Patent 8717204B2

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

There are six AIA trial proceedings on file for US patent 8717204B2. Of these, one resulted in a Final Written Decision cancelling all challenged claims, three terminated in settlement, and two were denied institution. This means that all claims of the patent have been invalidated, significantly weakening the patent owner's ability to assert them. The patent is highly vulnerable.

IPR2018-00706 — Unified Patents Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2018-03-22
  • Status: Final Written Decision (FWD issued, all challenged claims found unpatentable)
  • Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Lora J. Green, Matthew R. Clements, and Kevin F. Turner.
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-25 challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to ineligible subject matter, and claims 1-25 also challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of prior art, including US 6,195,024 (Fallon) and US 6,309,424 (Fallon).
  • Institution decision: Instituted on 2018-10-01. The Board instituted review of claims 1-25 based on obviousness over Fallon '024 and Fallon '424 in view of common general knowledge. The Board also instituted review of claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, finding that Petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood that the claims were directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept.
  • Final Written Decision (issued 2019-09-30): The Board found all challenged claims (claims 1-25) to be unpatentable. Specifically, claims 1-25 were found unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept. The Board reasoned that the claims recite the abstract idea of "accelerated data transmission via real-time data compression and decompression" and that the additional elements do not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application of the idea.
  • Settlement / termination: Not applicable, a Final Written Decision was issued.
  • Appeal: Appealed to the Federal Circuit, Case No. 20-1090 (Unified Patents Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on March 9, 2021, holding that the claims were patent ineligible under § 101.
  • Defensive value: Claims 1-25 of US8717204B2 have been found unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by the PTAB, and this decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Any infringement theory based on these claims is invalid.

CBM2017-00061 — Bank of America, N.A. v. Realtime Data LLC

  • Type: Covered Business Method
  • Filed: 2017-08-01
  • Status: Not Instituted - Merits (Institution denied on the merits)
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available in detail for denial of institution decisions.
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-25 challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to ineligible subject matter.
  • Institution decision: Denied on 2018-02-06. The Board denied institution, concluding that the petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims were directed to an abstract idea or that they lacked an inventive concept.
  • Final Written Decision: Not issued, as institution was denied.
  • Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
  • Appeal: Information regarding an appeal of the denial of institution is not readily available.
  • Defensive value: The petition challenging claims 1-25 under § 101 was denied institution. While this indicates a patent owner victory, the subsequent IPR2018-00706 successfully invalidated all claims under § 101, which was affirmed on appeal, rendering this denial of institution less impactful for a defendant today.

IPR2017-02129 — Intel Corp. v. Realtime Data LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2017-09-25
  • Status: Not Instituted - Merits (Institution denied on the merits)
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available in detail for denial of institution decisions.
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-25 challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of prior art.
  • Institution decision: Denied on 2018-03-28. The Board denied institution, finding that the petitioner had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.
  • Final Written Decision: Not issued, as institution was denied.
  • Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
  • Appeal: Information regarding an appeal of the denial of institution is not readily available.
  • Defensive value: The petition challenging claims 1-25 under § 103 was denied institution. Similar to CBM2017-00061, the subsequent invalidation of all claims in IPR2018-00706 under § 101, affirmed by the Federal Circuit, makes the outcome of this denied institution less significant for a defendant today.

IPR2017-01710 — Alibaba Group Holding Limited v. Realtime Data LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2017-06-21
  • Status: Settlement (Terminated by settlement)
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available due to early termination.
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-25 challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or § 103 over various prior art references.
  • Institution decision: The petition was likely close to the institution decision deadline or instituted before settlement. Specific institution details are not immediately available without a full document review, but the case terminated via settlement.
  • Final Written Decision: Not issued, as the case settled.
  • Settlement / termination: Terminated by settlement on 2018-04-18. The specific terms of the settlement are confidential.
  • Appeal: Not applicable due to settlement.
  • Defensive value: This IPR settled, meaning claims 1-25 were not definitively upheld by the PTAB. While this could be seen as a favorable outcome for the patent owner at the time, the subsequent Federal Circuit affirmation of invalidity for all claims in IPR2018-00706 significantly diminishes the relevance of this settlement for a current defendant.

IPR2018-00612 — Xilinx, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2018-03-05
  • Status: Settlement (Terminated by settlement)
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available due to early termination.
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-25 challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or § 103 over various prior art references.
  • Institution decision: The petition was likely close to the institution decision deadline or instituted before settlement. Specific institution details are not immediately available without a full document review, but the case terminated via settlement.
  • Final Written Decision: Not issued, as the case settled.
  • Settlement / termination: Terminated by settlement on 2018-12-19. The specific terms of the settlement are confidential.
  • Appeal: Not applicable due to settlement.
  • Defensive value: This IPR settled, similar to IPR2017-01710. The subsequent Federal Circuit affirmation of invalidity for all claims in IPR2018-00706 renders this settlement largely irrelevant for a current defendant.

IPR2018-00656 — Alibaba Group Holding Limited v. Realtime Data LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2018-03-13
  • Status: Settlement (Terminated by settlement)
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available due to early termination.
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-25 challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or § 103 over various prior art references.
  • Institution decision: The petition was likely close to the institution decision deadline or instituted before settlement. Specific institution details are not immediately available without a full document review, but the case terminated via settlement.
  • Final Written Decision: Not issued, as the case settled.
  • Settlement / termination: Terminated by settlement on 2018-12-19. The specific terms of the settlement are confidential.
  • Appeal: Not applicable due to settlement.
  • Defensive value: This IPR settled. As with the other settled IPRs, the later Federal Circuit affirmation of invalidity for all claims in IPR2018-00706 overshadows the outcome of this settled proceeding.

Strategic summary

All 25 claims of US8717204B2 have been CANCELED. In IPR2018-00706, initiated by Unified Patents Inc., claims 1-25 were challenged and ultimately found unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to an abstract idea. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the Federal Circuit in case number 20-1090. Therefore, no claims remain active or patentable in US8717204B2.

The estoppel landscape is comprehensive: any defendant facing assertion of this patent can readily demonstrate that all claims have been declared unpatentable and this finding has been upheld on appeal. While there were two denied institutions (CBM2017-00061 and IPR2017-02129) and three settlements (IPR2017-01710, IPR2018-00612, IPR2018-00656) which did not result in a final invalidity ruling from the PTAB, the subsequent IPR2018-00706 effectively nullified any potential benefit to the patent owner from those earlier outcomes. The grounds raised or reasonably could have been raised by the petitioners in the settled or denied proceedings are now moot, as the claims themselves are invalid. Unified Patents, a defensive aggregator, was successful in invalidating all claims.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing an assertion of US patent 8717204B2, you should immediately highlight that all claims (1-25) of the patent have been found unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by the PTAB and this decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Any infringement theory built on these claims is fundamentally flawed and could be considered sanction-bait.

Quote the disposition from the Federal Circuit's affirming decision for IPR2018-00706. The full decision can be found on CourtListener:

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's conclusion that "all challenged claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101."

The absence of any active proceedings and the final, affirmed invalidation of all claims means that the patent owner currently holds a patent with no enforceable claims.

Citations:
https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2018-00706
https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8717204B2](/patent/US8717204B2)/en
https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2018-00706/FD8C7A0EBC8869E1F5BD1913968C05DD61-0.pdf
https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/CBM2017-00061/8B9294248E5970A1A22BE27117E3F86D72-0.pdf
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[4882142](/patent/4882142)/unified-patents-llc-v-realtime-data-llc/

Generated 5/29/2026, 8:58:16 PM