Patent 7461353
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Active provider: Google · gemini-2.5-flash
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged through Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review at the USPTO. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs.
Cases on file (3)
Group view →Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 7461353. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
- Kyocera Corp. v. SoftView LLCfiled 2012-10IPR2013-00007Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)terminated Mar 27, 2014affirmed; claims cancelled
Defendants: SoftView LLC
- 23-1005United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuitterminated Jul 26, 2024partially vacated and remanded
Defendants: Apple Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC
- 90/009,994United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)stayed, then reopened; claims amended and initially deemed patentable
Defendants: SoftView LLC
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
US Patent 7461353 has been involved in several litigation proceedings, primarily related to inter partes reviews (IPRs) and subsequent appeals concerning the application of estoppel.
Here's a summary of known litigation:
1. SoftView LLC v. [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) (Federal Circuit)
- Plaintiff(s): SoftView LLC
- Defendant(s): [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.), Motorola Mobility LLC
- Jurisdiction: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- Case Number: 23-1005 (also 2023-1005 and 2023-1007)
- Filing Date: Decided on July 26, 2024 (this is the decision date, not filing date for the appeal)
- Outcome/Current Status: The Federal Circuit partially vacated and remanded the PTAB's decision. The Federal Circuit upheld the validity of 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) and the PTAB's interpretation of "patentably distinct." However, it ruled that the estoppel regulation applies only to new or amended claims being "obtained" and not to previously issued claims. The PTAB's decision was affirmed for the amended claims but vacated for the previously issued claims.
2. Kyocera Corp. v. SoftView LLC (PTAB - Inter Partes Review)
- Plaintiff(s): Kyocera Corp.
- Defendant(s): SoftView LLC
- Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
- Case Number: IPR2013-00007
- Filing Date: Petition for IPR filed in October 2012. Final written decision issued March 27, 2014.
- Outcome/Current Status: The PTAB found 18 of the 319 claims in US Patent 7461353 unpatentable, specifically as obvious. This decision was summarily affirmed by the Federal Circuit in 2015. The IPR certificate was issued on January 12, 2016, canceling the challenged claims.
3. Ex Parte and Inter Partes Reexaminations (USPTO)
- Plaintiff(s): Apple and Motorola Mobility (requested reexaminations)
- Defendant(s): SoftView LLC (patent owner)
- Jurisdiction: United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
- Case Number: Ex parte reexamination No. 90/009,994 (example of one such reexamination)
- Filing Date: Prior to Kyocera's IPR, Apple and Motorola Mobility filed requests for ex parte and inter partes reexaminations.
- Outcome/Current Status: These reexaminations were stayed pending the outcome of the IPR2013-00007. After the IPR, the stays were lifted. In ex parte reexamination, SoftView amended various claims which were initially deemed patentable over prior art. Later, in inter partes reexaminations, the Board rejected all pending claims, including previously issued claims, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) as not "patentably distinct" from those invalidated in the IPR. This PTAB decision was then subject to the Federal Circuit appeal mentioned above (SoftView LLC v. [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.)).
Generated 5/29/2026, 5:43:09 PM