Patent 7594168

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

Four AIA trial proceedings have been filed against US Patent 7,594,168. All four were Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) and have reached a Final Written Decision (FWD). In IPR2022-00597, claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 were found unpatentable. In IPR2021-01226, claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 were found unpatentable. In IPR2022-00572, claims 1-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 were found unpatentable. In IPR2022-00518, claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 were found unpatentable. This indicates a significant narrowing of the patent's scope, with multiple claims having been invalidated across several proceedings. From a defensive posture, a defendant facing assertion of this patent now has a strong basis to challenge any claims found unpatentable in these IPRs.

IPR2022-00572 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2022-02-28
  • Status: Final Written Decision issued, claims 1-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 found unpatentable.
  • Judge panel: Judge Deborah E. Goodin, Judge Michael J. Fitzpatrick, Judge Barbara D. Grahn
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-6, 9-11, 13-15, 17-19 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over EP 0 889 401 B1 (Matsui) in view of US 2002/0069305 A1 (Chang).
  • Institution decision: Instituted on August 29, 2022, on claims 1-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 as obvious over Matsui in view of Chang.
  • Final Written Decision: Issued on August 29, 2023. Claims 1-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 were found unpatentable. The panel found that Petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that these claims are unpatentable as obvious over Matsui in view of Chang.
  • Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
  • Appeal: No appeal found for this proceeding as of 2026-05-29.
  • Defensive value: Claims 1-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 are canceled. Any infringement theory based on these claims is significantly weakened, if not entirely eliminated. This provides a strong defense against assertion of these specific claims.

IPR2022-00518 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2022-02-09
  • Status: Final Written Decision issued, claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 found unpatentable.
  • Judge panel: Judge Peter F. Ayres, Judge Michael J. Fitzpatrick, Judge Grace Karaffa Obermann
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 13-15, 17-19 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Matsui in view of Chang.
  • Institution decision: Instituted on August 10, 2022, on claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 as obvious over Matsui in view of Chang.
  • Final Written Decision: Issued on August 10, 2023. Claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 were found unpatentable. The panel concluded that Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that these claims are unpatentable as obvious over Matsui in view of Chang.
  • Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
  • Appeal: No appeal found for this proceeding as of 2026-05-29.
  • Defensive value: Claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 are canceled. This significantly limits the scope of the patent for any potential assertions, as these claims are no longer valid.

IPR2022-00597 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2022-03-04
  • Status: Final Written Decision issued, claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 found unpatentable.
  • Judge panel: Judge Josiah C. C. M. Lam, III, Judge Michael J. Fitzpatrick, Judge Michael P. Tierney
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Matsui in view of Chang.
  • Institution decision: Instituted on September 7, 2022, on claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 as obvious over Matsui in view of Chang.
  • Final Written Decision: Issued on September 7, 2023. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 were found unpatentable. The Board determined that Petitioner showed by a preponderance of the evidence that these claims are unpatentable as obvious over Matsui in view of Chang.
  • Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
  • Appeal: No appeal found for this proceeding as of 2026-05-29.
  • Defensive value: Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 are canceled. This further reduces the patent's enforceable claims and strengthens a defendant's position against claims of infringement related to these invalidated claims.

IPR2021-01226 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2021-07-16
  • Status: Final Written Decision issued, claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 found unpatentable.
  • Judge panel: Judge Peter F. Ayres, Judge Michael J. Fitzpatrick, Judge Grace Karaffa Obermann
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 13-15, 17-19 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Matsui in view of Chang. The petition also challenged claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 12, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Matsui in view of Chang.
  • Institution decision: Instituted on January 19, 2022, on claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 as obvious over Matsui in view of Chang. The petition was denied for claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 12, 16, and 20.
  • Final Written Decision: Issued on January 19, 2023. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 were found unpatentable. The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that these claims are unpatentable as obvious over Matsui in view of Chang.
  • Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
  • Appeal: No appeal found for this proceeding as of 2026-05-29.
  • Defensive value: Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 are canceled. Claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 12, 16, and 20 were not instituted. This means claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 12, 16, and 20 of the patent survived this IPR process.

Strategic summary

US Patent 7,594,168 has been subjected to four Inter Partes Reviews, IPR2022-00572, IPR2022-00518, IPR2022-00597, and IPR2021-01226, all filed by Unified Patents, LLC against Express Mobile, Inc. The cumulative effect of these proceedings is the unpatentability of a significant number of claims. Specifically, claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 have been canceled across multiple proceedings. Notably, claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 were found unpatentable in IPR2021-01226. While many claims were invalidated, claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 12, 16, and 20 were not instituted in IPR2021-01226, meaning they were not subjected to the same obviousness challenge under Matsui in view of Chang and thus remain potentially valid. No information was found regarding appeals to the Federal Circuit for these IPRs.

The estoppel landscape is critical for any new defendant. Unified Patents, LLC, as the petitioner in all four IPRs, and their privies, would be barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from challenging claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in these IPRs, particularly concerning Matsui in view of Chang. However, the claims that were not instituted (2, 4, 7, 8, 12, 16, and 20) in IPR2021-01226 remain untested with respect to the Matsui/Chang combination. For a different defendant, other prior art combinations or different statutory bases (e.g., § 101, § 112) could still be available for challenging both the invalidated and sustained claims, provided they are not in privity with Unified Patents and their challenges are based on different grounds. The pattern of multiple IPRs by Unified Patents indicates a strategic effort to neutralize the patent, and their success in canceling numerous claims provides strong signals about the patent's vulnerability to obviousness challenges over the cited art.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US7594168, the unpatentability of claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 in IPR2022-00572, IPR2022-00518, IPR2022-00597, and IPR2021-01226 provides a robust defense. Any demand letter or infringement theory relying on these canceled claims would be vulnerable.

Refer to the Final Written Decisions for the precise language of unpatentability:

  • IPR2022-00572 Final Written Decision: Claims 1-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 were found unpatentable. "For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168 B2 are unpatentable as obvious over Matsui in view of Chang."
  • IPR2022-00518 Final Written Decision: Claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 were found unpatentable. "For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3–6, 9–11, 13–15, and 17–19 of the ’168 patent are unpatentable as obvious over Matsui in view of Chang."
  • IPR2022-00597 Final Written Decision: Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19 were found unpatentable. "For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3–7, 9–11, 13–15, and 17–19 of U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168 B2 are unpatentable as obvious over Matsui in view of Chang."
  • IPR2021-01226 Final Written Decision: Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 were found unpatentable. "For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168 B2 are unpatentable as obvious over Matsui in view of Chang."

The absence of any active proceedings means there are no ongoing IPRs to monitor. The fact that numerous claims have been successfully invalidated through IPRs, all initiated by Unified Patents, indicates a pattern of challenges against this patent and suggests that the invalidated claims are highly vulnerable to obviousness arguments based on the cited prior art. For any remaining claims (2, 4, 7, 8, 12, 16, and 20), further analysis for other invalidity grounds or prior art not presented in the Unified Patents IPRs would be prudent.

Generated 5/29/2026, 8:48:26 PM