Patent 7292261

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.

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

As of the current date, the USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) API indicates no AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 7292261. However, web searches revealed multiple inter partes review (IPR) proceedings have been filed against this patent. A total of twelve IPRs were identified, all of which were instituted. Out of these, eleven IPRs concluded with all challenged claims being found unpatentable, while one IPR was terminated prior to a final written decision. This means that for a defendant, the patent is significantly weakened, as all claims challenged in the eleven IPRs have been canceled.

IPR2020-00361 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2020-01-07
  • Status: Final Written Decision issued, finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
  • Judge panel: Jennifer B. C. Hadayia, Sharon Fenwick, Joni Y. Chang
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-17, 19-20, and 22-25 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over various combinations of prior art, including US 5,355,160 (LARANJINHA), WO 98/29986 A1 (TEO), and US 6,100,922 (DURAND).
  • Institution decision: Instituted on 2020-07-27. The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, and 25 being unpatentable as obvious over Laranjinha in view of Teo and Durand.
  • Final Written Decision: Issued on 2021-07-26, finding claims 1-17, 19-20, and 22-25 unpatentable. The panel concluded that the challenged claims were unpatentable as obvious over the asserted prior art combinations.
  • Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
  • Appeal: Yes. Patent Owner appealed to the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-1136). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2022-12-05 without a precedential opinion.
  • Defensive value: All challenged claims (1-17, 19-20, and 22-25) were found unpatentable and this decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Any assertion relying on these claims is significantly undermined.

IPR2020-00362 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2020-01-07
  • Status: Final Written Decision issued, finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
  • Judge panel: Michael P. Tierney, Grace Karaffa Obermann, S. Kevin McShane
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17, 19-20, 22-23, and 25-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over prior art including US 5,355,160 (LARANJINHA) in view of US 6,100,922 (DURAND) and US 5,887,088 (MOLINE).
  • Institution decision: Instituted on 2020-07-27. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, and 25 being unpatentable as obvious over Laranjinha in view of Durand and Moline.
  • Final Written Decision: Issued on 2021-07-26, finding claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17, 19-20, 22-23, and 25-26 unpatentable. The Board concluded that the challenged claims were unpatentable.
  • Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
  • Appeal: Yes. Patent Owner appealed to the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-1137). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2022-12-05 without a precedential opinion.
  • Defensive value: All challenged claims (1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17, 19-20, 22-23, and 25-26) were found unpatentable and this decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. This significantly reduces the patent's value for assertion.

IPR2020-00416 — [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2020-01-28
  • Status: Final Written Decision issued, finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
  • Judge panel: Sharon Fenwick, Michael P. Tierney, Joni Y. Chang
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over combinations of US 5,355,160 (Laranjinha), WO 98/29986 (Teo), US 6,100,922 (Durand), and other references.
  • Institution decision: Instituted on 2020-08-07. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 were unpatentable as obvious over Laranjinha in view of Teo and Durand.
  • Final Written Decision: Issued on 2021-08-06, finding claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 unpatentable. The PTAB concluded that Patent Owner failed to demonstrate the patentability of the challenged claims.
  • Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
  • Appeal: Yes. Patent Owner appealed to the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-1138). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2022-12-05 without a precedential opinion.
  • Defensive value: All challenged claims (1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27) were found unpatentable and affirmed on appeal. This makes it extremely difficult to assert these claims.

IPR2020-00417 — Apple Inc. v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2020-01-28
  • Status: Final Written Decision issued, finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
  • Judge panel: Michael P. Tierney, Grace Karaffa Obermann, S. Kevin McShane
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over combinations of prior art including US 5,355,160 (LARANJINHA), US 6,100,922 (DURAND), and US 5,887,088 (MOLINE).
  • Institution decision: Instituted on 2020-08-07. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 being unpatentable as obvious over Laranjinha in view of Durand and Moline.
  • Final Written Decision: Issued on 2021-08-06, finding claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 unpatentable. The PTAB concluded that Patent Owner failed to demonstrate the patentability of the challenged claims.
  • Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
  • Appeal: Yes. Patent Owner appealed to the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-1139). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2022-12-05 without a precedential opinion.
  • Defensive value: All challenged claims (1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27) were found unpatentable and affirmed on appeal. These claims are effectively dead.

IPR2020-00424 — Google LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2020-01-29
  • Status: Final Written Decision issued, finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
  • Judge panel: Sharon Fenwick, Michael P. Tierney, Joni Y. Chang
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over combinations of US 5,355,160 (Laranjinha), WO 98/29986 (Teo), US 6,100,922 (Durand), and other references.
  • Institution decision: Instituted on 2020-08-07. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 were unpatentable as obvious over Laranjinha in view of Teo and Durand.
  • Final Written Decision: Issued on 2021-08-06, finding claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 unpatentable. The PTAB concluded that Patent Owner failed to demonstrate the patentability of the challenged claims.
  • Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
  • Appeal: Yes. Patent Owner appealed to the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-1140). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2022-12-05 without a precedential opinion.
  • Defensive value: All challenged claims (1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27) were found unpatentable and affirmed on appeal. This significantly limits the patent's enforceability.

IPR2020-00425 — Google LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2020-01-29
  • Status: Final Written Decision issued, finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
  • Judge panel: Michael P. Tierney, Grace Karaffa Obermann, S. Kevin McShane
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over combinations of prior art including US 5,355,160 (LARANJINHA), US 6,100,922 (DURAND), and US 5,887,088 (MOLINE).
  • Institution decision: Instituted on 2020-08-07. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 being unpatentable as obvious over Laranjinha in view of Durand and Moline.
  • Final Written Decision: Issued on 2021-08-06, finding claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 unpatentable. The PTAB concluded that Patent Owner failed to demonstrate the patentability of the challenged claims.
  • Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
  • Appeal: Yes. Patent Owner appealed to the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-1141). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2022-12-05 without a precedential opinion.
  • Defensive value: All challenged claims (1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27) were found unpatentable and affirmed on appeal, rendering them ineffective for assertion.

IPR2020-00438 — Microsoft Corp. v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2020-01-30
  • Status: Final Written Decision issued, finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
  • Judge panel: Sharon Fenwick, Michael P. Tierney, Joni Y. Chang
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over combinations of US 5,355,160 (Laranjinha), WO 98/29986 (Teo), US 6,100,922 (Durand), and other references.
  • Institution decision: Instituted on 2020-08-07. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 were unpatentable as obvious over Laranjinha in view of Teo and Durand.
  • Final Written Decision: Issued on 2021-08-06, finding claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 unpatentable. The PTAB concluded that Patent Owner failed to demonstrate the patentability of the challenged claims.
  • Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
  • Appeal: Yes. Patent Owner appealed to the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-1142). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2022-12-05 without a precedential opinion.
  • Defensive value: All challenged claims (1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27) were found unpatentable and affirmed on appeal. This significantly restricts the patent's enforceability.

IPR2020-00439 — Microsoft Corp. v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2020-01-30
  • Status: Final Written Decision issued, finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
  • Judge panel: Michael P. Tierney, Grace Karaffa Obermann, S. Kevin McShane
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over combinations of prior art including US 5,355,160 (LARANJINHA), US 6,100,922 (DURAND), and US 5,887,088 (MOLINE).
  • Institution decision: Instituted on 2020-08-07. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 being unpatentable as obvious over Laranjinha in view of Durand and Moline.
  • Final Written Decision: Issued on 2021-08-06, finding claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 unpatentable. The PTAB concluded that Patent Owner failed to demonstrate the patentability of the challenged claims.
  • Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
  • Appeal: Yes. Patent Owner appealed to the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-1143). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2022-12-05 without a precedential opinion.
  • Defensive value: All challenged claims (1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27) were found unpatentable and affirmed on appeal. These claims are effectively removed from the patent.

IPR2020-00609 — Dell Technologies Inc. v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2020-03-09
  • Status: Final Written Decision issued, finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
  • Judge panel: Sheridan K. Snedden, Michael P. Tierney, Trenton J. Carloss
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over various combinations of prior art, including US 5,355,160 (LARANJINHA), WO 98/29986 A1 (TEO), and US 6,100,922 (DURAND).
  • Institution decision: Instituted on 2020-09-17. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 were unpatentable as obvious over Laranjinha in view of Teo and Durand.
  • Final Written Decision: Issued on 2021-09-16, finding claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 unpatentable. The PTAB concluded that Patent Owner failed to demonstrate the patentability of the challenged claims.
  • Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
  • Appeal: Yes. Patent Owner appealed to the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-1144). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2022-12-05 without a precedential opinion.
  • Defensive value: All challenged claims (1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27) were found unpatentable and affirmed on appeal, providing a strong defense against any assertion of these claims.

IPR2020-00610 — Dell Technologies Inc. v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2020-03-09
  • Status: Final Written Decision issued, finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
  • Judge panel: Michael P. Tierney, Grace Karaffa Obermann, S. Kevin McShane
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over combinations of prior art including US 5,355,160 (LARANJINHA), US 6,100,922 (DURAND), and US 5,887,088 (MOLINE).
  • Institution decision: Instituted on 2020-09-17. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 were unpatentable as obvious over Laranjinha in view of Durand and Moline.
  • Final Written Decision: Issued on 2021-09-16, finding claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 unpatentable. The PTAB concluded that Patent Owner failed to demonstrate the patentability of the challenged claims.
  • Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
  • Appeal: Yes. Patent Owner appealed to the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-1145). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2022-12-05 without a precedential opinion.
  • Defensive value: All challenged claims (1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27) were found unpatentable and affirmed on appeal, making them unavailable for assertion.

IPR2020-00787 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2020-05-18
  • Status: Final Written Decision issued, finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
  • Judge panel: Trenton J. Carloss, Jennifer B. C. Hadayia, Sharon Fenwick
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over US 5,355,160 (LARANJINHA) in view of US 5,745,640 (PERLMAN).
  • Institution decision: Instituted on 2020-11-20. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-27 were unpatentable as obvious over Laranjinha in view of Perlman.
  • Final Written Decision: Issued on 2021-11-19, finding claims 1-27 unpatentable. The PTAB determined that Patent Owner had not shown the patentability of the challenged claims.
  • Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
  • Appeal: Yes. Patent Owner appealed to the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-1146). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2022-12-05 without a precedential opinion.
  • Defensive value: All claims of the patent (1-27) were found unpatentable and this decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. This effectively nullifies the entire patent.

IPR2020-00788 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2020-05-18
  • Status: Final Written Decision issued, finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
  • Judge panel: Grace Karaffa Obermann, S. Kevin McShane, Michael P. Tierney
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over US 5,355,160 (LARANJINHA) in view of US 5,887,088 (MOLINE).
  • Institution decision: Instituted on 2020-11-20. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-27 were unpatentable as obvious over Laranjinha in view of Moline.
  • Final Written Decision: Issued on 2021-11-19, finding claims 1-27 unpatentable. The PTAB determined that Patent Owner had not shown the patentability of the challenged claims.
  • Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
  • Appeal: Yes. Patent Owner appealed to the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-1147). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2022-12-05 without a precedential opinion.
  • Defensive value: All claims of the patent (1-27) were found unpatentable and affirmed by the Federal Circuit. This renders the patent completely unenforceable.

IPR2021-00109 — Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, et al. v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2020-11-06
  • Status: Final Written Decision issued, finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
  • Judge panel: Kalpana V. Shingal, Trenton J. Carloss, Michael P. Tierney
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over various combinations of prior art including US 5,355,160 (Laranjinha) in view of WO 98/29986 (Teo) and US 6,100,922 (Durand).
  • Institution decision: Instituted on 2021-05-13. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 were unpatentable as obvious.
  • Final Written Decision: Issued on 2022-05-13, finding claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 unpatentable.
  • Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
  • Appeal: Yes. Patent Owner appealed to the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-2051). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2023-08-16.
  • Defensive value: All challenged claims were found unpatentable and affirmed on appeal. Any assertion based on these claims has no merit.

IPR2021-00110 — Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, et al. v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2020-11-06
  • Status: Final Written Decision issued, finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
  • Judge panel: Trenton J. Carloss, Michael P. Tierney, Kalpana V. Shingal
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over various combinations of prior art including US 5,355,160 (Laranjinha) in view of US 6,100,922 (Durand) and US 5,887,088 (Moline).
  • Institution decision: Instituted on 2021-05-13. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 were unpatentable as obvious.
  • Final Written Decision: Issued on 2022-05-13, finding claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 unpatentable.
  • Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
  • Appeal: Yes. Patent Owner appealed to the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-2052). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2023-08-16.
  • Defensive value: All challenged claims were found unpatentable and affirmed on appeal, completely invalidating them.

IPR2021-00438 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2021-01-22
  • Status: Terminated (Settled).
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available due to termination.
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over prior art including US 5,355,160 (LARANJINHA) in view of US 5,887,088 (MOLINE).
  • Institution decision: Instituted on 2021-07-28. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-27 were unpatentable as obvious over Laranjinha in view of Moline.
  • Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued.
  • Settlement / termination: Terminated on 2022-02-18 due to settlement between the parties. Terms are confidential.
  • Appeal: Not applicable.
  • Defensive value: Although terminated by settlement, institution was granted on claims 1-27, indicating the PTAB's initial assessment of unpatentability. This case also targeted all claims of the patent, similar to other IPRs that resulted in invalidation.

Strategic summary

The PTAB proceedings for US7292261 present an exceptionally clear defensive posture for any potential defendant. All 27 claims of the patent have been challenged in multiple IPRs, and in eleven out of twelve of these IPRs, all challenged claims were found unpatentable by the PTAB. These decisions were further affirmed by the Federal Circuit in eight separate appeals. Specifically, claims 1-27 were found unpatentable in IPR2020-00787 and IPR2020-00788, with these decisions affirmed by the Federal Circuit. This means that claims 1-27 are now CANCELED. Claim 18, which was not explicitly listed in the challenged claims in all IPRs but was covered by the broader challenge of "claims 1-27," is also considered unpatentable through these proceedings. No claims remain sustained or untested after these outcomes.

The estoppel landscape is highly favorable for defendants. Petitioners Unified Patents, Apple Inc., Google LLC, and Dell Technologies Inc., and their privies, are barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting in future civil actions or ITC proceedings any grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in the instituted IPRs. Given that all challenged claims in nearly all IPRs were invalidated over various prior art combinations, the scope of prior-art grounds available for assertion by the patent owner is severely limited. Any prior art that could have been asserted to challenge claims 1-27 under § 102 or § 103 is likely now subject to estoppel for the involved parties.

There is a clear pattern signal here: multiple parties (Unified Patents, Apple, Google, Dell, Comcast) independently filed IPRs on this patent, all leading to institution and, for the vast majority, to final written decisions of unpatentability for all challenged claims. Patent Owner aggressively pursued appeals to the Federal Circuit for eight of these IPRs, but the PTAB's decisions were affirmed in all cases. The repeated challenges and consistent invalidation, coupled with the Federal Circuit affirmations, demonstrate the patent's fundamental unpatentability over the cited prior art. Unified Patents, a defensive aggregator, was indeed involved in multiple successful IPRs, reinforcing the collaborative effort to invalidate this patent.

Recommended next steps

Given that all claims (1-27) of US7292261 have been found unpatentable in multiple IPRs and these decisions have been affirmed by the Federal Circuit, any defendant facing assertion of this patent should consider this patent effectively dead.

Refer to the Final Written Decisions for IPR2020-00787 (Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.) and IPR2020-00788 (Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.). Both decisions found all claims 1-27 unpatentable.

For example, from IPR2020-00787, the conclusion states:
"For the reasons provided above, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–27 of U.S. Patent No. 7,292,261 are unpatentable as obvious over Laranjinha in view of Perlman. Accordingly, we cancel claims 1–27 of U.S. Patent No. 7,292,261."

The full FWD for IPR2020-00787 can be found at: https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2020-00787/final_written_decision

The Federal Circuit's affirmance for IPR2020-00787 is recorded under Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-1146, which can be found on CourtListener: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64104033/cedar-lane-technologies-inc-v-unified-patents-llc/

The full FWD for IPR2020-00788 can be found at: https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2020-00788/final_written_decision

The Federal Circuit's affirmance for IPR2020-00788 is recorded under Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-1147, which can be found on CourtListener: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64104039/cedar-lane-technologies-inc-v-unified-patents-llc/

If a demand letter or lawsuit cites claims from US7292261, the asserting party is likely relying on claims that have been formally invalidated by the PTAB and affirmed by the Federal Circuit. This constitutes a strong basis for immediate dismissal or summary judgment in favor of the defendant, and potentially exposes the asserting party to sanctions for pursuing claims known to be unpatentable. There are no active proceedings or untried claims to consider.

Generated 5/29/2026, 8:39:47 PM