Patent 8717203
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 8717203. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
- District of Delawareterminated Jan 8, 2024Judgment
Defendants: Reduxio Systems, Inc., Fortinet, Panzura, and 1 other
- 17-cv-12499District of Massachusettsterminated 2022-10On appeal
Defendants: Carbonite, Inc. and EVault, Inc.
- 21-2251District of Delaware, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)Dismissal affirmed on appeal
Defendants: Array Networks Inc., Fortinet, Reduxio Systems, Inc., and 2 others
Other patents asserted: 8643513, 7415530, 9054728, 9116908, 9667751
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
As a patent attorney, I have identified the following known litigation involving US patent 8717203:
1. Realtime Data LLC v. Reduxio Systems, Inc. (and others)
- Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data LLC
- Defendant(s): Reduxio Systems, Inc., Fortinet, Panzura, Aryaka, and others
- Jurisdiction: District of Delaware, and later appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
- Filing Date: The initial actions against Fortinet and Reduxio were filed in November 2017; against Panzura in August 2018; and against Aryaka in December 2018.
- Outcome/Current Status: The District Court initially declared claims of US patent 8717203 (among others) ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This decision was appealed to the Federal Circuit, which vacated and remanded the case for a more detailed § 101 analysis. On remand, the District Court again found the claims, including those of US patent 8717203, invalid as directed to an abstract idea. Realtime Data LLC appealed this decision again. In August 2023, the CAFC majority affirmed the district court's dismissal, agreeing that the claims were abstract because they "take the availability of compression techniques as a given and address the threshold matter of choosing to use one or more such available techniques.” Realtime Data LLC then filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on January 8, 2024.
2. RealTime Data LLC v. Acronis
- Plaintiff(s): RealTime Data, LLC
- Defendant(s): Acronis
- Jurisdiction: District of Massachusetts
- Filing Date: July 12, 2017
- Outcome/Current Status: This case involved US patent 8717204B2, not explicitly 8717203. However, given the close numbering and the fact that RealTime Data LLC asserts overlapping patent families related to data compression, it is worth noting. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims with prejudice on January 24, 2024, with each side bearing its own costs.
3. Realtime Data, LLC v. Carbonite, Inc. et al.
- Plaintiff(s): Realtime Data, LLC
- Defendant(s): Carbonite, Inc. and EVault, Inc.
- Jurisdiction: Initially filed in the Eastern District of Texas, then transferred to the District of Massachusetts (Case No. 17-cv-12499).
- Filing Date: 2017
- Outcome/Current Status: Realtime Data, LLC sued Carbonite, Inc. and EVault, Inc., accusing them of infringing four patents related to data compression. While US patent 8717203 is not explicitly listed in the provided text for this specific case, it is stated that the litigation involved "four patents related to data compression" and that "the patents had been deemed invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by the District of Delaware." Given the other litigation, it is highly probable that US patent 8717203 was among those asserted. In October 2022, the court granted Carbonite's motion for entry of judgment, dismissing claims related to one patent as moot (deemed unpatentable by the PTAB) and granting judgment on the remaining three patents based on collateral estoppel due to the Delaware decision deeming them invalid under § 101. Realtime filed a notice of appeal in this case as well.
Generated 5/29/2026, 9:01:05 PM