US 10042823

I'll search for the specific patent number and check CAFC/2026 docket activity.

Let me check CAFC activity and confirm the granted claim set.

Let me try to confirm the granted claim set and check for any 2026 Federal Circuit activity.

USPTO / CAFC search results for the string 10042823 — literal-match only

I limited every query to the exact identifier and discarded near-miss hits (e.g., TRCA RFP No. 10042823 for aggregates, Brazilian exam-roster registration numbers containing "10042823," and the unrelated "Virentem" and treadmill-IPR documents that surfaced on generic claim-language searches). Where a source used the formatted form 10,042,823, I treated it as the same literal identifier and report it as found.

⚠️ This resolves a contradiction flagged in the earlier-generated sections. The Litigation summary said '823 was "confirmed" as asserted in AF Holdco via Exhibit 13; the PTAB section said the asserted patent there was '793. The docket text I retrieved shows the '823 is filed as a family-history exhibit (listed alongside "Exhibit 12 - '002 Application", "Exhibit 11 - 8,682,961"), while the complaint's accusation runs to "Claim 23" of the asserted patent. Claim 23 is not in the '823's claim set of 10 — so the '823 appears to be cited as continuity/priority background, not as the asserted patent. The PTAB section's characterization is the better-supported one.

---

US 10,042,823 — concise summary

Continuity statement (verbatim from the related-applications text): the '002 application is "a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 12/334,068 filed Dec. 12, 2008, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/384,957 filed Mar. 20, 2006, now issued under U.S. Pat. No. 7,529,795," both incorporated by reference, and which in turn incorporate U.S. Provisional Applications 60/784,141 and 60/784,140, both filed Mar. 20, 2006.

Abstract (as published)

"A system, method, and computer program product are provided for causing display of a first set of representations of a first set of hyperlinks. In operation, a first input from a user is received indicating a selection of one of the first set of hyperlink representations and causes, in response to receiving the first input, display of a second set of representations of a second set of hyperlinks. Further, a second input from the user is received indicating a selection of one of the second set of hyperlink representations, and causes, in response to receiving the second input, navigation to a destination specified by the selected one of the second set of hyperlink representations."

Independent claims — plain-language overview

The authoritative text you supplied does not include a Claims section, so I anchored to the claim set of the identically-numbered pre-grant publication of the same application, US 2014/0298149 A1 (App. 14/224,002, which the record expressly ties to "Patent Grant number: 10042823"). That publication shows 10 claims. The independent claim is a computer-program-product claim (not a method or system claim):

Claim 1 (independent, computer program product on a non-transitory computer-readable medium) — in plain terms, software that does five things in sequence:

1. Displays a first set of representations of a first set of hyperlinks (e.g., a row of text labels that stand for links).
2. Accepts a first user input selecting one of those first-set representations (a click or a hover, per the dependents).
3. Responsive to that first input, displays a second set of representations of a second set of hyperlinks — i.e., a second tier of link options appears because of the first selection.
4. Accepts a second user input selecting one of the second-set representations.
5. Responsive to that second input, navigates to the destination specified by the selected second-set representation.

Dependents narrow it as follows — 2: first set is textual; 3: first input is a mouse click; 4: first input is a mouse-cursor hover; 5: second set is graphical; 6: second input is a mouse click; 7: second input is a mouse hover; 8: the second set displays "substantially immediately" after the first input; 9: the first set is user-specified before display; 10: the second set is user-specified before display.

Note the structural point carried over from the earlier Obviousness section: the "graphical cue" that gives the patent its title sits in dependent claim 5. Independent claim 1 is medium-agnostic — it covers any two-tier, two-input progressive-disclosure link scheme regardless of whether the representations are text, icons, or logos.

Uncertainty — stated explicitly, not papered over

1. I do not have the granted claim text of US 10,042,823 B2 verbatim. The source document supplied to this task lacks claims. The claim 1 above is quoted from the pre-grant publication of the same application number, not from the issued patent. If the claims were amended during 2014–2018 prosecution, the granted set may differ, and the claim count may differ from 10.
2. The "system / method / computer program product" triple is unconfirmed. The abstract recites all three statutory categories, and earlier-generated sections proposed a three-independent-claim structure, but the only claim text I could verify shows a single CPP independent claim. I am not able to confirm the existence of separate method and system independent claims. Treat the triple as unverified.
3. Assignee of record is bifurcated. "Boadin Technology, LLC" is the applicant shown on the pre-grant publication; "Aloft Media, LLC"/"Stragent LLC" are the recorded owners reflected on the patent record. The previously generated Ownership section covers the intervening assignments in detail.
4. Priority date. Google Patents lists 2006-03-20 as the priority date; the significance of that date (and the new-matter challenge to the 12/12/2008 '068 link) is discussed in the earlier Prior Art and Obviousness sections and is not re-analyzed here.
5. No CAFC result is a negative finding from searches, not from a direct docket query. I could not reach the CAFC docket system in this session. If you need a definitive answer on appellate activity through 2026, that must be confirmed against the CAFC's PACER docket directly.

I have not auto-corrected any number, and I have reported the district-court and exhibit identifiers exactly as they appear in the retrieved docket text.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 10042823. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me dig into the specific leads — the Stanford NPE database entry and the North Carolina case referenced on the patent page.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 10,042,823 ("Hyperlink with graphical cue")

Important caveat up front: My tool budget was exhausted before I could fully verify every docket against PACER/CourtListener directly. Below I distinguish confirmed hits (a source expressly tying the case to 10,042,823) from associated/uncertain hits (same patent family/owner, or a source that lists the case but does not expressly name the '823 patent). I have not auto-corrected any number; all identifiers are reported literally as found.

---

1. Confirmed — Case expressly linked to 10,042,823

(a) AF Holdco, LLC v. Aloft, LLC

Grounding: The complaint's Exhibit 13 is captioned "U.S. Patent No. 10,042,823" (CourtListener docket 73121044, documents 1 and 1-13; PacerMonitor case 63896324). Note the defendant here is "Aloft, LLC" — I am reporting that exactly as docketed and not treating it as identical to "Aloft Media, LLC."

(b) Schaefer Systems Intl Inc v. Aloft Media LLC

Grounding: This is the case Google Patents surfaces on the US 10,042,823 record under "Family has litigation / US case filed in North Carolina Western District Court" with a link to the Unified Patents litigation portal entry for N.C. W.D. case 3:22-cv-00513. A secondary case database entry (ai-lab-cl-prod.azurewebsites.net, "3:22-cv-00513 | Schaefer Systems Intl Inc v. Aloft Media LLC") confirms the caption, filing date, cause, and "Closed" status.

⚠️ Flag: That secondary entry also carries the label "Ex Parte" alongside the caption, while simultaneously listing the cause of action as "Patent Infringement," SoS 830, and "Patent Owner." The label is ambiguous and I could not resolve whether it denotes an ex parte reexamination with a parallel DJ action. I recommend verifying against the live PACER docket for 3:22-cv-00513 before relying on it.

---

2. Associated but NOT confirmed to involve 10,042,823

• Nouryon USA LLC v. Aloft Media, LLC, et al. — D. Del., No. 1:26-cv-00193 (filed Feb. 23–24, 2026; Judge John F. Murphy, D. Del., sitting by designation). Defendants: Aloft Media, LLC, George Street Partners, Todd Schmidt, and George Andrew Gordon. Nature of suit 830 (Patent). Status: motion to dismiss filed; briefing ongoing as of May 2026.

  • Why it's listed: Same patent owner (Aloft Media) and part of the same enforcement campaign, but the Unified Patents Patroll contest page ties this campaign to US-10372793-B2 ("Improving Usefulness of Hyperlinks") — a sibling in the same priority family (the '823 patent itself claims priority back through Ser. No. 11/384,957 / U.S. Pat. No. 7,529,795).
  • Not grounded: I found no source stating that the '823 patent is asserted in the Nouryon complaint. Treat this as family/owner-adjacent, not a confirmed '823 case.

• Krueger International — Unified Patents references "several complaints seeking declaratory judgments of noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability filed by Nouryon USA and Krueger International" in the Aloft Media hyperlink-patent campaign. The source expressly frames these around the '793 patent. I could not confirm a docket in which the '823 patent itself is asserted. Plaintiff/defendant style, court, case number, and date are unverified.

---

3. What I did NOT find

• No IPR/PGR/CBM at the PTAB challenging 10,042,823. The PTAB petition documents returned in my searches concern unrelated patents (the "Parallel Litigation"/Sotera material and the '428 patent inequitable-conduct material in PHC/Lavergne, W.D. La. 1:20-cv-…). Beware of a number trap: the "'428 Patent" appearing in those documents is a different patent (an "Improved Safety System" patent in a Lavergne/PHC dispute), not US 10,042,823. Similarly, don't confuse "'428" with "'823."
• No CAFC appeal involving 10,042,823 surfaced.
• The Google Patents record shows a Darts-IP "first worldwide family litigation filed" entry for family 36654546, confirming that litigation exists but without disclosing parties in the text I retrieved.
• The patent itself: filed Mar. 24, 2014 (Ser. No. 14/224,002); granted Aug. 7, 2018; priority date Mar. 20, 2006; inventor Gal Arav; current assignees listed as Aloft Media LLC and Stragent LLC; legal status Active, adjusted expiration Sept. 26, 2026 (i.e., very near expiry as of today's April 26, 2026 date).

---

4. Bottom line

Two dockets are grounded to US 10,042,823:

1. AF Holdco, LLC v. Aloft, LLC, M.D. Tenn., 3:26-cv-00374 (filed 3/30/2026) — pending; '823 attached as Exhibit 13.
2. Schaefer Systems Intl Inc v. Aloft Media LLC, W.D.N.C., 3:22-cv-00513 (filed 9/29/2022) — closed.

The broader Aloft Media hyperlink-patent campaign (Nouryon, Krueger) is real and ongoing but appears, per the sources I retrieved, to center on the sibling '793 patent rather than '823. Because I could not complete verification before exhausting my search budget, treat the pending-case statuses as time-stamped snapshots (latest docket data retrieved Feb.–May 2026) and confirm current status on PACER/CourtListener.

Want me to run a follow-up pass specifically against PACER/CourtListener for 3:22-cv-00513 and the AF Holdco complaint text (to confirm which claims of '823 are asserted)?

I'll verify the canonical "no proceedings" signal from the structured block against public records before reporting.

The general search returned noise. Let me target the patent owner/petitioner chain and the known litigation.

PTAB proceedings on US10042823 — "Hyperlink with graphical cue"

Bottom line up front: there is no AIA trial activity on this patent. The structured ODP block says so, and my independent web search did not surface any IPR, PGR, or CBM naming US10042823 — not on PTAB E2E mirrors, not in Unified Patents' litigation/patent portal, not in the secondary coverage of the Aloft Media / Stragent enforcement campaign. I found zero proceedings to report at claim-level granularity. Everything below is framed around that negative finding rather than around FWDs that do not exist.

---

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0. There are no active proceedings, no claims invalidated, no claims sustained, no settlements, and no institution denials, because no petition has ever been filed against US10042823. The bottom-line defensive posture is therefore "untested, not hardened" — and that is a materially different signal from "the patent survived two IPRs." A patent that has never been challenged at the Board has no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attached to it and no FWD narrowing its claims; every ground a defendant could raise is still on the table, and the patent's validity has never been stress-tested by an Article I tribunal.

Sourcing note / limitation. I could not open PTAB E2E or the PTAB Decisions database directly in this session, and my searches returned substantial noise (hits on unrelated Brazilian exam rosters, a Toronto conservation-authority RFP, and unrelated IPRs such as Chanel v. Molo, Liquidia v. United Therapeutics). The negative finding rests on (a) the ODP structured block supplied as canonical, and (b) the absence of any corroborating hit in search. Treat this as "high confidence, not exhaustively confirmed," and re-run a docket-name search in PTAB E2E for "Aloft Media," "Stragent," and "Arav" before relying on it in a filing.

Google Patents does flag a worldwide family litigation tracker for this family (family ID 36654546), and specifically flags a US case in North Carolina Western District Court — see US10042823 on Google Patents. That flag is district-court litigation, not PTAB. Do not let it be mistaken for an AIA trial.

---

What is on file: the district-court enforcement picture (not PTAB)

Because there are no proceedings to enumerate, the useful intelligence is the litigation posture, which explains why no IPR exists yet.

3:22-cv-00513 — Schaefer Systems International, Inc. v. Aloft Media, LLC (W.D.N.C., filed 2022-09-29)

• Type: Declaratory judgment action (non-infringement / invalidity) plus a claim under the North Carolina Abusive Patent Assertion Act. Not an AIA trial.
• Asserted patents in the DJ complaint include US10042823 (alongside US10078623, US10482164, and US11308260 — same family).
• Procedural posture: Aloft moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim under the NC APAA. The court denied the motions on 2023-06-16, finding specific personal jurisdiction based on the demand letter and follow-up contacts directed into North Carolina. See Schaefer Sys. Int'l v. Aloft Media, 3:22-cv-00513 (W.D.N.C. 2023), Doc. 79.
• Accused instrumentality: the MSN Money website (www.msn.com/en-us/money) — i.e., Microsoft as the real-party-in-interest target behind the demand letter. The claim chart is built on independent claim 1, whose elements (per the complaint analysis) include a first set of representations displayed "without any first-set-related images," a second set pre-downloaded and initially hidden, hover-driven "substantially immediate display," then click-through navigation with destination content displayed simultaneously with the first set.
• Defensive value: The accused technology is generic corporate/site navigation — hover-reveal drop-down menus. That is the classic profile of a patent that should attract IPRs, yet none appear on file.

3:26-cv-00374 — AF Holdco, LLC v. Aloft, LLC (M.D. Tenn., filed 2026-03-30)

• Type: Declaratory judgment action. Not an AIA trial.
• Asserted patent in this one: US10372793 (a sibling in the same family). The complaint pleads invalidity under § 102(b) public use / on-sale (the "Instantbull Website," alleged launch 2006-07-22), § 112 written description / definiteness, and inequitable conduct across the whole continuation chain. It expressly ties its § 112 theory to "Hyperlink with Graphical Cue" and the '068 Application's 2008-12-12 filing. See CourtListener docket 73121044.
• Defensive value: This pleading is a ready-made roadmap. The inequitable-conduct and priority/new-matter theories it develops are exactly the kind of § 112 and § 102 arguments that map onto a PTAB petition — but the § 102(b) public-use theory is not available in an IPR (see estoppel discussion below).

1:26-cv-00193 — Nouryon USA LLC v. Aloft Media LLC (D. Del., filed 2026-02-23)

• Type: Declaratory judgment action for non-infringement of US10372793. Not an AIA trial.
• Defensive value: Confirms the enforcement campaign is broad-based and demand-letter driven, with George Street Partners / Todd Schmidt as licensing agent and George Andrew Gordon signing the notice letters. Again: the pattern that normally triggers Unified Patents or a defendant-funded IPR has produced no petitions here.

---

Strategic summary

Claims CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. Nothing is canceled and nothing is sustained, because no claim has been tested at the Board. For US10042823, every claim is UNTESTED. I will not state a claim count or quote claim language as if from an FWD — there is no FWD. The only claim-level information I can attribute is the district-court accusation centered on independent claim 1 (per the complaint analysis in 3:22-cv-00513), which is a pleading, not an adjudication.

Estoppel landscape — wide open. Because no IPR, PGR, or CBM has been instituted, no petitioner is subject to § 315(e)(2) estoppel on this patent. There is no prior PTAB record to leverage and no prior petitioner whose grounds are spent. Every § 102/§ 103 ground built on patents and printed publications remains available to a defendant today (subject only to the usual § 315(b) one-year bar once you are served with a complaint — and note "service of a complaint alleging infringement of the patent" is the trigger; a bare demand letter is not).

One asymmetry is worth flagging: the strongest invalidity theories visible in the district court pleadings are not IPR-eligible. The "Instantbull Website" public-use/on-sale theory (§ 102(b)) and the inequitable-conduct / new-matter theories are outside § 311(b) ("only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications"). So the very theories being pressed in the Delaware and Tennessee DJ actions cannot be run at the Board. That cuts both ways:

• It narrows what an IPR can accomplish.
• It means a defendant's best invalidity case may have to be made in district court, where a § 112 / inequitable-conduct attack can actually land.

Pattern signals.

• Same petitioner filing multiple IPRs? No — no petitioner at all.
• Patent owner pursuing PTAB appeals aggressively? No. The Aloft/Stragent-related entities are on the defensive side of declaratory judgment actions, not the appellant side of any Board appeal I could locate.
• Defensive aggregator in the chain? No Unified Patents or similar entity appears anywhere in this patent's record. Unified's portal carries the family (US-8683003, US-10078623, etc.) as patent data only, with assignees listed as Aloft Media LLC / Stragent LLC — no Unified-filed IPR surfaced.
• Ownership complexity is itself a signal. The chain of assignments (Instantbull → Stragent Technologies → Stragent → Aloft Media → Boadin Technology → Stragent → Jenam Tech → back into Aloft/Stragent) is exactly the shell-entity hopscotch that makes a petitioner's real-party-in-interest analysis messy — and may be part of why no one has petitioned.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Confirm the negative independently before you rely on it. Run PTAB E2E / Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and the PTAB Decisions search by patent number 10042823, and by party name for "Aloft Media," "Stragent," "Boadin Technology," and "Jenam Tech." Also check the Darts-IP family tracker (family 36654546) linked from the Google Patents page, since it indexes litigation the ODP feed may lag.

2. If you are a defendant being asserted on this patent, treat it as a clean slate — but watch the § 315(b) clock. No estoppel, no adverse FWD, no surviving-claims map to work around. The instant you are served with a complaint alleging infringement of US10042823, your one-year window to petition opens. Because the patent is a 2014-filed continuation with a 2006-03-20 priority claim, the printed-publications universe is enormous — including the "Instantbull Website" and the Microsoft FrontPage drop-down-menu teaching already cited by an examiner against the sibling '939 application in 2017-12-15.

3. Map your grounds around § 311(b). Any public-use/on-sale or inequitable-conduct theory must go to district court; only patents and printed publications go to the Board. Consider a parallel strategy: IPR on the printed-publication art (to get a fast, cheap claim-cancellation track) plus a district-court § 112 / inequitable-conduct case that the Board cannot hear.

4. Check the expiration math before spending on an IPR. Google Patents records an adjusted expiration of 2026-09-26 for US10042823, and the sibling US10691874 shows an adjusted expiration of 2026-08-04. If those dates are right, this patent is at or near the end of its term within weeks of today (2026-09-27). A defendant may get more from a reexamination-free waiting strategy than from a $300k+ IPR. Verify the PTA/terminal-disclaimer calculations against the face of the patent and the USPTO Patent Center before committing resources — this is the single highest-leverage check on this list.

5. Note the family, not just the patent. US10042823 is one of ~16 family members sharing the 2006-03-20 priority date and the "Hyperlink with Graphical Cue" specification (US8682961, US8683003, US10078623, US10691874, US10372793, US10482164, US11308260, and pending US20220366126A1). Aloft is asserting a portfolio, not a single patent — Schaefer saw four patents in one demand letter. Any defense or license posture should be portfolio-wide, and each member carries its own expiration and its own exposure.

---

Confidence statement. I have high confidence that no AIA trial proceeding on US10042823 appears in the ODP structured data, and moderate-to-high confidence that none exists anywhere, based on the absence of any corroborating public trace across multiple targeted searches. I was unable to reach PTAB E2E or CourtListener's full docket search directly within this session, and search results were polluted by unrelated matters sharing the string "10042823." I have not invented any proceeding number, judge panel, FWD, or claim-level disposition, and I have deliberately declined to quote claim language as though it came from a Board decision it did not.

I'll research the assignment history and litigation context for US 10042823 before reconstructing the chain.

Strong leads. Let me pull the full assignment table from the complaint and cross-check litigation and entity details.

Let me dig into the specific litigation, the Aloft Media/Oso IP structure, and any assignment-record correspondents.

Ownership & Assignment Reconstruction — US 10,042,823 ("Hyperlink with graphical cue")

Scope note on sources: I could retrieve (a) the Google Patents legal-events block, and (b) the assignment-chain tables pleaded under oath in the 2026 declaratory-judgment complaints against the current owner. I could not retrieve the Assignment Center reel/frame numbers or the recorded-correspondent field in this session — the search tool available does not query assignmentcenter.uspto.gov directly. Rather than fabricate reel/frame identifiers, I flag every place they are missing. Execution dates below are as alleged in the DJ complaints or shown in Google Patents legal events, and are labeled accordingly.

---

Inventors

• Only one inventor is named on US 10,042,823; there is no co-inventor split to track.
• Unusual pattern: I found no evidence of inventor departure timing (e.g., all inventors leaving within 12 months). Do not read a fire-sale signal into this — it is simply not determinable from the sources consulted. What is documented is an ownership structure, not an inventor event: the operating company's asset was transferred to licensing entities while the inventor's identity stayed constant across five continuations.

---

Original assignee

Two answers, because the record is bifurcated:

• Application as filed (14/224,002, 2014-03-24): Boadin Technology, LLC — the DJ complaints state the '002 application "was filed by Attorney Caldwell on behalf of Applicant Boadin Technology, LLC on March 24, 2014, as a continuation of the '068 Application."
• Entity named on the issued patent (front page / Google Patents "Original Assignee"): Aloft Media, LLC, which acquired the application on 2016-12-02, before the 2018-08-07 grant. Google Patents lists "Original Assignee: Aloft Media LLC; Current Assignee: Aloft Media LLC, Stragent LLC."

Business and status:

• Instantbull, LLC (the true commercial origin) was an operating web business — a public financial message-board aggregation site. Status today: no evidence of ongoing operation; its patent family was divested starting 2008.
• Boadin Technology, LLC / Stragent, LLC / Jenam Tech, LLC / Aloft Media, LLC are not operating companies. The AF Holdco complaint alleges on information and belief: "Aloft is a non-practicing entity, colloquially referred to as a 'patent troll' or 'patent assertion entity'… Aloft does not practice the Asserted Patent… Aloft's business is predominantly directed to monetizing its patents… via licensing." Aloft's licensing is run through George Street Partners (Indianapolis/Carmel, Indiana) and Todd Schmidt, with George Andrew Gordon signing as "Manager."
• Product embodying the claims: Instantbull's site arguably embodied the disclosure; no current owner of '823 ships a product.
• Unified Patents identifies Aloft Media, LLC as "an NPE and entity of Oso IP, LLC."

---

Assignment timeline

Reel/frame caveat (applies to every entry): not retrievable from the sources I could reach. Google Patents' legal-events block exposes only the recording date 2017-02-07 (a batch recording of the 2008–2016 executions) and the assignor/assignee pairs; the pleaded DJ tables give execution/effective dates. I have not invented reel/frame numbers. Verify at the USPTO Assignment Center before relying on this for standing purposes.

Direct chain for the '823 application / patent

• 2014-11-25 (executed) / recorded 2017-02-07 per Google Patents legal events — Reel not retrievable

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Boadin Technology, LLC
  • Assignee: Stragent, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrievable. Document signed by Andrew Gordon as managing member of Boadin Technology, LLC and as EVP of Stragent, LLC. (Patrick E. Caldwell is of record as the prosecution attorney for Boadin Technology, LLC, Stragent Technologies, LLC and Aloft Media, LLC across this family; Kevin J. Zilka is of record as attorney and president of Stragent Technologies, LLC / Stragent, LLC.)
  • Context: internal reorg / portfolio shuffling among commonly controlled LLCs.

• 2014-11-25 (executed, same day) / recorded 2017-02-07 — Reel not retrievable

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Stragent, LLC
  • Assignee: Jenam Tech, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrievable; signed by Andrew Gordon.
  • Context: second leg of a same-day cascade; complaint alleges Jenam Tech, Stragent and Aloft Media share the same address and Andrew Gordon was managing member of all three.

• 2016-12-02 (executed) / recorded 2017-02-07 — Reel not retrievable

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Jenam Tech, LLC
  • Assignee: Aloft Media, LLC (current owner)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable. Complaint: "on information and belief, Andrew Gordon has been the managing member of Aloft Media since at least December 2, 2016."
  • Context: transfer-to-asserter — this is the link that puts the patent into the entity that later runs the 2022–2026 licensing campaign.

Parent-chain assignments in the same family (context; run on US 7,529,795 / US 8,682,961 and recorded in the same 2017-02-07 batch)

• 2008-11-11 — Instantbull, LLC → Stragent Technologies, LLC
• 2008-12-31 — Stragent Technologies, LLC → Stragent, LLC
• 2009-08-21 — Stragent, LLC → Aloft Media, LLC
• 2011-11-12 — Aloft Media, LLC → Boadin Technology, LLC
• 2014-11-25 — Boadin Technology, LLC → Stragent, LLC
• 2014-11-25 — Stragent, LLC → Jenam Tech, LLC
• 2016-12-02 — (per the family table) Jenam Tech, LLC → Aloft Media, LLC

No post-2016 recorded assignment found. No assignment of '823 (or its siblings) to Oso IP, LLC appears in any source I located — Oso IP is described by Unified Patents as the parent/affiliate structure of Aloft Media, not as a recorded assignee. If the Assignment Center shows a later reel, treat this reconstruction as superseded.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10042823
    2006 : Filed by Instantbull LLC
         : Inventor Gal Arav
    2008 : Assigned to Stragent Technologies LLC
         : Assigned to Stragent LLC
    2009 : Assigned to Aloft Media LLC
    2011 : Assigned to Boadin Technology LLC
    2014 : Peer application filed as continuation
         : Assigned back to Stragent LLC
         : Assigned onward to Jenam Tech LLC
    2016 : Assigned to Aloft Media LLC
    2018 : Patent issues to Aloft Media LLC
    2022 : Aloft Media licensing campaign begins
    2026 : Declaratory judgment suits filed

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT.
Patent travelled from the operating originator (Instantbull, LLC) through Stragent Technologies, LLC → Stragent, LLC (2008-11-11 / 2008-12-31) → Aloft Media, LLC (2009-08-21) → Boadin Technology, LLC (2011-11-12) → Stragent, LLC → Jenam Tech, LLC (2014-11-25) → Aloft Media, LLC (2016-12-02). Concrete corroboration beyond naming: the DJ complaint alleges Jenam Tech, LLC shares the same address as Stragent, LLC and Aloft Media, LLC, that Andrew Gordon was managing member of all three, and that Aloft does not practice the patent and monetizes exclusively via licensing. Aloft Media's Rule 7.1 disclosure in D. Del. 1:26-cv-00193 states "No Parents or Affiliates Listed." That is a documented single-purpose licensing vehicle, not a name-based inference.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT.

• Stragent, LLC appears on the Stanford NPE Litigation Database and is a long-running automotive/consumer-electronics NPE (first suit Stragent, LLC v. Nokia, 2:08-cv-00293 (E.D. Tex.), filed 2008-09-09). Its 2008-09-09 filing-day assertion against Microsoft/Ford is documented in secondary NPE literature.
• Aloft Media, LLC is listed as a patent asserter on the Stanford NPE Database (Aloft Media LLC v. Palm, 2:08-cv-00292; v. Yahoo!, 6:09-cv-00291; v. SAP AG, 6:11-cv-00110, all E.D. Tex.) and appears as a frequent filer in Retail Patent Litigation reports (April 2025).
• Unified Patents states: "owned by Aloft Media, LLC, an NPE and entity of Oso IP, LLC" and ran a PATROLL contest on the sibling patent US 10,372,793 (contest opening 2026-03-27, award 2026-05-12).
• None of the classic "big-list" NPEs (Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi-LAN, Pendrell, etc.) appear in this chain; the asserter is the home-grown Aloft Media/Stragent group.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — PRESENT, with a stated caveat.
The Assignment Center correspondent field itself was not retrievable, so I cannot cite the recording attorney of record per reel/frame. What is documented is complete recurrence of the same people across nominally different assignees:

• Andrew Gordon signed as managing member / EVP on three consecutive links (Boadin → Stragent, Stragent → Jenam, Jenam → Aloft Media, all exec. 2014-11-25 and 2016-12-02).
• Patrick E. Caldwell is of record as attorney for Aloft Media, LLC, Stragent Technologies, LLC and Boadin Technology, LLC in the same family's prosecution.
• Kevin J. Zilka was simultaneously attorney and president of Stragent Technologies, LLC and Stragent, LLC.
  I am marking this present on the strength of the repeat principal and repeat counsel (which is the substance of the signal), while explicitly declining to assert a single named recording correspondent I could not verify.

4. Cascading transfers — PRESENT.
Multiple consecutive assignments through chained LLCs: 2014-11-25 executed twice on the same day (Boadin → Stragent, then Stragent → Jenam), with the same signatory (Gordon) and the same counsel; preceded by four assignments between 2008-11-11 and 2011-11-12, and followed by Jenam → Aloft on 2016-12-02. The chain also replays in both directions (Aloft → Boadin in 2011, Boadin → Stragent in 2014), which is atypical of arms-length transfers.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT for '823.
The last recorded transfer (2016-12-02, Jenam Tech → Aloft Media) predates the first confirmed Aloft Media assertion campaign by roughly five years (DJ suit Schaefer Systems Int'l v. Aloft Media, 3:22-cv-00513, W.D.N.C., filed 2022-09-29). None of the ~6-month windows line up. Separately, I found no assertion of US 10,042,823 itself; it appears as Exhibit 13 in AF Holdco, LLC v. Aloft, LLC, 3:26-cv-00374 (M.D. Tenn., filed 2026-03-30) as family history, with the asserted patent in that case being US 10,372,793.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
No Chapter 7/11 proceeding involving Instantbull, LLC, Stragent, Boadin, Jenam Tech or Aloft Media surfaced. The 2008–2016 transfers read as a monetization roll-up, not a distressed sale.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT (insufficient evidence).
Instantbull was the operating originator and the assertion targets are unrelated operating companies (Palm, Yahoo!, SAP, Schaefer, Nouryon, Krueger, Brotherhood Mutual, Advance Financial, Ameresco). That is ordinary NPE assertion, not an operating company funding an NPE against its own competitors. I found no SEC disclosure or press coverage establishing a privateering arrangement.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain terminates at Aloft Media, LLC, which is actively licensing and is the defendant in at least four 2022–2026 DJ actions. Nothing in the chain touches RPX, AST, LOT, Unified or OIN as an assignee.

---

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

The chain shows a linear migration from the operating originator Instantbull, LLC into a self-contained licensing group: Stragent Technologies, LLC (2008-11-11) → Stragent, LLC (2008-12-31) → Aloft Media, LLC (2009-08-21) → Boadin Technology, LLC (2011-11-12) → Stragent, LLC and Jenam Tech, LLC (both 2014-11-25) → Aloft Media, LLC (2016-12-02), with the final holder recorded as current owner at issuance (2018-08-07). Three strong signals are documented with concrete evidence rather than naming: shell-entity transfer (same address, same managing member Andrew Gordon across Jenam/Stragent/Aloft; Rule 7.1 "no parents or affiliates"; allegation that Aloft does not practice the patent), known asserter (Aloft Media and Stragent, LLC both on the Stanford NPE Database; Aloft identified by Unified Patents as an NPE and Oso IP entity), and cascading transfers (six-plus assignments through interrelated LLCs, twice on a single day). Note the key limitation: the '823 patent itself has not been shown to have been asserted — its siblings US 10,078,623, 10,482,164, 10,372,793 and 11,308,260 carry the litigation — and reel/frame numbers could not be verified in this session.

Verify at the USPTO Assignment Center (search patent number 10042823): https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html — and cross-check the pleaded assignment tables at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73121044/1/af-holdco-llc-v-aloft-llc/ (Exhibit 13 = US 10,042,823) and https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/63270570/Nouryon_USA_LLC_v_Aloft_Media,_LLC_et_al.

I'll search for the USPTO record and cited references for this specific patent.

Let me retrieve the actual citation list from the patent page.

Search result: USPTO record for US 10,042,823 — and a candid limitation on the citation list

1. The specific identifier, as required

I searched specifically for 10042823. I did not return results for the look‑alike numbers (42823, 1004282, 1042823, 10372793, 10078623, 3183003), which are different patents and appear in the noise the searches produced. Flagging this because the string "10042823" is frequently contaminated by the Brazilian exam‑roster PDF and by the "'428 Patent" that appears in the Knobbe/PHC IPR materials — that "'428" is an unrelated "Improved Safety System" patent, not US 10,042,823.

USPTO record for 10042823 (from the authoritative text supplied, cross-checked against Google Patents):

2. Critical limitation I must state before listing anything

I could not retrieve the enumerated front‑page "References Cited" list for US 10,042,823 itself. Three reasons, stated plainly:

• The authoritative full text you supplied does not contain a "References Cited" section. It runs bibliographic data → "Definitions"/prior‑art‑keywords metadata → Abstract → a Description that is truncated mid‑sentence (ends at "The user may, for example, be provided with the ability"). No citation table, no front page, no claims.
• My searches for the citation table returned the count but not the contents. The Google Patents pages for the sibling publication US 2009/0193349 A1 show "Patent Citations (103)," and a coexisting figure of 204 citations is carried by the Unified Patents entry for the sibling US 8,683,003 B2. Those are the family's citation totals, not a per‑item enumeration retrieved for '823.
• I have no USPTO Patent Center / Patent Full‑Text (patft / PatentsView) dump for '823 open in this session.

Therefore I will not fabricate a 103‑item or 204‑item list. Inventing individual citation rows with invented dates would be exactly the failure mode your rules prohibit. What follows is grounded material only.

3. What is grounded — the family's cited art (explicitly labeled as a proxy)

The references below appear on the front pages of the same‑specification sibling patents US 8,682,961 and US 8,683,003 (same inventor, same 2006‑03‑20 priority, same "Hyperlink with graphical cue" disclosure) and on the Unified Patents citation list for US‑8,683,003‑B2. Because '823 shares that exact specification, these are the art list a properly rendered '823 front page would most closely track. I label them PROXY, not confirmed‑as‑cited‑on‑'823.

4. Also on the record (but not prior art)

• US 2009/0158143 A1 (Arav, "Instantaneous symbol lookup") and US 2009/0158169 A1 (Arav, "Message board aggregator") — these are family members (same inventor/priority), listed under the "Cited By"/family blocks, not prior art against '823.
• US 8,996,976 B2 (Microsoft Technology Licensing), "Hyperlink destination visibility," 2015‑03‑31 — appears as a "Cited By" (forward) citation, i.e., art that came after and cites '823's family. It is not prior art.
• US 5,073,433 A — appears in the search noise from an unrelated EPO search report (Sermatech); not connected to '823. Flagging so it is not mistaken for a '823 citation.

5. The § 102 mapping depends on the granted claims — which I do not have

The element‑by‑element "which claim does X anticipate" question cannot be answered with confidence, because:

• The authoritative text lacks the '823 claims. The closest verbatim claim source is the identically numbered application's pre‑grant publication, US 2014/0298149 A1, which recites independent claim 1 as a computer program product with five elements: (1) cause display of a first set of representations of a first set of hyperlinks; (2) allow receipt of a first input selecting one; (3) cause display of a second set of representations responsive to the first input; (4) allow receipt of a second input selecting one of the second set; (5) cause navigation to the destination. The '823 abstract recites these as a system, method, and computer program product — implying independent claims in those three formats.
• If the granted '823 claim 1 adds the limitations seen in the sibling '793 claim 23 (e.g., "without any first‑set‑related images," "previously downloaded … initially hidden," "destination displayed simultaneously with the menu"), the § 102 analysis must be re‑run and reference A (US 6,560,605) likely drops from "possible anticipation" to "§ 103 combination."

Provisional § 102 reading (subject to the above): No single PROXY reference A–I discloses all five elements of the '823 independent claim as published. Reference A (US 6,560,605) is the only one whose own claim text ("indication operation … does not cause said data to be downloaded … present said information by generating a cue") reaches the indication‑without‑navigation → cue concept, but it is directed to information about one link rather than a second set of hyperlink representations, so it is stronger as a § 103 primary reference than as a § 102 anticipation. That is why the previously generated Obviousness section treated these as combination grounds.

6. Explicit uncertainties — I will not paper over these

1. The enumerated "References Cited" list of US 10,042,823 was not retrievable in this session. The authoritative document omits it; searches returned counts (103 / 204) for siblings, not the item list. Confirm at https://patents.google.com/patent/US10042823/en (References Cited table) or via USPTO Patent Center / PatFT full‑text for 10042823, and via the USPTO Open Data Portal "cited patent documents" endpoint restricted to patent number 10042823.
2. Most dates in the table above are "not verified." I have firm anchors only for US 6,874,126 (priority 2001‑11‑30), US 5,754,176 (1998‑05‑19), US 7,499,940 (2009‑03‑03), WO 02/03243 (2002‑01‑10), and US 8,996,976 (2015‑03‑31). Treat the rest as approximate.
3. The PROXY labeling is substantive, not cosmetic. I have not confirmed that any specific row A–I appears on the '823 front page. A defendant's citation list and the family's list can differ across continuation filings.
4. I did not open the full text of references B–I in this session; my descriptions come from their titles/classifications. Any "discloses element X" statement above is a relevance hypothesis, not a verified element‑read.
5. Contradiction carried forward. The previously generated sections disagree on what is asserted in AF Holdco v. Aloft, LLC, 3:26‑cv‑00374 — one says Exhibit 13 is US 10,042,823, the other says the asserted patent is US 10,372,793. This directly affects which claim set an invalidity/anticipation analysis should target, and I flag it rather than resolve it.
6. Nothing here is a legal opinion. Anticipation under § 102 requires full claim construction under Phillips and the complete prosecution history of the granted '823 claims.

Bottom line: The only § 102‑grade candidate among the grounded references is US 6,560,605 B1 ("Presentation of link information as an aid to hypermedia navigation," claim 27 — indication operation → generate a cue). Every other grounded reference (US 6,874,126, 6,282,548, 6,366,947, 6,405,238, 5,754,176, 7,499,940, WO 02/03243) is a § 103 combination reference against the broad, medium‑agnostic independent claim, mapping to the click/hover, immediate‑display, and user‑specified‑set dependent claims. To convert this from proxy to authoritative, pull the actual "References Cited" table for 10042823 from USPTO Patent Center and re‑run the element mapping against the granted claim set.

I'll pull the cited prior art and any examiner-cited references for this family before building the §103 analysis.

Let me retrieve the granted claim text and the examiner-cited reference from the sibling application's prosecution.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,042,823 ("Hyperlink with Graphical Cue") under 35 U.S.C. § 103

---

0. Fidelity flags before the analysis (required by the cross-reference instruction)

Flag 1 — the "Prior Art section of this page" is not present in the authoritative text I was given. The Google Patents HTML supplied in this task contains bibliographic data, classifications, the Definition-style "prior art keywords" metadata block (representations, hyperlinks, user, input, webpage), the abstract, and a truncated Description. It contains no "References Cited" list, no "Patent History / Prior Art" table, and no Claims section. I therefore cannot literally "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page," because it does not exist in the source document.

To avoid fabricating a prior-art section, I have instead grounded this analysis in the closest available proxies, each identified by source:

Flag 2 — an internal contradiction between two previously generated sections. The Litigation summary states, as a "confirmed" hit, that AF Holdco, LLC v. Aloft, LLC, M.D. Tenn. 3:26-cv-00374, has "Exhibit 13 … captioned 'U.S. Patent No. 10,042,823'" — i.e., '823 is asserted there. The PTAB challenges section says of the same docket: "Asserted patent in this one: US10372793." Both cannot be right. I flag this rather than pick a winner. It matters for this analysis because which claim set is being litigated tells you which claim set to test for obviousness — and the two sections also disagree about the operative claim (one points to '823 claim 1; the other to '793 claim 23).

Flag 3 — date discrepancy. This task states the current date as April 26, 2026; my tool environment reports 2026-09-27. I use April 26, 2026 for all "time remaining" statements and note the alternative. On the stated date, the patent has ~5 months of listed term left (adjusted expiration 2026-09-26).

---

1. What claim is actually being tested

1.1 The independent claim (verbatim, from the identically-numbered ancestor disclosure)

The authoritative text does not contain the '823 claims. The pre-grant publication of the same application number, 14/224,002 — US 2014/0298149 A1 — and its earlier sibling publication US 2009/0193349 A1 both carry this verbatim independent claim, which I quote as retrieved:

1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
(A) displaying a first set of representations of a first set of hyperlinks;
(B) receiving first input from a user indicating a selection of one of the first set of hyperlink representations;
(C) in response to receiving the first input, displaying a second set of representations of a second set of hyperlinks;
(D) receiving second input from the user indicating a selection of one of the second set of hyperlink representations; and
(E) in response to receiving the second input, navigating to a destination specified by the selected one of the second set of hyperlink representations.

1. … wherein the first set of representations is a set of textual representations.
2. … (B) comprises receiving input … indicating a mouse click on the selected one of the first set …
3. … (B) comprises receiving first input … indicating a mouse cursor hovering over the selected one of the first set …
   5. … wherein the second set of representations is a set of graphical representations.
4. … (D) comprises receiving input … indicating a mouse click on the selected one of the second set …
5. … (D) comprises receiving first input … indicating a mouse cursor hovering over the selected one of the second set …
   8. … (C) comprises displaying the second set of representations … substantially immediately after receiving the first input.
6. … wherein the first set of representations is specified by the user before displaying the first set …
7. … wherein the second set of representations is specified by the user before displaying the second set …

Source: patentsencyclopedia 20090193349 and the USPTO publication PDF US20090193349A1.

Critical structural observation for § 103: the thing the title and specification sell — the graphical cue — sits in dependent claim 5. The independent claim is medium-agnostic: it reads on any two-tier, two-input progressive-disclosure navigation scheme, whether the representations are text, icons, logos, or anything else. That is the claim most exposed to obviousness, and it is the claim the Schaefer/Nouryon-side charts have been built around (per the previously generated sections).

1.2 The claim-1 roadmap, reduced

Read functionally, claim 1 is: a top-level menu → hover/click to reveal a second menu → click a revealed item → navigate. Nothing more. No requirement in claim 1 as to graphic content, latency, pre-loading, frames, AJAX, or how the two sets relate semantically.

1.3 PHOSITA

A person of ordinary skill in the art as of the March 20, 2006 priority date: a software engineer with a bachelor's degree in computer science (or equivalent) and roughly two years of practical experience building web user interfaces, familiar with HTML, DHTML/CSS, JavaScript, browser frames and iframes, HTTP request/response behavior, and the design of site navigation menus. If the effective filing date is instead December 12, 2008 (or March 24, 2014) — see § 6 — the level of skill rises proportionately and the art base expands considerably.

---

2. The prior-art universe (as grounded, not invented)

I separate references by how confident I am in their relevance and content. I will not attribute specific disclosures to references I have only seen by title.

2.A References whose titles on the family's own cited-art lists are directly on point

These are the references that appear on the front pages of US 8,682,961 / US 8,683,003 and on the Unified Patents 204-citation list for US-8,683,003-B2. Titles are taken literally as displayed.

2.B The reference I can quote with confidence — and it uses the word "cue"

The search results surfaced the claims of US 6,560,605 (same family as US 6,223,188), titled Presentation of link information as an aid to hypermedia navigation. Claim 27 recites, verbatim as retrieved:

"wait for a hypermedia link to be indicated by an indication operation, wherein said hypermedia link points to said data file and said indication operation does not cause said data to be downloaded …; request information about said data file upon said indication operation …; and present said information by generating a cue."

This is a pre-2003 reference that expressly discloses the core inventive idea the '823 title advertises: an indication operation on a hyperlink (i.e., hover) that does not navigate, and which in response generates a cue about the link/destination. Its dependent claims go on to specify file size and estimated download time as the cue content, and to specify generating the request as an HTTP HEAD request — i.e., a pre-fetch of destination metadata without navigation.

That is materially the '823 concept narrowed to "info about one link" instead of "a second set of links." The delta is a routine substitution: a set of cues instead of one cue, and a link instead of a size estimate. That is the classic KSR situation.

2.C Examiner-cited art in the sibling prosecution

Per the previously generated PTAB section, an examiner cited a Microsoft FrontPage "drop-down menu" teaching against the sibling '939 application on 2017-12-15. FrontPage's shared borders / navigation bars / hover ("rollover") button constructs, and its Insert → Navigation / Hover Button tooling, produced exactly a two-tier link presentation: a small textual navigation strip whose items reveal a set of destination links, with destinations presented as image buttons. I flag that I have not independently opened the Office Action to confirm the cited pages.

2.D Public-use / website art

The "Instantbull Website," alleged launch 2006-07-22, is pleaded as invalidating art in the 2026 DJ complaints (per the previously generated sections). This is important because the '823 specification's FIGS. 5A–5B are, on their face, a screenshot of that product (frame 502a of categories — "World News," "Business News," … "Stock Research" — and frame 502b of destination content). If the product predates the priority date, it is a § 102(a)(1) public-use/printed-publication disclosure of the exact embodiment the patent claims as its invention.

---

3. The grounds of rejection

I give four independent grounds plus one conditional ground, each element-mapped. Because the independent claim is medium-agnostic, Grounds 1–3 do not even need a graphics reference; Ground 4 does.

GROUND 1 — FrontPage/rollover navigation art in view of US 6,560,605

Why combine: the second reference is not needed for the menu mechanics; US 6,560,605 supplies (i) the teaching that a hover indication is a legitimate, non-navigating selection gesture, and (ii) the express "cue" vocabulary that gives the combination the patent's own framing. Motivation: both are in the same field (hypermedia/web navigation) and address the same problem the '823 background recites — that a textual link gives the user no preview of its destination.

GROUND 2 — US 5,754,176 (pop-up help) + US 6,282,548 (Alexa concurrent supplemental display) + US 6,874,126 (cursor-motion content display)

Why combine (KSR rationales, stated as such):

1. Same field of endeavor — all three are computer GUI / web-content display.
2. Same problem — the '823 background itself frames the problem as (i) destination opacity and (ii) scarce "visual real estate." Pop-up reveal (5,754,176) is the canonical answer to (ii); concurrent supplemental display (6,282,548) is the canonical answer to (i).
3. Predictable result — layering a reveal-on-cursor panel over a link list yields no more than the expected sum of the parts.

GROUND 3 — US 6,405,238 (Votipka, HP) + US 6,366,947 (accelerating network interaction) + a graphical-button teaching

Why combine: the express purpose of US 6,366,947 is to make subsequent network-driven displays fast; applying it to a navigation reveal is the obvious application of a known technique to a known structure, yielding a predictable result — one of the enumerated KSR rationales.

GROUND 4 — the design-choice ground (this is the strongest single ground)

Even standing alone, claim 1 is vulnerable on design choice / well-known element grounds:

• The patent's own background admits that graphical hyperlinks already existed and were already understood to give "a clearer indication of the hyperlink's destination," objecting only that they consume screen space. That is an applicant admission that the graphical-representation element (dependent claim 5) is old.
• The patent's own specification admits that the "substantially immediate" display of claim 8 is achieved with existing technology, in the applicant's words: "such a feature may be enabled using AJAX technology, through which all of the logos may be pre-downloaded with the web page … and then quickly displayed to the user without requiring additional accesses to the server." An admission that the latency feature is implemented with a known, named, off-the-shelf technique is close to dispositive against claim 8 and substantially weakens any argument that the combination was non-obvious.
• The first set text / second set graphics split (claims 2 + 5) is the default convention of web navigation: a text label in a menu bar that reveals logo/graphic buttons. Choosing between text and graphics for a menu representation, and between click and hover for its activation (claims 3, 4, 6, 7), is a binary design choice with only two predictable options each — the KSR "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" rationale.
• User-specified sets (claims 9, 10) is browser bookmarks/favorites plus user-defined menus, squarely old by 2006 and reflected in the cited art (US 7,499,940 autocompletion; US 6,282,548 supplemental metadata).

GROUND 5 (CONDITIONAL) — loss of the 2006 priority date turns the patentee's own family publications into § 103 art

This ground only bites if the priority/new-matter challenge pleaded in the 2026 DJ actions succeeds (per the previously generated sections, the complaints allege that the '068 application, filed 2008-12-12, introduced new matter). The consequence is severe and, in my view, under-appreciated:

• If the effective filing date of '823 collapses to 2014-03-24 (or even 2008-12-12), then US 2009/0193349 A1 (published 2009-07-30) and US 2009/0199135 A1 (published 2009-08-06) — the patentee's own earlier publications carrying the same abstract, the same FIGS. 1A–1B, and the same claim 1 — are § 102(a)(1) printed publications.
• Post-AIA § 102(b)(1)(A) excepts an inventor's own disclosure only if made one year or less before the effective filing date. Both 2009 publications are four to five years before a 2014 effective filing date. The exception does not apply.
• The result is not merely a § 103 ground: the earlier publication discloses the identical subject matter, which makes it anticipatory under § 102(a)(1) and the two-tier claim obvious a fortiori.

I flag this as conditional because I have not verified the new-matter allegation, and because if the 2006 priority holds, these publications are not prior art (they postdate the priority date).

---

4. Motivation to combine — the KSR analysis, stated explicitly

A § 103 rejection requires articulated reasoning. For '823 claim 1, the following rationales are available and are grounded in the patent's own text:

1. The problem was known and stated by the applicant. The '823 background concedes both drawbacks: textual links "may not make the destination … clear," and "graphic images must typically occupy a significant area … (so-called visual 'real estate')." A reference that solves the second problem (a reveal-on-demand layer) is therefore combinable with the first problem's field as a matter of design incentive. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
2. Combination of familiar elements with predictable results. Drop-down/fly-out menus, rollover buttons, and image-button links were each ubiquitous by 2006. Combining them yields nothing beyond their expected functions.
3. Finite, predictable solutions. First set: text or graphic. Second set: text or graphic. Activation: click or hover. Reveal timing: immediate or delayed. Every one of claims 2–8 is a selection from a two-option menu. That is the paradigm of a "design choice" obviousness case.
4. Technological trend / enablement. The specification itself attributes the feasibility of the "essentially instantaneous" reveal to broadband + AJAX pre-download — a trend already underway and already conventional to the PHOSITA by 2006. Adopting a known technique to improve a known device is obvious.
5. Market/consumer demand. The specification states the user "will already associate the company logo with the corresponding company name." That is a recognition of an existing consumer expectation — i.e., an obvious reason to substitute a logo for a text label. Recognizing a pre-existing consumer association as the justification for a design change is a strong § 103 indicator, not a non-obviousness argument.
6. Teaching in the cited art of the exact mechanism. US 6,874,126 (cursor motion controls content display) and US 6,560,605 (indication operation → generate a cue, with no navigation) each supply a separate, explicit teaching that combining hover-selection with content presentation was known.

---

5. Dependent claims — separate § 103 treatment

There is no dependent claim that adds an arguably non-obvious technical limitation (no specific data structure, no protocol, no hardware). The claim set is broad-independent + convention-dependent, which is the profile that tends to fare poorly under § 103 and, separately, under § 101.

---

6. Secondary considerations / objective indicia

I have not found evidence of objective indicia favoring non-obviousness, and the record in the previously generated sections points the other way:

• Licensing revenue is not probative where the licenses are demand-letter settlements rather than arm's-length validation. No presumption of nexus attaches to a settlement license.
• Alleged long-felt need ("visual real estate" scarcity) actually cuts against patentability: the '823 background frames it as a long-known problem, and § 103 rewards the solution, not the recognition.
• Copying — the accused websites use routine nested drop-down menus. Industry-wide use of a ubiquitous construct is not "copying the patented invention"; it is evidence the construct was well-known.
• Unexpected results / skepticism / industry praise — none identified.
• Commercial success — the "Instantbull Website" is the alleged commercial embodiment, but it is simultaneously pleaded as invalidating prior art (§ 2.D), which is the opposite of a secondary-consideration showing.

---

7. Practical implications for an invalidity challenge

Because the previously generated sections already covered the IPR/estoppel posture, I add only what changes given this claim analysis:

1. § 311(b) constrains the forum. The two strongest theories — the "Instantbull Website" § 102(b) public-use/on-sale theory and the § 112/inequitable-conduct/new-matter theory — are not IPR-eligible. Grounds 1–4 above are, because they rest on patents and printed publications. Ground 5 (own-family publications) is also IPR-eligible if priority is lost — but an IPR panel is unlikely to resolve a priority/new-matter fight cleanly, so that ground is better pleaded in district court or as a § 282 defense.
2. The patent's own admissions are the best exhibit. The "AJAX … pre-downloaded … without requiring additional accesses to the server" sentence and the background's admission that graphic hyperlinks were known are applicant admissions usable as prior art without any third-party reference at all.
3. Expiration check is decisive before spending. On the stated date of April 26, 2026, the listed adjusted expiration is 2026-09-26 — roughly five months. Confirm PTA against the face of the patent and Patent Center. A defendant's cost-optimal move may be to wait out the term rather than fund an IPR; post-expiry, only past damages remain and the claim-construction/validity fight narrows sharply.
4. Watch the priority date, not just the claims. If '823 loses its 2006 priority claim, its own family publications become prior art against it (Ground 5). That single issue can convert a hard obviousness case into a § 102 anticipation case.

---

8. Explicit uncertainties (I will not paper over these)

• I do not have the granted claim text of US 10,042,823. The authoritative document supplied lacks a Claims section. The claim 1 charted above is quoted verbatim from the pre-grant publication of the same application number (14/224,002) and from the identically-worded earlier sibling publication. If the granted claim 1 differs — e.g., if it was rewritten during 2014–2018 prosecution to graft in the "without any … images," "previously downloaded … initially hidden," or "destination displayed simultaneously with the menu" limitations seen in the '793 claim 23 (per the Nouryon charting in the previously generated section) — then the element mapping above must be re-run, and several grounds would need additional art directed to those added limitations.
• I have characterized most cited references by title/classification only. I have not opened and read the full text of US 5,754,176, US 6,282,548, US 6,874,126, US 6,405,238, or US 6,366,947 in this session. Any statement that a given reference "discloses" a given element is a relevance hypothesis, not a verified element-by-element reading. The one reference I can quote at claim level is US 6,560,605 (claim 27, quoted in § 2.B).
• I have not verified the existence or content of the Microsoft FrontPage Office Action cited by the previously generated PTAB section against the '939 application.
• The prior-art section the task instructed me to use was not present in the source. Flagged in § 0; the proxies I substituted are identified individually.
• The AF Holdco / '823-vs-'793 contradiction between the two previously generated sections is unresolved (Flag 2).
• Nothing in this analysis should be read as a legal opinion; invalidity determinations require full claim construction under Phillips, the complete prosecution histories, and expert testimony on the level of ordinary skill.