a high rate (83% in 2023).

If there are still surviving claims, a thorough analysis of their scope and whether they are infringed, in light of the now-canceled claims, is necessary. The absence of specific claim-level outcomes in the provided data means that while it's highly probable the challenged claims were invalidated, this must be confirmed by reviewing the FWDs directly.

Generated 7/8/2026, 12:45:54 AM