Patent 9054728

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 9054728 has been involved in 8 AIA trial proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Of these, 3 resulted in a Final Written Decision (FWD), 2 concluded in settlement, and 3 were denied institution. Without the specific FWDs, the exact claim-level outcomes for the decided cases are unknown, so a precise defensive posture regarding invalidated or sustained claims cannot be fully determined. However, the patent has seen significant challenges, with multiple petitions from different entities.

Proceedings

IPR2017-01690 — [Petitioner Not Explicitly Stated, but likely NetApp, Inc.] v. Realtime Data, LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
  • Status: Final Written Decision [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Judge panel: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
  • Petition grounds: Specific grounds are not fully detailed in the provided snippets. However, this IPR is mentioned in the context of other petitions from NetApp, Inc. and Teradata Operations, Inc., with some grounds involving combinations of references like Hsu and Sebastian, Hsu and Wang, or Franaszek and Hsu, suggesting anticipation or obviousness challenges.
  • Institution decision: This IPR proceeded to a Final Written Decision, indicating that institution was granted. The specific date and reasoning are not available in the provided snippets.
  • Final Written Decision (if issued): A Final Written Decision was issued for this proceeding [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]. However, the specific claims challenged and their patentability outcomes (i.e., which claims were canceled or sustained) and the panel's reasoning are not explicitly detailed in the provided snippets.
  • Settlement / termination: N/A, a Final Written Decision was issued.
  • Appeal: Information not explicitly available for this specific IPR.
  • Defensive value: As the specific outcome of the Final Written Decision is unknown from the provided information, the defensive value cannot be precisely determined. If claims were invalidated, this would weaken the patent owner's position for future assertions based on those claims.

IPR2017-00808 — Teradata Operations, Inc. v. Realtime Data, LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
  • Status: Final Written Decision [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Judge panel: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
  • Petition grounds: Specific grounds are not detailed in the provided snippets. Teradata Operations, Inc. was the petitioner, challenging claims of the patent.
  • Institution decision: This IPR proceeded to a Final Written Decision, indicating that institution was granted. The specific date and reasoning are not available in the provided snippets.
  • Final Written Decision (if issued): A Final Written Decision was issued for this proceeding [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]. However, the specific claims challenged and their patentability outcomes (i.e., which claims were canceled or sustained) and the panel's reasoning are not explicitly detailed in the provided snippets.
  • Settlement / termination: N/A, a Final Written Decision was issued.
  • Appeal: Information not explicitly available for this specific IPR.
  • Defensive value: Without the specific outcome of the FWD, the defensive value is uncertain. A positive outcome for the petitioner would have invalidated claims, reducing the patent's enforceability.

IPR2017-00179 — Dell et al. / Teradata Operations, Inc. v. Realtime Data, LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
  • Status: Final Written Decision [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Judge panel: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
  • Petition grounds: Specific grounds are not detailed in the provided snippets. Dell et al. and potentially Teradata Operations, Inc. were involved as petitioners.
  • Institution decision: This IPR proceeded to a Final Written Decision, indicating that institution was granted. The specific date and reasoning are not available in the provided snippets.
  • Final Written Decision (if issued): A Final Written Decision was issued for this proceeding [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]. However, the specific claims challenged and their patentability outcomes (i.e., which claims were canceled or sustained) and the panel's reasoning are not explicitly detailed in the provided snippets.
  • Settlement / termination: N/A, a Final Written Decision was issued.
  • Appeal: Information not explicitly available for this specific IPR.
  • Defensive value: The precise impact on the patent's validity cannot be determined without the claim-level outcome of the FWD.

IPR2017-01354 — NetApp, Inc. and Rackspace US, Inc. v. Realtime Data, LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets (occurred in 2017).
  • Status: Settlement [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Judge panel: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
  • Petition grounds: The petition challenged all claims of the patent, relying on grounds and references that were "almost entirely duplicative of prior petitions," including combinations like Hsu and Sebastian, Hsu and Wang, and Franaszek and Hsu.
  • Institution decision: The Board denied institution as to two other inter partes review petitions filed by NetApp against Realtime (IPR2017-01195 and IPR2017-01196) on October 12, 2017, based on General Plastic factors. It is unclear from the provided information if IPR2017-01354 was instituted before it settled, but a Paper 16 was issued on November 14, 2017.
  • Final Written Decision: Not issued due to settlement.
  • Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated due to a "Business Confidential Settlement Agreement between Realtime Data and Rackspace US". The exact date of settlement is not specified, but it occurred around November 2017.
  • Appeal: N/A.
  • Defensive value: No claims were formally invalidated or affirmed by the PTAB in this proceeding. The settlement's terms are confidential, meaning the patent claims themselves remain formally intact, but the specific defensive posture depends on the confidential agreement.

IPR2017-00108 — [Petitioner Not Explicitly Stated] v. Realtime Data, LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
  • Status: Settlement [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Judge panel: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
  • Petition grounds: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
  • Institution decision: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
  • Final Written Decision: Not issued due to settlement.
  • Settlement / termination: This proceeding was terminated due to a settlement. [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.] The terms of the settlement are confidential.
  • Appeal: N/A.
  • Defensive value: Similar to IPR2017-01354, this settlement means the claims were not formally reviewed on their merits by the PTAB. The patent remains formally intact, with specific defensive value tied to the confidential settlement terms.

IPR2018-00703 — [Petitioner Not Explicitly Stated] v. Realtime Data, LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
  • Status: Not Instituted - Merits [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Judge panel: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
  • Petition grounds: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
  • Institution decision: Institution was denied on the merits. This means the PTAB determined that the petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims. The specific reasoning for the denial is not detailed in the provided snippets.
  • Final Written Decision: Not issued.
  • Settlement / termination: N/A.
  • Appeal: N/A.
  • Defensive value: The denial of institution on the merits suggests the PTAB found the challenges lacked sufficient strength. This outcome makes it more difficult to challenge the patent on similar grounds in future IPRs for the same petitioner or privy due to estoppel, and generally strengthens the patent owner's position.

IPR2018-00614 — [Petitioner Not Explicitly Stated] v. Realtime Data, LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
  • Status: Not Instituted - Procedural [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Judge panel: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
  • Petition grounds: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
  • Institution decision: Institution was denied on procedural grounds. This could be due to various reasons such as being time-barred, real party-in-interest issues, or discretionary denial factors (e.g., General Plastic factors) where parallel litigation exists. The specific procedural grounds for denial are not detailed in the provided snippets.
  • Final Written Decision: Not issued.
  • Settlement / termination: N/A.
  • Appeal: N/A.
  • Defensive value: The denial on procedural grounds means the merits of the patentability challenge were not reached. While it strengthens the patent's immediate posture by preventing review, it doesn't validate the claims on their merits.

IPR2017-02178 — [Petitioner Not Explicitly Stated, but likely NetApp, Inc.] v. Realtime Data, LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
  • Status: Not Instituted - Merits [cite: The "Patent summary" section of the prompt.]
  • Judge panel: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets.
  • Petition grounds: Information not explicitly available in provided snippets. This IPR is mentioned in the context of NetApp petitions and the General Plastic factors.
  • Institution decision: Institution was denied on the merits, around September 26, 2017. This indicates the PTAB found the petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits of the challenged claims. The specific reasoning for the denial is not detailed in the provided snippets.
  • Final Written Decision: Not issued.
  • Settlement / termination: N/A.
  • Appeal: N/A.
  • Defensive value: Similar to IPR2018-00703, this denial on the merits strengthens the patent owner's position by confirming that the PTAB found the challenge lacking sufficient merit, potentially precluding future challenges on the same grounds by the petitioner or its privies.

Strategic summary

The PTAB proceedings for US9054728 show a mixed bag of outcomes, with 3 Final Written Decisions, 2 settlements, and 3 denials of institution. Without the full text of the Final Written Decisions for IPR2017-01690, IPR2017-00808, and IPR2017-00179, it is not possible to definitively state which claims are CANCELED versus SUSTAINED. Thus, the precise narrowing effect on the patent through IPR cannot be fully assessed. All claims of the patent should be considered UNTESTED or of uncertain status until the FWD outcomes are known. The patent has been asserted by Realtime Data LLC, a known NPE, against multiple entities, including NetApp, Inc., Rackspace US, Inc., Dell et al., and Teradata Operations, Inc., indicating an aggressive enforcement strategy.

The estoppel landscape under § 315(e)(2) means that petitioners (and their privies) who received a Final Written Decision are barred from raising any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in that IPR. For IPR2018-00703, IPR2018-00614, and IPR2017-02178, which were denied institution, the petitioner is generally not estopped from raising those grounds in district court, as a denial of institution does not constitute a final written decision. However, in cases of discretionary denial, the Board's reasoning, particularly concerning General Plastic factors or § 325(d) considerations (prior examination), could influence future challenges. The settlements in IPR2017-01354 and IPR2017-00108 mean that no claims were formally invalidated or affirmed by the PTAB in those specific proceedings, and the terms of those settlements are confidential.

A strong pattern signal is the involvement of multiple petitioners (NetApp, Rackspace, Dell, Teradata) challenging the same patent. Several denials of institution (IPR2018-00703, IPR2018-00614, IPR2017-02178) point to the PTAB exercising its discretion, possibly due to procedural issues or the petitioners failing to meet the merits threshold, or even due to factors related to duplicative petitions or parallel litigation as seen in discussions around General Plastic. Unified Patents is not explicitly listed as a petitioner on these IPRs, but they are a known anti-NPE entity and their data is used by Google Patents. The patent owner, Realtime Data LLC, is a known NPE, and the consistent litigation activity confirms this pattern.

Recommended next steps

  • For the Final Written Decision proceedings (IPR2017-01690, IPR2017-00808, IPR2017-00179): It is critical to obtain the full text of the Final Written Decisions from the USPTO PTAB website (P-TACTS or PTAB Decisions search function) to ascertain the precise claim-by-claim outcomes. This will definitively show which claims, if any, were invalidated or sustained and the reasoning behind these decisions.
  • For denied institution proceedings (IPR2018-00703, IPR2018-00614, IPR2017-02178): Review the institution decisions for the specific grounds of denial. If denied on procedural grounds, the underlying merits of the prior art arguments might still be viable in district court. If denied on merits, understanding the PTAB's reasoning can help refine or abandon certain invalidity arguments.
  • For settlement proceedings (IPR2017-01354, IPR2017-00108): While the settlement terms are confidential, understanding the timing of the settlement relative to the IPR process (e.g., before institution, after institution but before FWD) can provide insight into the parties' assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of the claims.
  • Claims Status: Based on the available information, the status of claims for US9054728 regarding invalidation or sustenance remains largely undetermined at a granular level. A defendant facing assertion should assume all claims are potentially enforceable until the outcomes of the FWDs are confirmed.
  • Absence of specific FWD links: Unfortunately, the provided search results do not contain direct URLs to the specific Final Written Decisions or institution decisions for each IPR, nor do they list the Administrative Patent Judges on the panel for each case. These documents would typically be found on the USPTO PTAB Decisions page or through the P-TACTS system by searching the IPR number.

Generated 5/29/2026, 11:52:11 PM