US 10133527

The initial searches returned no results. Let me try different query formulations.

I have solid USPTO data from uspto.report. Now let me search specifically for CAFC 2026 docket activity for this exact patent number.

US Patent 10,133,527 (US10133527B2) — Summary

Bibliographic data (from USPTO/Google Patents/uspoto.report)

Abstract (verbatim from the record)

"A wireless device that includes at least a wireless communication unit, which is compatible with at least a protocol within IEEE 802.11 standards, for establishing a wireless connection with a server over a network is herein disclosed and enabled. To connect the wireless device with the server, the wireless device may first establish short range wireless communication with a client device, such as a smart phone. The wireless device may exchange data or information with the client device via the short range wireless communication; and the wireless device may implement an authentication procedure for detecting authentication information. Thereafter, the wireless device connects to the server over the Internet for accessing a service provided by the server. The accessing of the service may require authentication information on the wireless device, and the accessing of the service is subsequent to the wireless device having implemented the authentication procedure at the wireless device."

Independent claims — plain-language overview

The patent has three independent claims (1, 8, and 16), with dependent claims 2–7, 9–15, and 17–20 respectively.

• Claim 1 (method) — A wireless communication method performed by a wireless device (which has one or more communication units, each with at least one communication chip/chipset). The device: (1) makes itself wirelessly discoverable to a client via short-range wireless, transmitting at least an attribute/identification to the client; (2) establishes a direct short-range wireless link with the discovering client, compatible at least partly with Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11; (3) wirelessly communicates with the client over that link; (4) executes an authentication procedure while communicating, detecting security/authentication information (user name, password, ID number, PIN, IP address, security key, biometric, fingerprint, or voice); (5) establishes WLAN (IEEE 802.11) communication; and (6) wirelessly connects to one or more servers over the Internet to access a service — where the connection happens after the authentication procedure, and service access is based on the device having appropriate authentication information.

• Claim 8 (apparatus) — A wireless device with an antenna and one or more wireless communication units (at least one IEEE 802.11-compatible), configured to: (1) receive a communication/service request from a client; (2) establish a short-range wireless link (Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) with the client after receiving the request; (3) communicate with the client over that link; (4) implement an authentication procedure at the device while communicating (detecting the same types of security/authentication information); (5) establish IEEE 802.11 WLAN communication; (6) connect to server(s) operated over the Internet, subsequent to authentication; and (7) access a service provided by the server(s), where access depends on the device having appropriate authentication information.

• Claim 16 (computer-readable medium) — A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing software/firmware for a wireless device (having one or more processors/controllers and wireless communication units, at least one IEEE 802.11-compatible). When executed, it performs a method comprising: facilitating wireless discovery via short-range communication (transmitting attribute/identification to a client); establishing a direct short-range link (Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) with the client; wirelessly communicating with the client; executing an authentication procedure based on that communication; connecting to server(s) over the Internet using the 802.11-compatible unit; and accessing a service provided by the server(s).

In essence, the patent claims cover a wireless output device (e.g., printer, TV, audio device) that first pairs/communicates with a nearby smart phone or client over short-range (Bluetooth/802.11), performs an authentication step, and then uses IEEE 802.11 to reach an Internet server for a service — with the short-range client interaction serving as a setup/authentication pathway to the Internet-based service.

CAFC 2026 docket search — result and caveat

I searched for CAFC (Federal Circuit) 2026 docket entries specifically for patent number 10133527 using several query formulations (e.g., "10133527" CAFC docket, "10,133,527" appeal Federal Circuit, Flexiworld Technologies litigation CAFC 10133527). No CAFC docket records specifically naming US 10133527 were returned — the searches returned empty results or only unrelated documents. I therefore cannot confirm or identify any CAFC 2026 appeal involving this exact patent.

Note: Google Patents marks the patent family (ID 22998933) as having litigation (linked to Darts-ip), so the broader Flexiworld family has been litigated, but I found no case-specific, docket-level information tying this patent number to a 2026 CAFC proceeding. If you need authoritative confirmation of CAFC dockets, I'd recommend checking PACER/CM/ECF for the Federal Circuit or the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board search tools directly — my available search results do not provide that level of detail for this specific patent.

Based on my searches, here is what I can report regarding litigation involving US Patent 10133527 ("Wireless devices that communicate, via short range wireless communication, with a mobile client device for establishing services of the wireless device with a server over the internet," Flexiworld Technologies Inc., granted Nov. 20, 2018):

Known litigation

Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Sony Corporation

• Case number: 2:23-cv-00616
• Court / Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (Judge Rodney Gilstrap)
• Filing date: December 19, 2023
• Plaintiff: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.
• Defendant: Sony Corporation
• Status/Outcome: Dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation of the parties (per PatSnap, citing PACER Docket Dkt. No. 42), reportedly on May 29, 2025, after ~527 days of litigation. All pending claims and counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys' fees. No merits ruling was issued.

Sources identifying 10133527 in this case:

• Stanford NPE Litigation Database: https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/10133527 — lists US10133527 as involved in Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Sony Corporation, 2:23-cv-00616, E.D. Tex., filed Dec 19, 2023.
• RPX Empower: https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txedce-[226846](/patent/226846)-flexiworld-technologies-v-sony#overview — confirms case 2:23-cv-00616, E.D. Tex., filed 12/19/2023.
• PACER Monitor docket: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/51750256/... — confirms the case, amended complaint, Judge Gilstrap, and docket activity through 2024–2025.

Important caveat / discrepancy

There is a conflict among sources about whether 10133527 was actually asserted in the Sony case:

• The Stanford NPE Litigation Database (keyed by patent number) maps US10133527 to the Sony case.
• However, a PatSnap litigation summary of Flexiworld v. Sony identifies only seven asserted patents: US9836259B2, US11096056B2, US9798516B2, US9042811B2, US10768871B2, US11029903B2, and US10162596B2 — 10133527 is not on that list (https://www.patsnap.com/fr/resources/blog/litigation/flexiworld-technologies-v-sony-corp-wireless-output-smart-device-patents-patsnap/).
• A third aggregation source (Golden Compass/PatentPia) lists a different, larger set of Flexiworld patents for the same case number — also without 10133527 (it includes e.g., 10037178, 10140073, 10387087, 10489096, 10642576, 10768871, 10846031, 10866773, 11029903, 11096056, 7609402, 9042811, 9836257, 9836259, 9965233).

So the Stanford database is the only source I found that ties 10133527 specifically to the Sony litigation; the PatSnap narrative of the "asserted patents" in that case does not include it. It is possible that 10133527 appeared in the original complaint and was dropped by the time of the First Amended Complaint, or that the aggregator sources are incomplete. I could not verify the complaint exhibits directly (PACER Monitor's exhibit list for the First Amended Complaint was truncated).

No other litigation found

I found no other U.S. litigation specifically naming US10133527 (e.g., no ITC proceedings, CAFC appeals, or other district court cases identified for this patent number). Note also that Google Patents metadata lists the patent's legal status as "Expired - Fee Related" with an anticipated expiration date of November 18, 2021 (the 20-year term ran from the Nov. 20, 2000 priority date), which may limit future enforcement.

Bottom line: The only litigation I can identify with reasonable confidence as involving US10133527 is Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Sony Corporation, 2:23-cv-00616 (E.D. Tex., filed Dec. 19, 2023), which was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation in 2025 — but be aware that other litigation summaries of that case do not list 10133527 among the asserted patents, so it may have been dropped early in the case.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 10133527: zero. The USPTO Open Data Portal ingest returns no IPR/PGR/CBM for this patent, and independent web searches (including for "10133527" + PTAB/institution/Final Written Decision, and for Amazon/Roku/Unified Patents challenges to this specific patent number) surfaced no petition, no institution decision, no Final Written Decision, no settlement, and no Federal Circuit appeal tied to this patent. Bottom line for a defendant: all 20 claims (independent claims 1, 8, and 16 plus dependents 2–7, 9–15, 17–20) are completely untested before the PTAB — no claim has been canceled, and no claim has been "hardened" by a merits decision either. The absence of PTAB activity is itself notable: this patent was asserted in at least one major district-court case (and possibly a second) during the period when IPRs were available, and no one filed one.

There are therefore no per-proceeding sections to report. Rather than fabricate dockets, the sections below explain what the zero-proceeding record means, what related Flexiworld PTAB activity exists on other patents (as pattern signals only), and what a defendant should do.

Strategic summary

Claims status: 100% UNTESTED — no claims canceled, none sustained by the Board. US 10133527 has never been the subject of an inter partes review, post-grant review, or covered business method review. Its three independent claims (1 — method, 8 — apparatus, 16 — computer-readable medium) and all dependent claims (2–7, 9–15, 17–20) remain exactly as issued on 2018-11-20. Any invalidity defense a defendant asserts will be first-impression litigation, not a re-run of a failed PTAB challenge.

Estoppel landscape: completely open. Because no AIA trial has ever been instituted on this patent, there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel against any party, and no prior-art ground has been "used up" at the PTAB. Every § 102/§ 103 combination — including the classic pre-AIA art in this family (the patent claims priority to November 2000 provisionals, so pre-AIA § 102(a)/(b)/(e)/(g) and § 103(a) apply) — remains fully available in district court. A defendant is not boxed out of any ground by a prior petitioner's failed attempt, because there was no attempt.

Pattern signals — relevant context, but none touching this patent:

• Flexiworld is a serial, aggressive NPE litigant. This patent was asserted against Amazon in Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00553 (W.D. Tex., filed 2020-06-22, Judge Albright) as one of ten patents (per Law Street Media and 澎湃新闻 coverage). The Stanford NPE Litigation Database also maps 10133527 to Flexiworld v. Sony, 2:23-cv-00616 (E.D. Tex., dismissed with prejudice 2025-05-29), though PatSnap's asserted-patent list for that case does not include it — treat the Sony tie as unverified.
• Flexiworld's other patents have been challenged, with mixed results. Unified Patents filed IPR2022-00775 against Flexiworld's 9,836,257 — the PTAB upheld claims 27–28, crediting the inventors' October 2000 conception (FWD, Paper 41, 2023-11-01; panel: APJs McMillin, Ogden, Dougal). Roku filed IPR2022-01267/01268/01269 against three Flexiworld patents; those were terminated after settlement (joint motion to terminate filed 2022-10-27, license agreement). Roku's PGR2021-00111 on Flexiworld's 10,846,031 was denied institution (2022-03-14). Unified also ran an ex parte reexamination (90/014,721) on Flexiworld's 10,346,114 that ended in a final rejection of claims 8–14. The takeaway: challengers have had some success against Flexiworld (reexam on the '114), some failures (IPR on the '257), and this particular patent has simply never been picked off.
• Why no IPR on this patent? The most plausible explanation is timing and economics: the patent's 20-year term ran from the 2000-11-20 priority date, with an anticipated expiration of 2021-11-18 and a current status of "Expired – Fee Related." The Amazon suit (filed 2020-06) fell within the one-year IPR filing window, but the patent's imminent expiration made a costly IPR a poor investment for Amazon when the damages exposure was capped and the patent was about to die. The Sony case (2023) came after expiration and after the statutory window for any 2020-served defendant.

Recommended next steps

1. Verify the zero-proceeding record yourself before making representations. The structured USPTO ODP data in this prompt is canonical, but confirm via PTAB E2E / PRPS (https://ptab.uspto.gov) and a PAIR/patent-center check on the '527 patent for any ex parte reexamination (Control No. 90/xxx) — ex parte reexams are not AIA trials and would not appear in the ODP trial feed. I found no reexam for this patent, but I did not run a systematic PAIR search.

2. Do not anchor your defense on PTAB invalidation — it does not exist. There is no FWD to cite and no canceled claim to lean on. If a demand letter cites claims of 10133527, the response should be built on: (a) the patent is expired (term expired ~2021-11-18; "Expired – Fee Related") — so no injunction is available and damages are limited to past infringement within § 286's six-year lookback, and any pre-suit notice/§ 287 issues apply; (b) non-infringement — the claims require a specific architecture (short-range pairing with a client, on-device authentication, then IEEE 802.11 connection to an Internet server), which is a narrow, fact-intensive theory; and (c) invalidity under pre-AIA § 102/§ 103 with the full prior-art universe available, since no estoppel exists.

3. If you are being sued and want a PTAB option, model the costs carefully. An IPR can be filed on an expired patent while damages claims are pending (the petitioner must have a real stake), but the Board and the district court will weigh the expired status, and the one-year § 315(b) bar runs from service of the complaint — so act within that window or lose the option. Given the low damages ceiling on an expired patent, most defendants will find the district-court invalidity case (no estoppel, full art available) more cost-effective than a PTAB trial.

4. Watch the Flexiworld playbook. Flexiworld has litigated against Amazon, Roku, Sony, Samsung/other OEMs (per The Recycler's coverage of Xerox, Canon, Lexmark, Brother, Epson suits) and has shown it will press weak claims to the eve of trial. But its PTAB track record is mixed (won the '257 IPR on conception-date evidence; lost the '114 reexam), and its district-court cases have repeatedly ended in dismissal or settlement without merits rulings — most recently the Sony case, dismissed with prejudice in 2025 with no finding of validity or infringement. That history supports a firm, early, well-documented invalidity/non-infringement posture rather than a settlement-driven one.

Bottom line: No PTAB proceeding exists for US 10133527 — no claims canceled, no claims sustained, no estoppel. The patent is expired and its claims are untested anywhere on the merits. The strongest defensive posture is: expired patent, narrow claims, no merits ruling ever upholding them, and no PTAB estoppel blocking any prior-art ground.

I'll research the assignment chain for US 10133527, starting with USPTO assignment records and cross-referencing legal events.

Let me dig deeper into the legal events and assignment records for this specific patent.

Good progress. I can see Flexiworld's litigation documents reference specific reel/frame numbers for inventor assignments. Let me find the specific assignment record for 10133527 and check for any post-issuance transfers.

I've reached the search limit, but I have enough verified data from the fetched patent record, Google Patents legal events, the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, and RPX litigation documents to reconstruct the ownership chain. Here is my analysis.

Inventors

Pattern note: Both inventors are the principals of the original assignee — this is a founder-inventor pattern, not a "inventors depart and portfolio gets fire-sold" pattern. There is no indication either inventor was employed by a third party at filing; the 2017 assignment (below) runs from both inventors directly to Flexiworld Technologies, Inc., consistent with founders assigning their own invention to their own company.

Original assignee

• Entity: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. (Vancouver, WA) — named on the issued patent and listed as current assignee.
• Product status: No evidence of any shipped product. In its own litigation pleadings in the Sony case, Flexiworld averred: "Since issuance of each of the Patents-in-Suit, Flexiworld has not made, offered for sale, sold, or imported a product that practices any of the Patents-in-Suit or that would otherwise require marking under 35 U.S.C. § 287" (RPX litigation document, ¶100 — https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/15717164).
• Line of business: Early-2000s "universal output / pervasive printing" software startup that pivoted to patent monetization; it is a serial plaintiff (suits against Sony, Samsung, and others).
• Current status: Operating as a licensing/assertion entity. The Stanford NPE Litigation Database categorizes it as asserter type "Failed startup" (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/10133527). Google Patents lists the patent's legal status as "Expired – Fee Related" with anticipated expiration 2021-11-18 (20-year term from the 2000-11-20 priority date), which limits the damages window for any assertion.

Assignment timeline

I could not pull the raw reel/frame from the USPTO Assignment Center (its search interface is not directly queryable via search engines), so reel/frame numbers below are given only where confirmed from litigation pleadings for other Flexiworld patents, and flagged where they are not confirmed for this patent.

Recorded assignments for US 10133527 (per Google Patents legal events):

• Executed: not shown / Recorded 2017-05-15 — Reel/Frame not confirmed in available sources (Google Patents records the event without a reel/frame in the fetched record; USPTO Assignment Center search for "10133527" should be run to capture it — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/)
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST")
  • Assignor: William Ho Chang; Christina Ying Liu
  • Assignee: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not available from my sources — flagged as unverified (see Signal 3).
  • Context: Routine inventor→applicant assignment recorded ~6 months after filing of the 15/358,982 continuation and before issuance; this is the standard chain-of-title recording, not a portfolio transfer.

For cross-reference, complaints in other Flexiworld cases give the pattern for sibling patents — e.g., '402 patent at Reel/Frame 028733/0064, '072 and '178 patents at 042385/0202, '596 patent at 039816/0200 — all inventor→Flexiworld assignments (https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/15143102; https://ai-lab-cl-prod.azurewebsites.net/case/dct/txed/2:25-cv-00960/doc/analysis/1). The 10133527 assignment is almost certainly the same form, but I do not have its exact reel/frame verified.

Key finding: There are no recorded post-issuance assignments — no transfer to an LLC, no security agreement, no merger. The original assignee, Flexiworld Technologies, Inc., has retained ownership of US 10133527 from issuance (2018-11-20) through today. That itself is a finding: the asserting entity is the original company, not a downstream shell.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10133527
    2000 : Priority provisional filed
    2001 : Ancestor applications filed
    2016 : Continuation application filed
    2017 : Inventors assign to Flexiworld
    2018 : Patent issued
    2021 : Term expired unpaid
    2023 : First suit filed vs Sony

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. There is no recorded transfer from Flexiworld to an "IP Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" LLC. The only recorded assignment runs from the two inventors to the operating-name company, Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. (recorded 2017-05-15 per Google Patents legal events). Flexiworld's status as an NPE therefore rests on its own conduct, not on a shell transfer.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Current assignee Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. is a serial patent plaintiff: it filed Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Sony Corporation, 2:23-cv-00616 (E.D. Tex., Dec. 19, 2023) (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/10133527; https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txedce-[226846](/patent/226846)-flexiworld-technologies-v-sony), and has pursued additional suits against Samsung and others. The Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies it as a "Failed startup" asserter. Its own pleadings admit it sells no products practicing the patents (RPX doc ¶100). This is the strongest signal.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. I could not retrieve the correspondent-of-record for the 2017-05-15 assignment from my sources. (Note: the prosecution record for this patent lists Chernoff Vilhauer LLP as the prosecuting firm, but the assignment correspondent is a separate data point I could not verify.) A USPTO Assignment Center lookup is needed to close this out; without it I make no finding.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. There is exactly one recorded assignment in the chain (inventors → Flexiworld, 2017). No chained LLC transfers in any window.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The recorded assignment (2017-05-15) predates the first identified infringement suit (Dec. 2023) by more than six years and predates even issuance — it is chain-of-title, not litigation-arranged.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. has not been in Chapter 7/11, and there is no court-supervised patent sale (contrast Kodak/Nortel/Polaroid).

7. Privateering — not present. Flexiworld asserts in its own name; there is no evidence it is a front for an operating company targeting that company's competitors, and no SEC filing surfaces such an arrangement.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. The patent remains at the asserting entity.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

The chain is short and clean — inventors Chang and Liu assigned to their own company, Flexiworld Technologies, Inc., on 2017-05-15, and Flexiworld has retained the patent ever since — so the NPE determination rests on the assignee's behavior rather than on shell transfers. Two strong signals drive the call: (1) Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. is a known, serial patent asserter — it sued Sony (2:23-cv-00616, E.D. Tex., filed 2023-12-19) and is classified by the Stanford NPE Litigation Database as a "Failed startup" asserter; and (2) Flexiworld admits in its own pleadings that it has never made or sold any product practicing the patents (RPX litigation document, ¶100, https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/15717164). The "Expired – Fee Related" status (anticipated expiration 2021-11-18) is consistent with a non-practicing entity that never had products to keep a patent alive for, and it likely explains why 10133527 does not appear in some summaries of the asserted patents in the Sony case. Verify the exact reel/frame and correspondent of the 2017-05-15 assignment at the USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/.