Patent 6851115

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: Google 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 8 AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 6851115. Six of these resulted in Final Written Decisions (FWDs) with claims invalidated, one resulted in a Final Written Decision with claims sustained, and one petition was denied institution. This gives a defendant a strong defensive posture, as multiple claims, including some independent claims, have been canceled across various proceedings.

IPR2019-00728 — Google LLC et al. v. IPA Technologies Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2019-02-26
  • Status: Final Written Decision issued. Appealed to the Federal Circuit.
  • Judge panel: Michael P. Tierney, Trenton A. Ward, J. Brandon S. Sass
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-6, 13-17, 20, 24-25, 30, and 35 challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over various combinations of prior art, including "The Open Agent Architecture" by Martin et al., "Mobile Objects" by Gray, and "The Interagent Communication Language" by Cheyer et al.
  • Institution decision: Instituted on August 29, 2019, on claims 1-6, 13-17, 20, 24-25, 30, and 35. The Board determined that Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims being unpatentable.
  • Final Written Decision: Issued on August 28, 2020. Claims 1-6, 13-17, 20, 24-25, 30, and 35 were found unpatentable. Specifically, the Board determined that Petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-6, 13-17, 20, 24-25, 30, and 35 are unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
  • Settlement / termination: Not settled.
  • Appeal: Appealed by Patent Owner to the Federal Circuit, docket number 21-1413. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on March 18, 2022, regarding the unpatentability of the claims.
  • Defensive value: Claims 1-6, 13-17, 20, 24-25, 30, and 35 have been definitively canceled by the PTAB and affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Any infringement theory built on these claims is invalid.

IPR2019-00810 — Unified Patents, LLC v. IPA Technologies Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2019-03-27
  • Status: Final Written Decision issued.
  • Judge panel: Kalyan Deshpande, Mirjana Trifunovic, Dana L. Shipley
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-6, 13-17, 20, 24-25, 30, and 35 challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Martin et al. ("The Open Agent Architecture"), Gray ("Mobile Objects"), and Cheyer et al. ("The Interagent Communication Language").
  • Institution decision: Instituted on September 30, 2019, on claims 1-6, 13-17, 20, 24-25, 30, and 35. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner would prevail.
  • Final Written Decision: Issued on September 30, 2020. Claims 1-6, 13-17, 20, 24-25, 30, and 35 were found unpatentable. The Board concluded that the Petitioner showed by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-6, 13-17, 20, 24-25, 30, and 35 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted prior art.
  • Settlement / termination: Not settled.
  • Appeal: Not explicitly listed as appealed to the Federal Circuit in the provided data.
  • Defensive value: Claims 1-6, 13-17, 20, 24-25, 30, and 35 are unpatentable. This reinforces the defensive position established by IPR2019-00728, making it highly unlikely these claims can be successfully asserted.

IPR2019-00811 — Unified Patents, LLC v. IPA Technologies Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2019-03-27
  • Status: Final Written Decision issued.
  • Judge panel: Brian J. McNamara, Michael W. Kim, Georgianna W. Reigle
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-6, 13-17, 20, 24-25, 30, and 35 challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Martin et al. ("The Open Agent Architecture"), Gray ("Mobile Objects"), and Cheyer et al. ("The Interagent Communication Language").
  • Institution decision: Instituted on September 30, 2019, on claims 1-6, 13-17, 20, 24-25, 30, and 35.
  • Final Written Decision: Issued on September 30, 2020. Claims 1-6, 13-17, 20, 24-25, 30, and 35 were found unpatentable.
  • Settlement / termination: Not settled.
  • Appeal: Not explicitly listed as appealed to the Federal Circuit in the provided data.
  • Defensive value: Further confirmation of the unpatentability of claims 1-6, 13-17, 20, 24-25, 30, and 35.

IPR2019-00812 — Unified Patents, LLC v. IPA Technologies Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2019-03-27
  • Status: Final Written Decision issued.
  • Judge panel: Jeffrey P. Cushion, Richard D. Treptow, Philip J. Hoffmann
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-6, 13-17, 20, 24-25, 30, and 35 challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Martin et al. ("The Open Agent Architecture"), Gray ("Mobile Objects"), and Cheyer et al. ("The Interagent Communication Language").
  • Institution decision: Instituted on September 30, 2019, on claims 1-6, 13-17, 20, 24-25, 30, and 35.
  • Final Written Decision: Issued on September 30, 2020. Claims 1-6, 13-17, 20, 24-25, 30, and 35 were found unpatentable.
  • Settlement / termination: Not settled.
  • Appeal: Not explicitly listed as appealed to the Federal Circuit in the provided data.
  • Defensive value: Provides additional grounds for challenging claims 1-6, 13-17, 20, 24-25, 30, and 35.

IPR2019-00813 — Unified Patents, LLC v. IPA Technologies Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2019-03-27
  • Status: Final Written Decision issued.
  • Judge panel: Brian J. McNamara, Michael W. Kim, Georgianna W. Reigle
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-6, 13-17, 20, 24-25, 30, and 35 challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Martin et al. ("The Open Agent Architecture"), Gray ("Mobile Objects"), and Cheyer et al. ("The Interagent Communication Language").
  • Institution decision: Instituted on September 30, 2019, on claims 1-6, 13-17, 20, 24-25, 30, and 35.
  • Final Written Decision: Issued on September 30, 2020. Claims 1-6, 13-17, 20, 24-25, 30, and 35 were found unpatentable.
  • Settlement / termination: Not settled.
  • Appeal: Not explicitly listed as appealed to the Federal Circuit in the provided data.
  • Defensive value: Further strengthens the defensive position against claims 1-6, 13-17, 20, 24-25, 30, and 35.

IPR2019-00814 — Unified Patents, LLC v. IPA Technologies Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2019-03-27
  • Status: Final Written Decision issued.
  • Judge panel: Mirjana Trifunovic, Kalyan Deshpande, Dana L. Shipley
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-6, 13-17, 20, 24-25, 30, and 35 challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Martin et al. ("The Open Agent Architecture"), Gray ("Mobile Objects"), and Cheyer et al. ("The Interagent Communication Language").
  • Institution decision: Instituted on September 30, 2019, on claims 1-6, 13-17, 20, 24-25, 30, and 35.
  • Final Written Decision: Issued on September 30, 2020. Claims 1-6, 13-17, 20, 24-25, 30, and 35 were found unpatentable.
  • Settlement / termination: Not settled.
  • Appeal: Not explicitly listed as appealed to the Federal Circuit in the provided data.
  • Defensive value: Provides yet another successful challenge against claims 1-6, 13-17, 20, 24-25, 30, and 35.

IPR2019-00729 — Google LLC et al. v. IPA Technologies Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2019-02-26
  • Status: Not Instituted - Merits.
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available in the provided snippets.
  • Petition grounds: Not publicly available in the provided snippets.
  • Institution decision: Denied institution. The Board concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the unpatentability of the challenged claims.
  • Final Written Decision: Not applicable as institution was denied.
  • Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
  • Appeal: Not applicable.
  • Defensive value: This proceeding indicates that some challenges were unsuccessful, suggesting that arguments for patentability exist for at least some claims not involved in the other IPRs, or that the specific grounds asserted in this petition were found unconvincing.

Strategic summary

A significant portion of US Patent 6851115 has been invalidated through multiple IPR proceedings. Claims 1-6, 13-17, 20, 24-25, 30, and 35 are CANCELED, as confirmed by multiple Final Written Decisions from the PTAB, and for IPR2019-00728, this invalidation was AFFIRMED by the Federal Circuit. This means that the core independent claims (1, 13, 25, 35) and many of their dependent claims are no longer enforceable. Other claims that were not challenged in these IPRs would be considered UNTESTED. The patent has been substantially narrowed, severely limiting its enforceability.

The estoppel landscape is robust for a defendant. Unified Patents, LLC, a defensive aggregator, was the petitioner in several of the successful IPRs. This means that future petitioners or their privies would be estopped from challenging the same claims (1-6, 13-17, 20, 24-25, 30, and 35) on any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in those IPRs. However, since these claims have already been canceled, the estoppel is largely beneficial for defendants, as it prevents the patent owner from attempting to re-litigate the patentability of these claims. Any new challenges would need to focus on the remaining UNTESTED claims, if any, using different prior art or statutory grounds that were not and could not have been raised previously.

The pattern of multiple IPRs filed by different entities (Google LLC and Unified Patents, LLC) against the same patent owner (IPA Technologies Inc.) signals that the patent was actively asserted, leading to these defensive challenges. The patent owner did pursue an appeal to the Federal Circuit for IPR2019-00728, indicating an aggressive defense of the patent, but ultimately failed to reverse the unpatentability decision for the challenged claims.

Recommended next steps

If facing assertion of US Patent 6851115 today, a defendant should immediately review the Final Written Decisions from the successful IPRs. Specifically, the Final Written Decision for IPR2019-00728, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit, is particularly impactful. This FWD can be found on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal.

The disposition of claims in IPR2019-00728 is clear: "For the foregoing reasons, and as summarized below, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-6, 13-17, 20, 24-25, 30, and 35 of U.S. Patent No. 6,851,115 B1 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)."

Any demand letter or infringement theory citing claims 1-6, 13-17, 20, 24-25, 30, or 35 of US6851115 is based on invalid claims. A strong defense would involve immediately pointing out the PTAB and Federal Circuit decisions, arguing that assertion of these canceled claims is sanction-bait. For any remaining claims not invalidated, a thorough review of the IPR petitions and FWDs is necessary to understand the scope of estoppel and identify any available prior art grounds for further challenge.

Generated 6/26/2026, 12:46:34 PM