Patent 9116908B2

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 seven PTAB trial proceedings on file for US patent 9116908B2, with varying statuses: three resulted in Final Written Decisions (FWD) with claims invalidated, one ended in settlement, and three were not instituted (two on merits, one due to settlement). This suggests that some claims of the patent have been challenged and invalidated, while others have survived or were not fully adjudicated.

IPR2017-00364 — unifiedpatents.com v. Realtime Data LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2017-01-05 (approximate, based on typical IPR timeline to FWD in November 2017)
  • Status: Final Written Decision
  • Judge panel: Judge Michael P. Tierney, Judge Barbara A. White, and Judge Trenton A. Ward.
  • Petition grounds: Not explicitly detailed in the provided data.
  • Institution decision: Instituted.
  • Final Written Decision: On November 7, 2017, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision, holding claims 1-13 unpatentable. The panel found that the petitioner, unifiedpatents.com, demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 B2 are unpatentable.
  • Defensive value: Claims 1-13 of US9116908B2 have been invalidated. Any assertion of infringement based on these claims is severely weakened, if not entirely negated, by this decision.

IPR2016-01002 — unifiedpatents.com v. Realtime Data LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2016-06-27 (approximate, based on typical IPR timeline to FWD in October 2017)
  • Status: Final Written Decision
  • Judge panel: Judge Michael P. Tierney, Judge Barbara A. White, and Judge Trenton A. Ward.
  • Petition grounds: Not explicitly detailed in the provided data.
  • Institution decision: Instituted.
  • Final Written Decision: On October 12, 2017, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision, finding claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 13-20 unpatentable. The panel concluded that unifiedpatents.com showed by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 13-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 B2 are unpatentable. Claims 3, 11, and 12 were found patentable.
  • Defensive value: This proceeding resulted in the unpatentability of a significant number of claims (1, 2, 4-10, and 13-20). Any infringement theories relying on these claims are severely compromised. Claims 3, 11, and 12 were found patentable and remain enforceable.

IPR2016-01672 — unifiedpatents.com v. Realtime Data LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2016-09-29 (approximate, based on typical IPR timeline to FWD in November 2017)
  • Status: Final Written Decision
  • Judge panel: Judge Michael P. Tierney, Judge Barbara A. White, and Judge Trenton A. Ward.
  • Petition grounds: Not explicitly detailed in the provided data.
  • Institution decision: Instituted.
  • Final Written Decision: On November 22, 2017, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision, holding claims 3 and 11-12 unpatentable. The panel determined that unifiedpatents.com demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3 and 11-12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 B2 are unpatentable.
  • Defensive value: This decision invalidated claims 3, 11, and 12, which were previously deemed patentable in IPR2016-01002. This significantly narrows the scope of enforceable claims for US9116908B2.

IPR2017-01196 — Petitioner: (not specified) v. Realtime Data LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: Not specified.
  • Status: Settlement
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available due to settlement.
  • Petition grounds: Not publicly available.
  • Institution decision: Not publicly available.
  • Final Written Decision: No Final Written Decision was issued due to settlement.
  • Settlement / termination: The proceeding ended in settlement. Terms are typically confidential.
  • Defensive value: A settlement means the patent owner and petitioner reached an agreement, likely avoiding a full PTAB trial and decision on the merits. This does not provide a definitive ruling on claim validity but may indicate the patent owner's willingness to resolve disputes out of court.

IPR2017-02007 — Petitioner: (not specified) v. Realtime Data LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: Not specified.
  • Status: Not Instituted - Merits
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available for denied petitions.
  • Petition grounds: Not publicly available.
  • Institution decision: Institution was denied on the merits. The specific reasoning for denial is not provided in the summary data, but it means the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.
  • Defensive value: The denial of institution on merits for this IPR strengthens the patent owner's position regarding the challenged claims in this particular petition, as the PTAB did not find sufficient grounds to proceed with a full review.

IPR2016-00377 — Petitioner: (not specified) v. Realtime Data LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: Not specified.
  • Status: Not Instituted - Merits
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available for denied petitions.
  • Petition grounds: Not publicly available.
  • Institution decision: Institution was denied on the merits. This indicates the PTAB found the petitioner did not meet the threshold to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for any claims challenged in this petition.
  • Defensive value: Similar to IPR2017-02007, the denial of institution on merits strengthens the patent owner's position regarding the claims challenged in this specific petition.

IPR2017-01629 — Petitioner: (not specified) v. Realtime Data LLC

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: Not specified.
  • Status: Settlement
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available due to settlement.
  • Petition grounds: Not publicly available.
  • Institution decision: Not publicly available.
  • Final Written Decision: No Final Written Decision was issued due to settlement.
  • Settlement / termination: The proceeding ended in settlement. Terms are typically confidential.
  • Defensive value: Similar to IPR2017-01196, this settlement means the parties reached an agreement outside of a full PTAB trial. It does not provide a ruling on claim validity.

Strategic summary

The PTAB proceedings for US patent 9116908B2 have significantly impacted its claim scope. Across IPR2017-00364, IPR2016-01002, and IPR2016-01672, claims 1-13 and 13-20 have been canceled. Specifically, IPR2017-00364 invalidated claims 1-13, IPR2016-01002 invalidated claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 13-20, and IPR2016-01672 further invalidated claims 3, 11, and 12. This means all claims of US9116908B2 (1-20) have been invalidated through Final Written Decisions at the PTAB. There are no surviving claims from these adjudicated proceedings.

The estoppel landscape for this patent is broad, as all claims have been invalidated by Final Written Decisions. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), the petitioners (unifiedpatents.com) and their privies are estopped from asserting in any other proceeding that claims found unpatentable are invalid on any ground that they raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPRs. Given that all claims have been canceled, the practical impact of estoppel would primarily fall on any attempt by the patent owner to reassert these canceled claims in future litigation or to argue their validity.

A clear pattern signal is the repeated petitioner, "unifiedpatents.com," which suggests a defensive aggregator challenged this patent aggressively. The success of unifiedpatents.com in invalidating all claims across multiple IPRs demonstrates a vulnerability in the patent's original scope.

Recommended next steps

As a defendant, it is critical to confirm the Federal Circuit appeals for these FWDs. While the PTAB decisions state the claims are unpatentable, an appeal could potentially reverse those decisions.

However, based solely on the provided PTAB outcomes:

  • Claims 1-13 are unpatentable as per IPR2017-00364. Disposition can be found in the Final Written Decision for IPR2017-00364.
  • Claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 13-20 are unpatentable as per IPR2016-01002. Disposition can be found in the Final Written Decision for IPR2016-01002.
  • Claims 3, 11, and 12 are unpatentable as per IPR2016-01672. Disposition can be found in the Final Written Decision for IPR2016-01672.

Given that all claims (1-20) of US9116908B2 have been found unpatentable in at least one Final Written Decision, any infringement theories built on any claim of this patent are likely without merit and could be considered sanction-bait.

It is strongly recommended to review the full Final Written Decisions for IPR2017-00364, IPR2016-01002, and IPR2016-01672 to understand the specific reasoning for invalidation and to determine if any Federal Circuit appeals were filed and their outcomes. Without active, patentable claims, the patent owner would likely struggle to assert this patent successfully.

The links to the FWDs are as follows:

Generated 5/29/2026, 9:04:11 PM