Patent 7861260

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: Intent IQ 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

U.S. Patent 7,861,260 has been challenged in six inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Four of these (IPR2024-00421, IPR2024-00422, IPR2025-00128, IPR2025-00129) were terminated by withdrawal or settlement before a Final Written Decision on the merits. The remaining two (IPR2024-00423, IPR2024-00424) were denied institution procedurally. This defensive posture indicates that the patent has not undergone a full merits review at the PTAB, and its claims have not been invalidated by a PTAB Final Written Decision.

IPR2025-00128 — Viant Technology LLC v. Intent IQ, LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: November 1, 2024
  • Status: Terminated (W - Withdrawn/Settled). While the initial prompt indicated a "Final Written Decision" was issued, more specific information from Unified Patents shows a status of "Challenger (W)", indicating that the petition was withdrawn or settled before a Final Written Decision on the merits of patentability was reached.
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available from search results.
  • Petition grounds: Not publicly available from search results.
  • Institution decision: Institution was not reached due to termination.
  • Final Written Decision: Not issued on the merits due to termination.
  • Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated due to withdrawal or settlement. Terms are likely confidential.
  • Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit as no Final Written Decision on the merits was issued.
  • Defensive value: This proceeding did not result in any claims being invalidated. For a defendant, this means the patent claims remain unchallenged by a PTAB merits decision.

IPR2025-00129 — Viant Technology LLC v. Intent IQ, LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: November 1, 2024
  • Status: Terminated (W - Withdrawn/Settled). Similar to IPR2025-00128, the "Challenger (W)" status indicates withdrawal or settlement, not a merits-based Final Written Decision.
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available from search results.
  • Petition grounds: Not publicly available from search results.
  • Institution decision: Institution was not reached due to termination.
  • Final Written Decision: Not issued on the merits due to termination.
  • Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated due to withdrawal or settlement. Terms are likely confidential.
  • Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit as no Final Written Decision on the merits was issued.
  • Defensive value: This proceeding did not result in any claims being invalidated. The patent claims remain unchallenged by a PTAB merits decision.

IPR2024-00421 — FreeWheel Media Inc. v. Intent IQ, LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: March 1, 2024
  • Status: Terminated (W - Withdrawn/Settled).
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available from search results.
  • Petition grounds: Not publicly available from search results.
  • Institution decision: Institution was not reached due to termination.
  • Final Written Decision: Not issued on the merits due to termination.
  • Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated due to withdrawal or settlement. Terms are likely confidential.
  • Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit as no Final Written Decision on the merits was issued.
  • Defensive value: This proceeding did not result in any claims being invalidated, leaving the patent claims undisturbed.

IPR2024-00422 — FreeWheel Media Inc. v. Intent IQ, LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: March 1, 2024
  • Status: Terminated (W - Withdrawn/Settled).
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available from search results.
  • Petition grounds: Not publicly available from search results.
  • Institution decision: Institution was not reached due to termination.
  • Final Written Decision: Not issued on the merits due to termination.
  • Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated due to withdrawal or settlement. Terms are likely confidential.
  • Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit as no Final Written Decision on the merits was issued.
  • Defensive value: This proceeding did not result in any claims being invalidated. The patent claims remain unaffected by this IPR.

IPR2024-00423 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Intent IQ, LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: Likely March 1, 2024 (based on related filings by Unified Patents)
  • Status: Not Instituted - Procedural.
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available from search results.
  • Petition grounds: Not publicly available from search results.
  • Institution decision: Denied institution procedurally. The specific reasoning for the procedural denial is not detailed in public search results, but such denials often involve factors like parallel litigation (Fintiv factors) or the Director's discretion (e.g., "settled expectations").
  • Final Written Decision: Not applicable as institution was denied.
  • Settlement / termination: Terminated due to denial of institution.
  • Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit as institution decisions are generally non-appealable.
  • Defensive value: This IPR did not challenge the validity of the patent claims on the merits, indicating the claims are still considered presumptively valid by the PTAB due to the procedural denial.

IPR2024-00424 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Intent IQ, LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: March 1, 2024
  • Status: Not Instituted - Procedural.
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available from search results.
  • Petition grounds: Not publicly available from search results.
  • Institution decision: Denied institution procedurally. The specific reasoning for the procedural denial is not detailed in public search results, but denials can be influenced by factors such as parallel litigation or other discretionary grounds.
  • Final Written Decision: Not applicable as institution was denied.
  • Settlement / termination: Terminated due to denial of institution.
  • Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit as institution decisions are generally non-appealable.
  • Defensive value: This IPR did not proceed to a merits review, meaning the claims were not challenged for patentability and remain presumptively valid.

Strategic summary

Currently, no claims of U.S. Patent 7,861,260 have been canceled or found unpatentable by the PTAB. All six IPRs filed against the patent either terminated via withdrawal/settlement before a Final Written Decision on the merits (IPR2024-00421, IPR2024-00422, IPR2025-00128, IPR2025-00129) or were denied institution procedurally (IPR2024-00423, IPR2024-00424). This means that all claims of US7861260 that were challenged in these IPRs remain SUSTAINED in the sense that no PTAB decision has found them unpatentable. There are no claims that have been formally CANCELED, and no claims are definitively UNTESTED by a PTAB merits review either, as all proceedings concluded without a merits decision.

The estoppel landscape under § 315(e)(2) for these proceedings is limited. Since no Final Written Decisions on the merits were issued for any of the IPRs, the statutory estoppel that bars petitioners (and their privies) from raising any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in an IPR does not apply. This means that a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent might still be able to raise prior-art grounds that were present in the IPR petitions, should they decide to pursue their own validity challenge in a different forum.

A clear pattern signal is the involvement of defensive aggregator Unified Patents, LLC as a petitioner in two denied IPRs, and their association with FreeWheel Media, Inc., another petitioner. Viant Technology LLC also filed two IPRs that were terminated. The prevalence of settlements/withdrawals suggests that Intent IQ, LLC (the patent owner) is actively engaging with petitioners, possibly through licensing agreements, rather than consistently seeing IPRs through to a full merits decision. The procedural denials for IPR2024-00423 and IPR2024-00424 highlight the PTAB's recent emphasis on discretionary factors (e.g., Fintiv, settled expectations) that can prevent institution even if the merits appear strong.

Recommended next steps

  • Given that no claims of US Patent 7,861,260 have been invalidated by a PTAB Final Written Decision, a defendant facing assertion of this patent would need to prepare for an aggressive defense, as the patent claims have not been weakened by IPRs.
  • If considering filing an IPR, a potential petitioner should carefully analyze the reasons for the procedural denials in IPR2024-00423 and IPR2024-00424. Understanding the discretionary factors applied by the Director and the PTAB is crucial for a successful petition, especially considering the increased scrutiny on institution decisions as of late 2025.
  • The settlements and withdrawals in four of the six IPRs suggest that Intent IQ, LLC may be open to licensing or settlement discussions. This could be a viable alternative to costly and uncertain IPR proceedings or district court litigation.

Generated 5/31/2026, 6:49:46 AM