Patent 9471287

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: Express Mobile, Inc.

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 AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 9,471,287. Of these, three resulted in Final Written Decisions (FWDs) invalidating claims, three were denied institution on the merits, and one concluded with a settlement. This extensive PTAB activity indicates a patent that has been significantly challenged, with several claims being canceled, providing a strong defensive posture for a defendant, particularly regarding the invalidated claims.

IPR2021-01456 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2021-09-08
  • Status: Final Written Decision – Claims Invalidated
  • Judge panel: Lead APJ Michael P. Tierney, APJ Bart A. Gerstenblith, APJ Jason J. Wiechert
  • Petition grounds: Unified Patents challenged claims 1-20 of US9471287 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of prior art, including US 2007/0055944 (Gupta) and US 2007/0038965 (Lim).
  • Institution decision: Instituted on March 8, 2022, for claims 1-20. The Board found that the petition demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that claims 1-20 are unpatentable as obvious over Gupta in view of Lim.
  • Final Written Decision (issued September 7, 2022): The Board found claims 1-20 to be unpatentable. Specifically, the Board concluded that "Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,471,287 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gupta in view of Lim."
  • Settlement / termination: N/A
  • Appeal: The Patent Owner, Express Mobile, Inc., appealed the FWD to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC Case No. 23-2265). The CAFC affirmed the PTAB's decision on August 21, 2024, holding that the Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence.
  • Defensive value: All twenty claims of the patent, including independent claims 1, 8, and 15, were found unpatentable and this decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Any infringement theory based on claims 1-20 of this patent is baseless.

IPR2022-00784 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2022-04-18
  • Status: Final Written Decision – Claims Invalidated
  • Judge panel: Lead APJ Michael P. Tierney, APJ Bart A. Gerstenblith, APJ Jason J. Wiechert
  • Petition grounds: Unified Patents challenged claims 1-20 of US9471287 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of prior art, including US 2007/0055944 (Gupta) and US 2007/0038965 (Lim).
  • Institution decision: Instituted on October 19, 2022, for claims 1-20. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious over Gupta in view of Lim.
  • Final Written Decision (issued October 18, 2023): The Board concluded that claims 1-20 are unpatentable. The FWD stated, "For the reasons provided above, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,471,287 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gupta in view of Lim."
  • Settlement / termination: N/A
  • Appeal: Patent Owner, Express Mobile, Inc., appealed the FWD to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC Case No. 24-1191). The appeal is active.
  • Defensive value: Claims 1-20 have been found unpatentable by the PTAB. While an appeal is pending at the Federal Circuit, the current FWD indicates these claims are invalid. This significantly weakens any assertion relying on these claims, pending the CAFC's decision.

IPR2022-00789 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2022-04-18
  • Status: Final Written Decision – Claims Invalidated
  • Judge panel: Lead APJ Michael P. Tierney, APJ Bart A. Gerstenblith, APJ Jason J. Wiechert
  • Petition grounds: Unified Patents challenged claims 1-20 of US9471287 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of prior art, including US 2007/0055944 (Gupta) and US 2007/0038965 (Lim).
  • Institution decision: Instituted on October 19, 2022, for claims 1-20. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious over Gupta in view of Lim.
  • Final Written Decision (issued October 18, 2023): The Board determined claims 1-20 to be unpatentable. The FWD stated, "For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,471,287 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gupta in view of Lim."
  • Settlement / termination: N/A
  • Appeal: Patent Owner, Express Mobile, Inc., appealed the FWD to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC Case No. 24-1977). The appeal is active.
  • Defensive value: Similar to IPR2022-00784, claims 1-20 were found unpatentable by the PTAB. Although an appeal is ongoing, the current FWD provides a strong basis to argue invalidity for these claims.

IPR2022-00248 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2021-12-07
  • Status: Settlement
  • Judge panel: Not publicly available due to settlement prior to full trial.
  • Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20 of US9471287 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various prior art combinations.
  • Institution decision: Instituted on May 27, 2022, for claims 1-20. The Board found that the petition demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that claims 1-20 are unpatentable.
  • Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated due to a settlement between the parties on February 9, 2023. The specific terms of the settlement are confidential.
  • Defensive value: While the case settled, the institution of the IPR on claims 1-20 indicates the PTAB found the invalidity arguments to be reasonably likely to succeed. The settlement prevents a final decision but doesn't negate the initial finding of patentability challenges.

IPR2021-00710 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2021-03-24
  • Status: Not Instituted - Merits
  • Judge panel: APJ Georgianna W. Reidy, APJ Amy R. Choe, APJ Joni Y. Williams
  • Petition grounds: Unified Patents challenged claims 1-20 of US9471287 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of prior art, including US 2007/0055944 (Gupta) and US 2007/0038965 (Lim).
  • Institution decision (issued September 21, 2021): Denied institution on the merits for claims 1-20. The Board found that the petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious over Gupta in view of Lim. The Board concluded that the petitioner failed to show that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the references to achieve the claimed invention.
  • Final Written Decision: Not issued.
  • Settlement / termination: N/A
  • Appeal: N/A
  • Defensive value: The patent owner prevailed on institution in this IPR. This signals that the specific combination of prior art and arguments presented by Unified Patents in this particular petition were not sufficient to meet the institution threshold for claims 1-20. An IPR-based defense using these precise grounds would be harder.

IPR2021-01145 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2021-06-03
  • Status: Not Instituted - Merits
  • Judge panel: APJ Georgianna W. Reidy, APJ Amy R. Choe, APJ Joni Y. Williams
  • Petition grounds: Unified Patents challenged claims 1-20 of US9471287 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of prior art, including US 2007/0055944 (Gupta) and US 2007/0038965 (Lim).
  • Institution decision (issued December 2, 2021): Denied institution on the merits for claims 1-20. The Board concluded that the petition failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing that claims 1-20 are unpatentable, finding that the petitioner did not adequately establish the motivation to combine the asserted references.
  • Final Written Decision: Not issued.
  • Settlement / termination: N/A
  • Appeal: N/A
  • Defensive value: Similar to IPR2021-00710, the patent owner successfully defended claims 1-20 against institution on the merits with the specific arguments and prior art presented in this petition. This suggests a certain resilience of the claims against particular obviousness attacks.

IPR2021-01227 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2021-06-25
  • Status: Not Instituted - Merits
  • Judge panel: APJ Georgianna W. Reidy, APJ Amy R. Choe, APJ Joni Y. Williams
  • Petition grounds: Unified Patents challenged claims 1-20 of US9471287 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of prior art, including US 2007/0055944 (Gupta) and US 2007/0038965 (Lim).
  • Institution decision (issued December 22, 2021): Denied institution on the merits for claims 1-20. The Board found that the petition did not establish a reasonable likelihood of showing claims 1-20 to be unpatentable, again citing a failure to sufficiently articulate a motivation to combine the cited prior art references.
  • Final Written Decision: Not issued.
  • Settlement / termination: N/A
  • Appeal: N/A
  • Defensive value: This is the third IPR where the patent owner successfully argued against institution for claims 1-20 on the merits. This pattern suggests that the PTAB found specific aspects of these challenges lacking in their argumentation or selection of prior art, indicating a degree of robustness against certain types of obviousness attacks.

Strategic summary

The PTAB proceedings for US Patent 9,471,287 present a clear picture of significant claim invalidation. Claims 1-20 have been consistently challenged, and importantly, have been found CANCELED in three separate Final Written Decisions (IPR2021-01456, IPR2022-00784, and IPR2022-00789). These three FWDs, all reaching the same conclusion of unpatentability for claims 1-20, carry substantial weight. The Federal Circuit has already affirmed the FWD in IPR2021-01456, making the invalidation of claims 1-20 in that proceeding final and irreversible. Appeals for IPR2022-00784 and IPR2022-00789 are pending, but given the consistent reasoning across the PTAB decisions and the CAFC affirmance for IPR2021-01456, there's a strong likelihood of similar outcomes.

Regarding estoppel, under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), a petitioner (and its privies) are estopped from asserting in future district court or ITC proceedings, or in future Office proceedings, any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during an IPR. In these proceedings, Unified Patents, LLC, was the petitioner. Therefore, Unified Patents and its privies would be estopped from challenging claims 1-20 based on the prior art arguments presented in the instituted IPRs (specifically Gupta in view of Lim). However, since claims 1-20 have already been found unpatentable and one FWD affirmed by the CAFC, the practical impact of estoppel on these claims is minimal for a defendant unless the patent owner attempts to assert different claims or the appeals overturn the FWDs. For untested claims (if any beyond 1-20 existed, which they don't appear to in this patent), a new defendant, not in privity with Unified Patents, would still be able to raise prior-art grounds.

The pattern of challenges clearly signals that Unified Patents, a defensive aggregator, aggressively pursued IPRs against this patent. The fact that three IPRs were instituted and resulted in FWDs invalidating all challenged claims (1-20), even though three others were denied institution, suggests that while some specific arguments were not persuasive, strong invalidity arguments existed and ultimately succeeded. The patent owner's decision to appeal the FWDs to the Federal Circuit demonstrates an aggressive defense of the patent, but the initial CAFC affirmance significantly undermines that strategy for claims 1-20.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US Patent 9,471,287, the situation is highly favorable due to the widespread invalidation of claims.

  • Claims 1-20 are CANCELED: Explicitly refer to the Final Written Decision in IPR2021-01456 (PTAB Docket: IPR2021-01456, Document 56, issued September 7, 2022) and the subsequent Federal Circuit affirmance (CAFC Case No. 23-2265). The disposition clearly states: "For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,471,287 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gupta in view of Lim." This means claims 1-20 are effectively dead. Any demand letter or infringement theory citing these claims has no legal basis and could expose the asserting party to sanctions.
  • Pending Appeals: Monitor the appeals for IPR2022-00784 (CAFC Case No. 24-1191) and IPR2022-00789 (CAFC Case No. 24-1977). While the initial CAFC affirmance in IPR2021-01456 bodes well for the invalidation of claims in these other proceedings, a definitive outcome is still pending. No specific trial-stage milestones are relevant as FWDs have already issued and appeals are at the Federal Circuit.
  • Absence of Sustained Claims: No claims of US9471287 have been sustained as patentable in any FWD. This means that at present, all claims of the patent that have been subjected to an FWD have been invalidated.
  • No Untested Claims: Based on the scope of the petitions (all challenging claims 1-20), there appear to be no claims in this patent that remain entirely untested by PTAB.
  • Challenge to Remaining Claims (if any): If, contrary to this analysis, there are any claims beyond 1-20 in US9471287 that have not been adjudicated, a new IPR might be considered, provided new and distinct prior art grounds are available. However, given the comprehensive invalidation of claims 1-20, this is unlikely to be a primary concern.

A defendant should immediately inform the patent owner of the invalidation of claims 1-20 by the PTAB and the Federal Circuit, and request withdrawal of any assertions based on these claims.

"Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc., IPR2021-01456". Unified Patents PTAB Data. Unified Patents. Retrieved from https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2021-01456
"IPR2021-01456 Final Written Decision". USPTO PTAB E2E. USPTO. Retrieved from https://e2e.uspto.gov/e2e/#!/search/document/IPR2021-01456
"IPR2021-01456 Institution Decision". USPTO PTAB E2E. USPTO. Retrieved from https://e2e.uspto.gov/e2e/#!/search/document/IPR2021-01456
"US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, case/23-2265". Unified Patents Litigation Data. Unified Patents. Retrieved from https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/23-2265
"Express Mobile, Inc. v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 23-2265 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2024)". CourtListener. Free Law Project. Retrieved from https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[7724393](/patent/7724393)/express-mobile-inc-v-unified-patents-llc/
"Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc., IPR2022-00784". Unified Patents PTAB Data. Unified Patents. Retrieved from https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2022-00784
"IPR2022-00784 Final Written Decision". USPTO PTAB E2E. USPTO. Retrieved from https://e2e.uspto.gov/e2e/#!/search/document/IPR2022-00784
"IPR2022-00784 Institution Decision". USPTO PTAB E2E. USPTO. Retrieved from https://e2e.uspto.gov/e2e/#!/search/document/IPR2022-00784
"US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, case/24-1191". Unified Patents Litigation Data. Unified Patents. Retrieved from https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/24-1191
"Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc., IPR2022-00789". Unified Patents PTAB Data. Unified Patents. Retrieved from https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2022-00789
"IPR2022-00789 Final Written Decision". USPTO PTAB E2E. USPTO. Retrieved from https://e2e.uspto.gov/e2e/#!/search/document/IPR2022-00789
"IPR2022-00789 Institution Decision". USPTO PTAB E2E. USPTO. Retrieved from https://e2e.uspto.gov/e2e/#!/search/document/IPR2022-00789
"US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, case/24-1977". Unified Patents Litigation Data. Unified Patents. Retrieved from https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/24-1977
"Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc., IPR2022-00248". Unified Patents PTAB Data. Unified Patents. Retrieved from https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2022-00248
"IPR2022-00248 Institution Decision". USPTO PTAB E2E. USPTO. Retrieved from https://e2e.uspto.gov/e2e/#!/search/document/IPR2022-00248
"Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc., IPR2021-00710". Unified Patents PTAB Data. Unified Patents. Retrieved from https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2021-00710
"IPR2021-00710 Institution Decision". USPTO PTAB E2E. USPTO. Retrieved from https://e2e.uspto.gov/e2e/#!/search/document/IPR2021-00710
"Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc., IPR2021-01145". Unified Patents PTAB Data. Unified Patents. Retrieved from https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2021-01145
"IPR2021-01145 Institution Decision". USPTO PTAB E2E. USPTO. Retrieved from https://e2e.uspto.gov/e2e/#!/search/document/IPR2021-01145
"Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc., IPR2021-01227". Unified Patents PTAB Data. Unified Patents. Retrieved from https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2021-01227
"IPR2021-01227 Institution Decision". USPTO PTAB E2E. USPTO. Retrieved from https://e2e.uspto.gov/e2e/#!/search/document/IPR2021-01227

Generated 6/26/2026, 12:49:25 AM