Patent 8868772

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: DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.

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

Four AIA trial proceedings have been filed against US Patent 8,868,772, all initiated in 2024 or 2025. Two petitions were denied institution on the merits, one was denied institution procedurally, and one has issued a Final Written Decision. The PTAB has issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00919, finding claims 1-21 unpatentable, giving a defendant a strong defensive posture if the patent owner relies on these claims.

IPR2024-00919 — Unified Patents, LLC v. DISH Technologies L.L.C.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the Google Patents litigation section indicates it was filed in 2024.
  • Status: Final Written Decision. Claims 1-21 found unpatentable.
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available from the provided text.
  • Petition grounds: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the FWD implies challenges to all claims (1-21) on patentability grounds.
  • Institution decision: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but institution must have occurred for a Final Written Decision to be issued.
  • Final Written Decision (if issued): Issued. All claims, specifically claims 1-21, were found unpatentable.
  • Settlement / termination: Not terminated by settlement.
  • Appeal: Not explicitly stated if appealed to the Federal Circuit, but DISH has appealed at least one unfavorable PTAB decision.
  • Defensive value: This proceeding is highly impactful for a defendant. Claims 1-21 of US Patent 8,868,772 have been invalidated. Any infringement theory built on these claims is severely weakened, if not entirely negated, by this decision. This provides a strong basis for dismissal or summary judgment regarding these claims.

IPR2024-00048 — Unified Patents, LLC v. DISH Technologies L.L.C.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the Google Patents litigation section indicates it was filed in 2024.
  • Status: Not Instituted - Merits.
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available from the provided text.
  • Petition grounds: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Institution decision: Denied institution on the merits. The specific reasoning for the denial is not detailed in the provided text.
  • Settlement / termination: Not terminated by settlement.
  • Appeal: Not explicitly stated if appealed.
  • Defensive value: This denial of institution means the PTAB did not find a sufficient likelihood of unpatentability to proceed to trial on the specific grounds raised in this petition. While not a ruling on the merits of patentability, it indicates that the arguments and prior art presented in this particular IPR petition were not compelling enough to overcome the institution threshold.

IPR2024-00519 — Unified Patents, LLC v. DISH Technologies L.L.C.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the Google Patents litigation section indicates it was filed in 2024.
  • Status: Not Instituted - Procedural.
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available from the provided text.
  • Petition grounds: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Institution decision: Denied institution on procedural grounds. The specific procedural deficiency is not detailed in the provided text.
  • Settlement / termination: Not terminated by settlement.
  • Appeal: Not explicitly stated if appealed.
  • Defensive value: This denial means the petition failed on a technicality rather than the substance of its patentability arguments. It does not speak to the underlying patentability of the claims, but rather to the petitioner's adherence to PTAB procedural rules.

IPR2025-00348 — Unified Patents, LLC v. DISH Technologies L.L.C.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the Google Patents litigation section indicates it was filed in 2025.
  • Status: Final Written Decision.
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available from the provided text.
  • Petition grounds: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Institution decision: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but institution must have occurred for a Final Written Decision to be issued.
  • Final Written Decision (if issued): Issued. The specific verdict at a claim-level granularity and the panel's reasoning are not detailed in the provided text.
  • Settlement / termination: Not terminated by settlement.
  • Appeal: Not explicitly stated if appealed to the Federal Circuit.
  • Defensive value: A Final Written Decision has been issued for this IPR. The specific outcome regarding which claims were found unpatentable or patentable is critical to determine the defensive value. Without this detail, its impact is uncertain, but it represents another challenge to the patent's validity.

Strategic summary

US Patent 8,868,772 has faced multiple challenges at the PTAB. Notably, IPR2024-00919 resulted in a Final Written Decision finding all claims (1-21) unpatentable. This significantly weakens the patent, as the core method claims are no longer valid. The status of claims in IPR2025-00348, which also reached a Final Written Decision, is not detailed, but it could further impact the patent's scope. Two other IPRs (IPR2024-00048 and IPR2024-00519) were denied institution, one on procedural grounds and one on the merits, indicating that while those specific petitions failed, other challenges have succeeded.

The estoppel landscape is complex due to the varying outcomes. For Unified Patents, LLC (the petitioner in all listed IPRs), and any privies, the grounds raised or that could have been raised in IPR2024-00919 and IPR2025-00348 (where FWDs were issued) would be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). However, given the FWD in IPR2024-00919 found all claims unpatentable, this estoppel primarily benefits the patent owner by preventing future challenges on those specific grounds. For a new defendant, prior art grounds not addressed in IPR2024-00919 or IPR2025-00348, or grounds that could not have been reasonably raised, remain available. The recurrent petitions by Unified Patents, LLC (a defensive aggregator) indicate a sustained effort to challenge DISH's streaming patent portfolio, highlighting the value of this patent to DISH's litigation strategy.

Recommended next steps

For IPR2024-00919, the Final Written Decision found claims 1-21 of US Patent 8,868,772 unpatentable. This decision can be found on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal (specific link not provided in the prompt, but it is publicly accessible). A defendant facing assertion of this patent should immediately leverage the outcome of IPR2024-00919, arguing that claims 1-21 are invalid.

For IPR2025-00348, a Final Written Decision has also been issued, but the claim-specific outcome is not detailed. It is crucial to obtain and review this FWD to understand its impact on the remaining claims.

No further PTAB activity beyond these proceedings is specified in the provided information, but the overall landscape suggests the patent's strength has been significantly diminished by the successful IPR.

Generated 5/29/2026, 9:02:14 PM