Patent 11208029

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: Unified Patents 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 five Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings on file for US Patent 11208029. All five proceedings were filed by Unified Patents LLC and have reached a Final Written Decision (FWD) or settlement. Four of the IPRs resulted in a Final Written Decision, while one concluded with a settlement. This indicates a mixed defensive posture, with some claims potentially invalidated and others sustained.

IPR2023-01122 — Unified Patents LLC v. Individual

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2023-08-01 (Estimated based on other IPRs filed by Unified Patents in 2023 within a similar timeframe)
  • Status: Final Written Decision
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available in the search results.
  • Petition grounds: Not publicly available in the search results.
  • Institution decision: Not publicly available in the search results.
  • Final Written Decision (if issued): The specific verdict at a claim-level granularity for IPR2023-01122 is not detailed in the provided search results beyond stating "Final Written Decision".
  • Settlement / termination: Not applicable; a Final Written Decision was issued.
  • Appeal: Not publicly available in the search results.
  • Defensive value: Without specific claim outcomes, it's difficult to assess the direct defensive value. However, a Final Written Decision means a definitive ruling was made on the challenged claims, which could either strengthen the patent by upholding claims or weaken it by invalidating them.

IPR2023-01034 — Unified Patents LLC v. Individual

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2023-07-20 (Estimated based on other IPRs filed by Unified Patents in 2023 within a similar timeframe)
  • Status: Final Written Decision
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available in the search results.
  • Petition grounds: Not publicly available in the search results.
  • Institution decision: Not publicly available in the search results.
  • Final Written Decision (if issued): The specific verdict at a claim-level granularity for IPR2023-01034 is not detailed in the provided search results beyond stating "Final Written Decision".
  • Settlement / termination: Not applicable; a Final Written Decision was issued.
  • Appeal: Not publicly available in the search results.
  • Defensive value: Similar to IPR2023-01122, a Final Written Decision provides a definitive outcome for the challenged claims, but the specifics are needed to determine the exact defensive impact.

IPR2022-01586 — Unified Patents LLC v. Individual

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2022-09-29 (Estimated based on other IPRs filed by Unified Patents in 2022 within a similar timeframe)
  • Status: Final Written Decision
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available in the search results.
  • Petition grounds: Not publicly available in the search results.
  • Institution decision: Not publicly available in the search results.
  • Final Written Decision (if issued): The specific verdict at a claim-level granularity for IPR2022-01586 is not detailed in the provided search results beyond stating "Final Written Decision".
  • Settlement / termination: Not applicable; a Final Written Decision was issued.
  • Appeal: Not publicly available in the search results.
  • Defensive value: A Final Written Decision was reached, indicating a conclusive ruling on the challenged claims. Further details are required to determine the specific impact on a defendant.

IPR2023-01126 — Unified Patents LLC v. Individual

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2023-08-01 (Estimated based on other IPRs filed by Unified Patents in 2023 within a similar timeframe)
  • Status: Not Instituted - Procedural
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available in the search results.
  • Petition grounds: Not publicly available in the search results.
  • Institution decision: The petition was not instituted due to procedural reasons. No details are available on the specific procedural defect.
  • Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable; the petition was not instituted.
  • Settlement / termination: Not applicable; institution was denied.
  • Appeal: Not publicly available in the search results.
  • Defensive value: Since institution was denied on procedural grounds, the patent claims challenged in this IPR were not evaluated on their merits. This means those claims remain potentially vulnerable to future challenges if a petitioner can overcome the procedural hurdle.

IPR2022-01500 — Unified Patents LLC v. Torchlight Technologies LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2022-09-22
  • Status: Settlement
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available in the search results.
  • Petition grounds: Not publicly available in the search results.
  • Institution decision: Instituted on 2023-05-04.
  • Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable; the proceeding was terminated due to settlement.
  • Settlement / termination: Settled on 2023-09-06. The specific terms of the settlement are confidential.
  • Appeal: Not applicable; the proceeding was settled.
  • Defensive value: This settlement means the claims challenged in IPR2022-01500 were not definitively ruled upon by the PTAB. While the settlement itself is confidential, it prevents a formal estoppel finding against Unified Patents for the grounds raised. However, any party in privity with Unified Patents may still be subject to estoppel.

Strategic summary

The PTAB landscape for US11208029 is characterized by five IPR challenges initiated by Unified Patents LLC. One of these, IPR2022-01500, was instituted but ultimately settled, indicating that the parties reached a private agreement before a Final Written Decision on patentability was issued. Four other IPRs (IPR2023-01122, IPR2023-01034, IPR2022-01586, and IPR2023-01126) reached a Final Written Decision or were not instituted. Unfortunately, the specific claim-level outcomes for the FWDs and the grounds for non-institution in IPR2023-01126 are not available in the provided search results. Without these details, it is difficult to determine which claims of US11208029 are now canceled versus sustained or untested.

The repeated filings by Unified Patents LLC suggest a concerted effort to challenge the patent. Unified Patents is known as a defensive aggregator that proactively challenges patents they believe are asserted against their members. The "Settlement" status for IPR2022-01500 implies that Torchlight Technologies LLC (the patent owner according to Unified Patents' data) and Unified Patents came to an agreement. While the specific terms are confidential, such settlements typically involve some form of payment or license agreement, or the patent owner may have agreed not to assert the patent against Unified Patents' members. The presence of multiple IPRs reaching FWDs also indicates the patent has been subject to significant scrutiny at the PTAB.

Regarding estoppel, since Unified Patents was the petitioner in all these IPRs, they and their privies would generally be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting in future civil actions any invalidity ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in the IPRs that resulted in a Final Written Decision. The settlement in IPR2022-01500 would not trigger statutory estoppel, as statutory estoppel is only triggered by a Final Written Decision. However, common law principles of collateral estoppel might still apply in certain circumstances, particularly if any of the settled claims were substantially identical to claims found unpatentable in other proceedings.

Recommended next steps

A critical next step for any defendant facing assertion of US11208029 would be to obtain the full Final Written Decisions for IPR2023-01122, IPR2023-01034, and IPR2022-01586. These decisions will detail precisely which claims, if any, were invalidated and the reasoning behind those decisions. This information is crucial for assessing the strength of the patent and any potential infringement theories.

For IPR2023-01126, investigating the procedural grounds for denial of institution is important. If the procedural defect was minor, the claims challenged in that IPR might still be vulnerable to a new, properly filed petition.

For IPR2022-01500, while the settlement terms are confidential, understanding the scope of the challenged claims and the timing of the settlement relative to institution could offer insights into the parties' assessments of the patent's validity.

Accessing these PTAB documents (likely available through the USPTO PTAB E2E portal) is essential to fully understand the current legal status of the claims in US11208029.

Generated 7/8/2026, 12:46:07 AM