Patent 8457145
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: Samesurf, Inc.
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.
The USPTO ODP API indicates no AIA trial proceedings on file for US patent 8457145 as of the most recent ingest. A thorough web search for Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs), Post-Grant Reviews (PGRs), or Covered Business Method (CBM) reviews specifically naming US patent 8457145 also did not yield any PTAB proceeding numbers or associated details. Therefore, there is no PTAB activity on file for this patent.
Proceedings overview
There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US patent 8457145. This means the patent has not been challenged through IPR, PGR, or CBM trials at the PTAB.
Strategic summary
As of today, no claims of US patent 8457145 have been canceled or sustained through AIA trial proceedings. All claims remain untested by the PTAB. This means that a defendant facing assertion of this patent today would have all prior-art grounds available to them for a potential IPR challenge, assuming they meet the statutory requirements (e.g., timeliness, real party in interest). The absence of PTAB activity for a patent that has been involved in significant district court litigation (e.g., against Apple, as noted in the provided litigation summary and search results) is noteworthy, as many asserted patents eventually face PTAB challenges.
Recommended next steps
Since there is no PTAB activity, the following steps are recommended:
- For a potential defendant: Conduct a thorough prior art search for US patent 8457145 to identify potential invalidity grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This patent has been litigated, and while Apple reportedly did not appeal the validity findings over prior art in district court, this does not preclude a new PTAB challenge from a different party. Evaluate the strength of these grounds for filing an IPR petition.
- Monitor for future filings: Keep an active watch on the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End (E2E) system for any newly filed petitions against US8457145, particularly if new litigation arises.
- Analyze district court litigation: Review the outcomes of the reported district court cases involving this patent (e.g., Wi-LAN Inc v. Apple Inc., case number 3:14-cv-02235, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California). While these are not PTAB proceedings, they can provide insight into claim construction, infringement theories, and validity arguments that have been raised or implicitly conceded in federal court.
Generated 5/29/2026, 8:55:20 PM