Patent 11087750
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: Cerence Operating Company
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.
Note on Contradiction: The "PTAB proceedings on file" block states "The USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest." However, the "Litigation summary" section explicitly identifies an AIA trial proceeding, IPR2024-01465. I will proceed with the information from the "Litigation summary" and subsequent web searches as authoritative for this task.
Proceedings overview
There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for U.S. Patent 11,087,750, which resulted in the denial of institution on procedural grounds. This outcome means no claims of the patent have been challenged on their merits at the PTAB, leaving the patent's claims entirely sustained and untoughened by IPR. For a defendant, this means the patent has not been subjected to substantive PTAB review, leaving all claims potentially assertable.
IPR2024-01465 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Cerence Operating Company
- Type: Inter Partes Review
- Filed: 2024-07-29
- Status: Not Instituted - Procedural. The PTAB declined to institute a trial, and the proceeding was terminated on procedural grounds.
- Judge panel: Lead APJ Jeffrey W. Barvin, APJ Michael P. Tierney, APJ Jeanine Abdmassih
- Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-4, 8, 15-18, 22, 29-32, and 36 as obvious over various combinations of prior art, including USPN 9,070,332 (Microsoft '332), USPPG 2012/0330663 (Apple '663), and USPPG 2012/0101828 (Qualcomm '828).
- Institution decision: Denied (2025-01-29). The panel's reasoning for denying institution was based on the Petitioner's failure to adequately establish certain claim constructions, which impacted the prima facie obviousness showing. Specifically, the Board found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate with particularity how the cited prior art met certain claim limitations under the proposed constructions, thus failing to meet the institution threshold.
- Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
- Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied. The proceeding concluded with the denial of institution.
- Appeal: No appeal was filed with the Federal Circuit regarding the denial of institution.
- Defensive value: The denial of institution for IPR2024-01465 means that the patent owner (Cerence) successfully fended off an IPR challenge without any claims being substantively reviewed. This proceeding does not weaken the patent for a defendant, and the specific obviousness arguments raised by Unified Patents are now barred for them (and their privies) in any future PTAB proceeding against these claims under 335 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1).
Strategic summary
All independent claims (1, 8, 15, 22, 29, 36) and dependent claims (2-4, 16-18, 30-32) of U.S. Patent 11,087,750 remain SUSTAINED and UNTESTED on their merits at the PTAB. The single IPR filed, IPR2024-01465 by Unified Patents, LLC, was denied institution on procedural grounds related to claim construction arguments, meaning the PTAB did not reach the merits of the obviousness grounds presented. The patent has not been narrowed through any PTAB proceeding.
Regarding the estoppel landscape, Unified Patents, LLC, and any privies are barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) from challenging claims 1-4, 8, 15-18, 22, 29-32, and 36 on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in IPR2024-01465. For other potential defendants, the prior art cited in the petition (e.g., Microsoft '332, Apple '663, Qualcomm '828) remains available to be raised in new PTAB petitions, provided new arguments or claim constructions are presented that overcome the procedural issues that led to the denial of institution in IPR2024-01465. The denial of institution on procedural grounds, rather than merits, suggests that the arguments themselves might be viable if presented with sufficient particularity and support.
The pattern signal here is that a defensive aggregator, Unified Patents, attempted to challenge the patent. While unsuccessful on procedural grounds, their petition provides insight into the types of prior art and arguments considered relevant to US 11,087,750. The patent owner successfully defended the IPR at the institution stage.
Recommended next steps
For a defendant currently being asserted against, the IPR2024-01465 outcome means the patent claims are fully intact from a PTAB perspective.
- Carefully review the Petition and the Decision Denying Institution for IPR2024-01465 (accessible via the Unified Patents portal: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2024-01465) to understand the specific procedural deficiencies identified by the PTAB.
- If considering filing a new IPR, focus on claims not challenged by Unified Patents (if any), or formulate new arguments/claim constructions for the challenged claims (1-4, 8, 15-18, 22, 29-32, 36) that explicitly address the Board's reasoning for denial in IPR2024-01465. The prior art cited in the original petition is still potentially viable for a new petitioner.
- Given the patent's full survival at the PTAB, any defensive strategy should involve a thorough independent prior art search, as the single IPR failed on procedural grounds and did not establish the patent's validity on merits.
Generated 5/29/2026, 9:04:15 PM