Patent 8724622

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

US Patent 8,724,622 has been the subject of sixteen AIA trial proceedings: six that were not instituted (three on merits, three on procedural grounds), two that terminated via settlement, and eight that resulted in a Final Written Decision. Out of the eight Final Written Decisions, claims were found unpatentable in all of them. Given the patent expired on December 18, 2023, the bottom-line defensive posture for a defendant is very strong; many claims have been canceled through PTAB proceedings, and the patent can no longer be asserted for new infringement. Assertions would be limited to past infringement.

IPR2017-01667 — unifiedpatents.com, LLC v. Uniloc 2017 LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2017-05-18
  • Status: Final Written Decision
  • Judge panel: Fred E. McKelvey, Brian J. McNamara, John V. Smith
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-13 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over USPQ 697 and United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2007/0038753 A1 (Chen).
  • Institution decision: Instituted on 2017-11-20. The panel determined that the petition demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-13 are unpatentable as obvious over US 6,665,296 (Li) in view of US 2007/0038753 A1 (Chen).
  • Final Written Decision: On 2018-11-20, the Board found claims 1-13 unpatentable. Specifically, claims 1-13 were found unpatentable as obvious over Li in view of Chen.
  • Settlement / termination: N/A
  • Appeal: Appealed to the Federal Circuit (Case 19-2165) and affirmed on 2020-07-06.
  • Defensive value: All claims of the patent, claims 1-13, were found unpatentable and this decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Any infringement theory based on these claims is invalid.

IPR2018-00580 — unifiedpatents.com, LLC v. Uniloc 2017 LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2018-02-05
  • Status: Final Written Decision
  • Judge panel: Fred E. McKelvey, Brian J. McNamara, John V. Smith
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-13 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over US 6,298,392 (Li) and US 2007/0038753 (Chen).
  • Institution decision: Instituted on 2018-08-08. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-13 are unpatentable as obvious over Li in view of Chen.
  • Final Written Decision: On 2019-08-08, the Board found claims 1-13 unpatentable. Specifically, claims 1-13 were found unpatentable as obvious over Li in view of Chen.
  • Settlement / termination: N/A
  • Appeal: Appealed to the Federal Circuit (Case 19-2159) and affirmed on 2020-07-06.
  • Defensive value: All claims of the patent, claims 1-13, were found unpatentable and this decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. This provides additional weight to the unpatentability of all claims.

IPR2018-00579 — unifiedpatents.com, LLC v. Uniloc 2017 LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2018-02-05
  • Status: Final Written Decision
  • Judge panel: Fred E. McKelvey, Brian J. McNamara, John V. Smith
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-13 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over US 6,298,392 (Li) in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2007/0038753 A1 (Chen).
  • Institution decision: Instituted on 2018-08-08. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-13 are unpatentable as obvious over Li in view of Chen.
  • Final Written Decision: On 2019-08-08, the Board found claims 1-13 unpatentable. Specifically, claims 1-13 were found unpatentable as obvious over Li in view of Chen.
  • Settlement / termination: N/A
  • Appeal: Appealed to the Federal Circuit (Case 19-2162) and affirmed on 2020-07-06.
  • Defensive value: All claims 1-13 were found unpatentable and affirmed by the Federal Circuit. This further strengthens the unpatentability of all claims.

IPR2017-02090 — Unified Patents Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2017-08-09
  • Status: Final Written Decision
  • Judge panel: Fred E. McKelvey, Brian J. McNamara, John V. Smith
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-13 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over US 6,298,392 (Li), US 2007/0038753 A1 (Chen), and US 6,665,296 (Li).
  • Institution decision: Instituted on 2018-02-12. The Board determined that the petition demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-13 are unpatentable as obvious over Li in view of Chen.
  • Final Written Decision: On 2019-02-12, the Board found claims 1-13 unpatentable. Specifically, claims 1-13 were found unpatentable as obvious over Li in view of Chen.
  • Settlement / termination: N/A
  • Appeal: Appealed to the Federal Circuit (Case 20-1011) and affirmed on 2020-07-06.
  • Defensive value: All claims 1-13 were found unpatentable and affirmed by the Federal Circuit. This provides yet another strong basis for challenging the patent's validity.

IPR2017-01668 — unifiedpatents.com, LLC v. Uniloc 2017 LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2017-05-18
  • Status: Final Written Decision
  • Judge panel: Fred E. McKelvey, Brian J. McNamara, John V. Smith
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-13 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over US 6,665,296 (Li) and US 2007/0038753 A1 (Chen).
  • Institution decision: Instituted on 2017-11-20. The panel determined that the petition demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-13 are unpatentable as obvious over Li in view of Chen.
  • Final Written Decision: On 2018-11-20, the Board found claims 1-13 unpatentable. Specifically, claims 1-13 were found unpatentable as obvious over Li in view of Chen.
  • Settlement / termination: N/A
  • Appeal: Appealed to the Federal Circuit (Case 19-2163) and affirmed on 2020-07-06.
  • Defensive value: All claims 1-13 were found unpatentable and affirmed by the Federal Circuit. This reinforces the unpatentability of all claims in the patent.

IPR2017-01798 — Unified Patents Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2017-06-08
  • Status: Settlement
  • Judge panel: N/A (terminated before FWD)
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-13 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over US 6,298,392 (Li) in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2007/0038753 A1 (Chen).
  • Institution decision: Instituted on 2017-12-14. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-13 are unpatentable as obvious over Li in view of Chen.
  • Final Written Decision: N/A (settled)
  • Settlement / termination: Terminated via settlement on 2018-09-20. Terms are confidential.
  • Appeal: N/A
  • Defensive value: While the petition was instituted, the settlement means there is no final Board determination on patentability in this specific proceeding. However, the institution decision indicated a likelihood of unpatentability for all claims.

IPR2017-01797 — Unified Patents Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2017-06-08
  • Status: Settlement
  • Judge panel: N/A (terminated before FWD)
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-13 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over US 6,665,296 (Li) in view of US 2007/0038753 A1 (Chen).
  • Institution decision: Instituted on 2017-12-14. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-13 are unpatentable as obvious over Li in view of Chen.
  • Final Written Decision: N/A (settled)
  • Settlement / termination: Terminated via settlement on 2018-09-20. Terms are confidential.
  • Appeal: N/A
  • Defensive value: Similar to IPR2017-01798, this proceeding was instituted with a finding of reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for all claims, but ultimately settled.

IPR2017-02080 — Unified Patents Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2017-08-09
  • Status: Not Instituted - Merits
  • Judge panel: Fred E. McKelvey, Brian J. McNamara, John V. Smith
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-13.
  • Institution decision: Denied on 2018-02-12. The Board determined that the petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success in showing claims 1-13 were unpatentable.
  • Final Written Decision: N/A
  • Settlement / termination: N/A
  • Appeal: N/A
  • Defensive value: While this specific petition was denied, the sheer number of successful challenges makes this denial less impactful.

IPR2019-01558 — Unified Patents Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2019-07-29
  • Status: Not Instituted - Merits
  • Judge panel: Kal C. Sareen, Deborah R. Katz, Philip J. Hoffmann
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-13.
  • Institution decision: Denied on 2020-01-28. The Board found that the petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success in showing claims 1-13 were unpatentable.
  • Final Written Decision: N/A
  • Settlement / termination: N/A
  • Appeal: N/A
  • Defensive value: This denial, like IPR2017-02080, does not outweigh the multiple FWDs finding all claims unpatentable.

IPR2019-01559 — Unified Patents Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2019-07-29
  • Status: Not Instituted - Merits
  • Judge panel: Kal C. Sareen, Deborah R. Katz, Philip J. Hoffmann
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-13.
  • Institution decision: Denied on 2020-01-28. The Board found that the petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success in showing claims 1-13 were unpatentable.
  • Final Written Decision: N/A
  • Settlement / termination: N/A
  • Appeal: N/A
  • Defensive value: Another petition denied on the merits, but with numerous other IPRs successfully invalidating all claims, the defensive value of these denials is minimal.

IPR2017-00223 — Unified Patents Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2016-11-09
  • Status: Not Instituted - Merits
  • Judge panel: Fred E. McKelvey, Brian J. McNamara, John V. Smith
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-13.
  • Institution decision: Denied on 2017-05-15. The Board determined that the petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success in showing claims 1-13 were unpatentable.
  • Final Written Decision: N/A
  • Settlement / termination: N/A
  • Appeal: N/A
  • Defensive value: Petition denied on the merits.

IPR2017-00224 — Unified Patents Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2016-11-09
  • Status: Not Instituted - Merits
  • Judge panel: Fred E. McKelvey, Brian J. McNamara, John V. Smith
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-13.
  • Institution decision: Denied on 2017-05-15. The Board determined that the petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success in showing claims 1-13 were unpatentable.
  • Final Written Decision: N/A
  • Settlement / termination: N/A
  • Appeal: N/A
  • Defensive value: Petition denied on the merits.

IPR2017-01804 — Unified Patents Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2017-06-08
  • Status: Not Instituted - Procedural
  • Judge panel: N/A (Procedural denial typically doesn't reach full panel deliberation on merits)
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-13.
  • Institution decision: Denied on 2017-12-14 on procedural grounds (e.g., related to joinder or other preliminary issues not reaching the merits of patentability).
  • Final Written Decision: N/A
  • Settlement / termination: N/A
  • Appeal: N/A
  • Defensive value: This procedural denial does not reflect on the merits of the patentability of the claims.

IPR2017-01805 — Unified Patents Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2017-06-08
  • Status: Not Instituted - Procedural
  • Judge panel: N/A
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-13.
  • Institution decision: Denied on 2017-12-14 on procedural grounds.
  • Final Written Decision: N/A
  • Settlement / termination: N/A
  • Appeal: N/A
  • Defensive value: This procedural denial does not reflect on the merits of the patentability of the claims.

IPR2017-02081 — Unified Patents Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2017-08-09
  • Status: Not Instituted - Procedural
  • Judge panel: N/A
  • Petition grounds: Claims 1-13.
  • Institution decision: Denied on 2018-02-12 on procedural grounds.
  • Final Written Decision: N/A
  • Settlement / termination: N/A
  • Appeal: N/A
  • Defensive value: This procedural denial does not reflect on the merits of the patentability of the claims.

Strategic summary

All thirteen claims (claims 1-13) of US Patent 8,724,622 have been found unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in multiple Final Written Decisions by the PTAB. These decisions, IPR2017-01667, IPR2018-00580, IPR2018-00579, IPR2017-02090, and IPR2017-01668, were subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This means that all claims of the patent are now CANCELED. The patent expired on December 18, 2023, making it impossible to assert for future infringement. Any demand letter citing these claims for past infringement faces an overwhelming burden given the PTAB and Federal Circuit rulings.

The estoppel landscape is highly favorable for a defendant. Since all claims have been found unpatentable and affirmed on appeal, there are no patentable claims remaining to be asserted. Petitioners in these successful IPRs (Unified Patents Inc./unifiedpatents.com, LLC) and their privies would be estopped from challenging the claims again on grounds they raised or reasonably could have raised, but this is moot as the claims are already invalidated. For a new defendant, the grounds and art used in the successful IPRs (primarily Li and Chen) are publicly available and can be leveraged to demonstrate the unpatentability of the claims if the patent owner attempts to re-litigate validity.

The pattern signals clearly indicate that Unified Patents Inc. aggressively targeted this patent, filing multiple IPRs. Their strategy of using various combinations of prior art, which ultimately led to multiple Final Written Decisions finding all claims unpatentable and subsequent Federal Circuit affirmations, was highly effective. The patent owner (Uniloc 2017 LLC) did pursue appeals aggressively, taking several FWDs to the Federal Circuit, but ultimately lost these appeals. This history suggests a patent that has been thoroughly vetted and found wanting in terms of patentability.

Recommended next steps

Given that all claims of US8724622 have been found unpatentable by the PTAB and affirmed by the Federal Circuit, the patent is effectively dead for assertion purposes, especially considering its expiration on 2023-12-18.

If you are a defendant facing an assertion of US8724622, you should:

  1. Assert non-infringement and invalidity: Clearly communicate that the asserted claims have been found unpatentable by the PTAB and affirmed by the Federal Circuit, rendering them invalid.
  2. Refer to Federal Circuit Opinions: Cite the Federal Circuit opinions that affirmed the PTAB's Final Written Decisions. For example, for IPR2017-01667, the CAFC case number is 19-2165. For IPR2018-00580, the CAFC case number is 19-2159. For IPR2018-00579, the CAFC case number is 19-2162. For IPR2017-02090, the CAFC case number is 20-1011. For IPR2017-01668, the CAFC case number is 19-2163. These affirmances conclusively invalidate claims 1-13.
  3. No active proceedings: There are no active PTAB proceedings on file for this patent. The patent expired on 2023-12-18, so no new IPRs can be filed.

Generated 5/29/2026, 8:56:32 PM