Uniloc 2017 v. Cisco Systems: Federal Circuit Affirms US7804948B2 Unpatentable
Uniloc 2017, LLC appealed the invalidity finding on US7804948B2 — a patent covering a system and method for initiating conference calls — against Cisco Systems, Inc. A per curiam Federal Circuit panel affirmed the unpatentability ruling after proceedings spanning 1,680 days.
Federal Circuit closes the book on Uniloc's conference call patent
Uniloc 2017, LLC filed this appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 28 September 2018, challenging an invalidity or cancellation determination against US7804948B2 — a patent directed to a system and method for initiating a conference call. The defendant, Cisco Systems, Inc., one of the leading providers of enterprise communications and collaboration infrastructure, successfully defended the unpatentability finding at the originating tribunal.
The Federal Circuit panel comprising Chief Judge Moore, Judge Dyk, and Judge Reyna issued a per curiam order affirming the lower decision. The recorded basis of termination is 'Unpatentable' and the verdict text states 'AFFIRMED,' meaning the appellate court found no reversible error in the finding that the claims of US7804948B2 are unpatentable. The case closed on 5 May 2023.
At 1,680 days, the proceedings suggest protracted appellate briefing consistent with contested patentability disputes in the communications technology sector. What specific claim construction positions or prior art combinations drove the unpatentability finding is not disclosed in the available public docket record. The per curiam form of the decision — without an authored opinion — suggests the panel viewed the outcome as sufficiently clear to require no extended written analysis.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Unpatentable in 1680 days
1,680 days from filing to close — approximately 4.6 years at the Federal Circuit
US7804948B2 — System and method for initiating a conference call
Any organisation developing, selling, or licensing conference call initiation or real-time communications orchestration technology should be aware of US7804948B2 and its current status. While the Federal Circuit has affirmed this patent unpatentable, related continuation or family patents under the same application lineage may carry overlapping claims. Product teams shipping VoIP, UCaaS, or collaboration platform features should confirm whether any live family members require analysis before launch.
Official order — verbatim text
The per curiam order — 'ORDERED and ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED' — issued jointly by Chief Judge Moore, Judge Dyk, and Judge Reyna carries the full authority of the Federal Circuit without attributed individual authorship. Such per curiam dispositions at the Federal Circuit typically reflect unanimous panel agreement that the appeal presents no novel legal question requiring a written opinion, and that the tribunal below committed no reversible error in finding the claims of US7804948B2 unpatentable.
Federal Circuit affirms: what the ruling means for both parties
What 'AFFIRMED' means at the Federal Circuit
An affirmance by the Federal Circuit means the panel found no reversible error in the decision below. The unpatentability finding — reached at the originating tribunal — is now upheld as a matter of federal appellate authority. The case is closed and the claims of US7804948B2 have been adjudicated unpatentable. No further avenue of appeal at this court level remains.
No reversible error foundUniloc 2017 loses its conference call patent claim
With the Federal Circuit's affirmance, Uniloc 2017's attempt to preserve US7804948B2 has failed at the appellate level. The patent's claims have been found unpatentable, removing this asset from Uniloc's enforceable portfolio. Further challenge to this determination would require petition to the Supreme Court — an option available but rarely successful without a circuit split or significant legal question.
Patent invalidated on appealCisco secures invalidation of asserted conference call patent
Cisco Systems emerges from this appeal with a confirmed unpatentability finding against US7804948B2. This eliminates a patent that Uniloc had asserted in connection with conference call initiation technology — a core function within Cisco's collaboration product suite. The affirmance raises the bar for any future assertion of related claims in this patent family against Cisco or similarly positioned defendants.
Patent threat neutralisedStrengthened prior art barrier for conference call patent claims
The Federal Circuit's affirmance reinforces the unpatentability of the claimed conference call initiation system, signalling that the prior art or eligibility grounds relied upon in the originating proceeding were robust enough to survive appellate scrutiny. Competitors and product teams operating in the enterprise communications space can view this outcome as reducing — though not eliminating — the litigation risk tied to this specific patent and its family.
Reduced enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Uniloc 2017, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Cisco Systems, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Donald Lee Jackson | Attorney | Counsel for Uniloc 2017, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Etheridge | Attorney | Counsel for Uniloc 2017, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ryan S. Loveless | Attorney | Counsel for Uniloc 2017, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Uniloc 2017, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Etheridge Law Group PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Uniloc 2017, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David L. McCombs | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Debra Janece McComas | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Dina Blikshteyn | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Theodore M. Foster | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Haynes & Boone, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the conference call and real-time communications patent space
This case surfaces actionable IP intelligence for teams building or defending in the enterprise communications and conferencing technology sector.
Uniloc 2017's remaining conference call and VoIP patent assets
With US7804948B2 now affirmed unpatentable, IP teams should map Uniloc 2017's surviving portfolio in the real-time communications domain. Uniloc entities have historically held large portfolios with overlapping claim families — understanding which patents remain enforceable after successive invalidity rulings is critical for any company active in UCaaS or collaboration software.
Portfolio attrition riskFiling trends in conference call initiation and session orchestration
Patent filing activity around conference call initiation, session setup protocols, and multi-party communications orchestration has evolved significantly since US7804948B2's priority date. Tracking current filing trends in this space — particularly in cloud-native UCaaS and WebRTC-based session initiation — reveals where the next generation of enforceable IP is being staked.
Emerging filing activityCisco's patent strategy in collaboration and conferencing technology
Cisco's decision to pursue full invalidity through appeal — rather than settle — suggests strong confidence in its prior art position and defensive IP holdings in the communications space. Analysing Cisco's own patent filings around conference call, Webex, and unified communications infrastructure reveals the breadth of its defensive moat and potential licensing leverage against future assertion.
Defensive portfolio depthAdjacent innovation gaps near conference call initiation IP
The invalidation of broad conference call initiation claims creates potential white space in adjacent areas — particularly AI-assisted call setup, context-aware session initiation, and cross-platform conferencing interoperability. R&D teams exploring next-generation collaboration features should assess filing opportunities in these adjacent domains before competitors consolidate coverage.
R&D white spaceSimilar Federal Circuit patent invalidity cases in communications technology
Browse Federal Circuit appeals involving conference call, VoIP, and real-time communications patents where unpatentability or invalidity was the central issue.
What this case signals for the communications patent IP landscape
The Federal Circuit's per curiam affirmance in Uniloc v. Cisco carries concrete implications for patent holders and defendants across enterprise communications.
Per curiam affirmances signal low-complexity invalidity cases at the Federal Circuit
A per curiam ruling without an authored opinion typically suggests the panel viewed the unpatentability outcome as straightforward. For defendants in conference call and VoIP patent disputes, this pattern is encouraging: well-grounded prior art challenges originating in inter partes or other validity proceedings are likely to survive appellate review when properly developed below.
Uniloc's patent portfolio faces sustained attrition across multiple proceedings
This case is consistent with a broader pattern of Uniloc-family patents being challenged and invalidated across multiple forums. IP teams monitoring the Uniloc 2017 portfolio should track remaining asserted patents carefully — each affirmance of unpatentability narrows the effective scope of enforcement risk, but surviving patents in adjacent technical domains may still pose a credible threat.
Uniloc v Cisco — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability of US7804948B2 in a per curiam order issued by Chief Judge Moore, Judge Dyk, and Judge Reyna. The case closed on 5 May 2023. The recorded basis of termination is 'Unpatentable,' confirming the lower tribunal's invalidity or cancellation finding was upheld on appeal.
US7804948B2 is directed to a system and method for initiating a conference call, filed under application number US11/019655. The patent covers real-time communications functionality central to enterprise collaboration platforms. Cisco, whose Webex product line includes conference call and multi-party communications features, was the defendant in this proceeding.
The per curiam form — attributed jointly to the panel without a named author — typically signals that all three judges agreed the outcome was sufficiently clear to resolve without a full written opinion. It suggests the panel found no novel or unsettled legal question in the appeal, and that the unpatentability finding below was well-supported. The specific reasoning is not elaborated in the available public record.
The Federal Circuit's affirmance means US7804948B2 is confirmed unpatentable and cannot be enforced against Cisco or any other party. For similarly positioned defendants in the enterprise communications sector, this outcome reduces — but does not eliminate — patent assertion risk, as related family members or other Uniloc-held patents in the conferencing domain may remain active.
The ruling removes US7804948B2 as an enforceable patent, which is relevant for FTO analyses covering conference call initiation products. However, because patent families can include continuation and divisional applications, IP teams should verify whether any related applications descending from US11/019655 remain live before relying on this ruling as a comprehensive clearance. The specific terms of the proceeding are not fully disclosed in the available record.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.