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/.

I'll research the prior-art citations for US 10,133,527. Let me pull the citation lists from USPTO/Google Patents and related databases.

Let me pull the actual citation lists — both the references cited by this patent and the related-family citations.

Let me get the front-page reference list directly from the patent document and alternative databases.

Prior-art analysis — US 10,133,527 B2

Compliance note on the patent-number search. I ran the search on the literal string 10133527 / US10133527 and did not substitute or "correct" it. Two unrelated collisions exist and I explicitly set them aside rather than folding them in: PubMed PMID 10133527 ("Maintaining patient accounts performance during downsizing," Patient Acc., May 1994) and Semantic Scholar CorpusID 10133527 (Margaritis, Distribution-Free Learning of Bayesian Network Structure in Continuous Domains, AAAI 2005). Neither is the patent. The patent record used here is the authoritative Google Patents/USPTO text supplied in the prompt (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10133527/en).

Bottom line up front: I could not retrieve the complete, verbatim "References Cited" face list (Form 892) for US 10,133,527 within this session — my citation-oriented queries returned Google Patents table fragments whose column layouts ("Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title") are used for both Google's "Patent Citations" and its "Similar Documents" sections, so I cannot certify citation-vs-similar-document status for each row. I verified two patent references that appear in the '527 citation/similar-document ecosystem with date and title detail, and I identify them plus the topically dominant non-patent art below, with confidence labels. I flag this gap rather than pad it with guessed numbers.

---

1. What the record actually shows about the '527 citation set

The authoritative record in the prompt confirms the examiner's own framing of the search:

Two consequences follow. First, the examiner searched a hybrid of printer-connection-management art and wireless-authentication/discovery art — that is where the closest art lives. Second, the presence of H04N1/4413 and H04N1/442 (image-forming devices restricting access by password/ID/PIN/biometric) and G10L15/30 strongly suggests the record contains art directed at (i) on-device user access control and (ii) voice/remote provisioning — i.e., the "authentication procedure … detecting authentication information" element of claim 1(4)/claim 8(4) was met with office-equipment access-control art, not telecommunications art.

---

2. Verified/candidate patent citations and their § 102 mapping

2.1 US 6,990,548 B1 — the closest confirmed reference

Brief description (from the retrieved text): Addresses the problem that network peripherals (printers) must be programmed with a unique network identifier/IP address via the device's tiny local display and buttons. It substitutes a portable communication device 30 — "a cellular telephone, a pager, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a portable computer, a special-purpose portable communication device (e.g., a dedicated or universal remote control)" — that holds logic 31 communicating through a communication interface 32 over communication link 34 (expressly IR, RF, or cable/fiber) to the peripheral's interface 36 and logic 37, using "an intelligent step-by-step configuration process, a menu-driven process," and maintaining peripheral device control information in the portable communications device and selectively transmitting it to the peripheral.

§ 102 relevance — which claims it can and cannot reach:

Verdict: Not anticipatory of claims 1, 8, or 16 as a whole — it lacks elements (5)–(8). It is the best § 103(a) primary reference for the "wireless client configures a printer over a proximity link" concept and for the driverless/configuration rationale. Its significance is heightened by its date: a US patent granted on an application filed 2000-06-15 is pre-AIA § 102(e) art as of that filing date, i.e., five months before the '527's earliest priority date (2000-11-20) — statutory prior art if the '527 is limited to its 2000/2001 priority. (If AIA applies, see §4 below.) Its ultimate value depends on whether it is genuinely in the '527's cited list or only in Google's "Similar Documents" table — this is the single most important thing to verify.

2.2 US 6,785,727 B1 — likely background/similar-document only, weak art

Brief description: A shared printer/copier permits a user (the "reserver") to reserve a job-processing time zone and set a job-control mode; in the reserved zone the reserver's job is processed preferentially, with a first mode rejecting other users' jobs and a second mode processing them at lower priority. Settings come from an operator panel or from a host system over a bi-directional interface.

§ 102 relevance: It discloses user identity/gating at an image-forming device and job reservation/priority. Its only colorable mapping is to dependent claims of the '527 that recite user identification, user rights, or job-handling after connection (elements I could not quote verbatim — see the Gap section). It contains no short-range wireless discovery, no Bluetooth/802.11 link, no on-device authentication detecting a credential, no WLAN establishment, and no Internet-server service access. Not anticipatory of claims 1, 8, or 16. Given the title mismatch with the '527's subject matter, I assess US 6,785,727 as far more likely a "Similar Documents" row than a Form 892 citation.

2.3 Candidate (unconfirmed): Philips GB application — Method and apparatus in a wireless transceiver for seeking and transferring information available from a network server

Why it matters: It is the only reference I encountered in the '527 ecosystem that is squarely about a wireless transceiver obtaining information from a network server — i.e., the claim 1(7)/claim 8(7) "connect to a server over the Internet to access a service" element, and its 2000-03-02 priority again lands before the 2000-11-20 date, making it a pre-AIA § 102(a)/(b) candidate. It says nothing about on-device authentication (element 5) or IEEE 802.11 WLAN (element 6). Do not rely on this without confirming it is actually on the '527 face.

---

3. Non-patent literature that is materially on point (confidence: reference exists; not confirmed as cited on the '527 face)

The '527 claims are, functionally, a stack of four published standards-era behaviors, and the examiner's "Prior art keywords" and H04W12/06 + H04W76/14 + H04W8/005 classes point straight at them:

The combination Bluetooth 1.0B (elements 2–5) + IEEE 802.11-1997 (element 6) + IPP (element 7) is the obvious pre-2000-11-20 § 103(a) attack on claims 1/8/16 — but note the burden: you must supply a motivation to combine a short-range pairing link with a WLAN link toward an Internet server, and the '527's own specification (the Flexiworld universal-output text reproduced in the prompt) is written to make that combination look non-obvious.

---

4. Critical-date analysis — the single biggest lever on the prior-art universe

The '527's face shows priority to 2000-11-20 (prov. 60/252,682), 2001-01-19 (prov. 60/262,764), and continuations of 09/992,413 (filed 2001-11-18) and 10/053,765 (filed 2002-01-18), with the application itself filed 2016-11-22. Two regimes must be pleaded in the alternative:

1. If pre-AIA § 102/§ 103 applies (claims supported by the 2000/2001 disclosures): the universe is art before 2000-11-20 (§ 102(a)/(e)/(g)) or before 2001-11-18 (§ 102(b)). That universe is exactly the reference set above, and it is thin — the "short-range link + on-device auth + WLAN + Internet server" stack was not assembled in one reference in 2000.
2. If the '527's claims are not fully supported by the 2000/2001 parents — a live risk for Flexiworld continuations of this vintage — then under the AIA transition provision (35 U.S.C. § 3(n)(1)) the whole 2002–2016 decade of art opens up: UPnP/DLNA, Wi-Fi Protected Setup (2007), Bluetooth 2.1 + Secure Simple Pairing (2007), Wi-Fi Direct (2010), Apple AirPlay (2010), Google Cast/Chromecast setup (2013), Wi-Fi Easy Connect/DPP (2017), and the entire "smart speaker / appliance pairs with phone, then joins WLAN to reach cloud service" architecture. On the claims as written (device is discoverable over short range → authenticates → joins 802.11 → reaches an Internet service), most of the post-2010 consumer-appliance onboarding implementations read directly on claim 1.

My assessment: the most relevant prior art for US 10,133,527 is not a single patent but the Bluetooth-1.0B-plus-802.11/IPP combination on the pre-AIA side, and — if the new-matter argument lands — the 2010s wireless-onboarding/cloud-appliance art on the AIA side, which is materially more dangerous to the patentee.

---

5. Why no confirmed reference anticipates claims 1, 8, or 16

Claim 1 requires all of: (a) a device with one or more wireless communication units including at least one 802.11-compatible chipset; (b) making itself discoverable to a client and transmitting an attribute/identification; (c) a direct short-range link compatible at least partly with Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11; (d) communicating with the client over that link; (e) an authentication procedure executed at the device, detecting authentication information; (f) establishing WLAN (IEEE 802.11) communication; and (g) connecting to one or more servers over the Internet to access a service after the authentication procedure and based on the device having appropriate authentication information. Claim 8 is the apparatus counterpart; claim 16 is the same method on a non-transitory CRM.

Elements (e), (f) and (g) — and the ordering limitation ("subsequent to … having implemented the authentication procedure") — are the load-bearing limitations. Of the confirmed references, US 6,990,548 has (d) only; US 6,785,727 has neither (c) nor (e)–(g); the Philips GB reference has (g) but not (e) or (f). None of them, alone, discloses the full ordered stack. That is why this patent survived prosecution and why the family has been litigated on non-infringement/§ 103 rather than on a clean § 102 kill.

---

6. Gaps, and exactly how to close them

1. The authoritative Form 892 is still missing. Pull it from (a) https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10133527B2](/patent/US10133527B2) over the "References Cited" tab, (b) the granted-PDF front page (patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/…/US10133527.pdf, columns "References Cited — U.S. Patent Documents / Foreign Patent Documents / Other Publications"), and (c) USPTO Patent Public Search / Patent Center for the '527 and for its parents 09/992,413 and 10/053,765 (continuation citation lists are usually inherited, so the parents' Form 892s are the fastest proxy).
2. Check for an ex parte reexamination (Control No. 90/xxx) — as flagged in the earlier PTAB section, a reexam would not appear in an AIA-trial feed, and any reexam would carry an examiner's own prior-art citation set.
3. Pull Sony's invalidity contentions. In Flexiworld Techs. v. Sony Corp., No. 2:23-cv-00616 (E.D. Tex.), Sony's invalidity contentions are the single best evidence of what practitioners regard as the real § 102/§ 103 art on this patent. Retrieve from RPX Insight docket documents and PACER Monitor (https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/51750256/). If the earlier Amazon assertion is real (see the contradiction below), Amazon's contentions are a second source.
4. Do not treat the other Flexiworld patents as § 102 art. US 9,965,233 B2 and the rest of family ID 22998933 share the 2000-11-20 priority and are not prior art against the '527. The only intra-family documents that ever could be are published applications by the different inventive entity — none verified here.

---

7. Contradictions I am flagging explicitly (per cross-reference rule)

• Internal contradiction in the previously generated sections: the PTAB section states the '527 "was asserted against Amazon in Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00553 (W.D. Tex., filed 2020-06-22) as one of ten patents," while the Litigation section reports that the only identified case involving the '527 is the Sony case and that PatSnap's asserted-patent list for Sony omits the '527. Additionally, the assignment section asserts US 6,990,548-style Flexiworld suits against "Xerox, Canon, Lexmark, Brother, Epson." These cannot all be true for this patent number, and the discrepancy matters here because it determines which defendant's invalidity contentions to mine for the actual § 102 art. Treat the Amazon tie as unverified.
• Minor: the task header says "Current Date: April 26, 2026," while the system date is 2026-09-15. I used the IDs and dates in the patent record literally and did not adjust any date.
• Methodological caveat, stated plainly: the two patent references in §2.1–2.2 were surfaced from Google Patents table fragments whose columns are shared between "Patent Citations" and "Similar Documents." I have not confirmed that either sits on the '527's face. I have deliberately not named patent numbers I could not verify from the retrieved records, because a fabricated citation in a § 102 analysis is worse than an acknowledged gap.

If you can supply the Form 892 / front page for US 10,133,527 (or for its parent 09/992,413), I will produce the full per-reference, per-claim § 102 chart for every cited U.S. and foreign document — that is the one input needed to convert this from a framework into a complete anticipation analysis.

I'll start by checking whether the "Prior Art section" referenced in the task is available, and by grounding candidate references in search.

The task refers to a "Prior Art section" — let me check whether that data (the cited references on this page) is retrievable, along with the exact claim language, before analyzing.

Let me pull the exact claim language and candidate prior-art references.

Scope note — the "Prior Art section" was not supplied

Strict flag before I start: no Prior Art section appears in the previously generated material provided to me (I have only the Patent summary, Litigation summary, PTAB challenges, Assignment history, and the raw patent text/classification data). I will not invent one. What I used instead, and how:

Any reference I could not verify to a date/content level in this session is marked [verify]. Nothing below should be filed without a date-and-content check on the reference itself.

---

1. Governing framework

Which § 103 applies. The '527 issued from App. No. 15/358,982 filed 2016-11-22, but every claim purports benefit of the Nov. 20, 2000 / Jan. 19, 2001 provisionals and the 2001–2002 non-provisionals. If that benefit chain holds for the claims as written, pre-AIA § 103(a) governs and the critical date is Nov. 20, 2000 (with a § 102(b) bar date of ~Nov. 20, 1999). If the claims are not supported by the 2000/2001 disclosures (see § 7 below), they get a 2016 effective date and AIA § 102/§ 103 applies — which changes the outcome dramatically. Every § 103 ground below is stated in both registers.

PHOSITA (pre-AIA): a person with a B.S. in EE/CS (or equivalent) and 2–4 years' experience in wireless data communication, network printing, and driver/peripheral software — consistent with the patent's own characterization of "those skilled in the art" in the Background.

KSR rationales to be deployed: (i) known elements combined according to known methods yielding predictable results; (ii) substitution of one known wireless transport (IR/RF) for another (Bluetooth/802.11) with predictable results; (iii) use of a known technique (out-of-band pairing/PIN authentication) to improve a similar device in the same way; (iv) a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (short-range radio + WLAN) — "obvious to try"; (v) the specification's own admissions (network printing, print servers, PDL controllers, discovery, device profiles, authentication) as background knowledge.

---

2. Element map for § 103 (from the claim overview in the prior sections)

Limitations A–D are one art cluster (short-range discovery + pairing/authentication); E–F are a second (WLAN + Internet service access). The novelty, if any, is the sequencing and hand-off between the two clusters — which is precisely the kind of claimed combination KSR addresses.

---

3. Reference inventory

3.1 Primary — verified this session

US 6,990,548 B1 — "Methods and arrangements for configuring a printer over a wireless communication link using a wireless communication device" (Kaylor; App. No. 09/595,582, filed 2000-06-15; granted 2006-01-24; assignee Hewlett-Packard Development Co.). URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6990548 ; FPO: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[6990548](/patent/6990548).html

Disclosed: a portable communication device (cellular telephone, pager, PDA, portable computer) pre-loaded with configuration logic transmits configuration information directly to a peripheral (printer) over a wireless link — expressly an IR or RF signal through the atmosphere — to overcome the printer's "limited" UI; the example given is supplying a new IP address and network configuration/control information to the peripheral. Motivation is stated in the reference itself (printer UIs are too limited to type an IP address; the portable device has a better display/keypad). It is § 102(e) art because its 2000-06-15 filing date precedes Flexiworld's earliest provable invention date (the Nov. 20, 2000 provisional; and note Flexiworld's own IPR evidence in the sibling '257 case was an October 2000 conception date — still after 2000-06-15). Its DE counterpart DE10115720A1 is a § 102(a)/(b)-type printed publication family member [verify publication date].

Cited on the face of the '527 (partial list from uspto.report): 5,845,078 Tezuka; 5,852,721 Dillon; 5,862,321 Lamming; 5,867,633 Taylor III; 5,870,723 Pare, Jr. (tokenless biometric transaction authorization — fingerprint); 5,880,858 Jin; 5,881,213 Shaw; 5,884,140 Ishizaki; 5,903,832 Seppanen; 5,907,831 Lotvin; 5,911,044 Lo; 5,916,309 Brown; 5,917,542 Moghadam; 5,926,104 Robinson; 5,930,466 Rademacher; 5,931,919 Thomas; 5,933,498 Schneck (access control / distribution of digital property); 5,937,112 Herregods; 5,940,843 Zucknovich; 5,946,031 Douglas; 5,946,110 Hu; 5,953,546 Okada; 5,960,162 Yamamoto; 5,968,176 Nessett (multilayer firewall / network security); 5,974,401 Enomoto; 5,978,560 Tan; 5,983,200 Slotznick; 5,987,454 Hobbs; 5,993,047 Novogrod; 6,006,265 Rangan; 6,009,464 Hamilton; 6,020,973 Levine; 6,023,715 Burkes; 6,034,621 Kaufman; 6,035,214 Henderson; 6,043,898 Jacobs; 6,046,820 Konishi; 6,061,142 Shim; 6,069,707 Pekelman; 6,070,185 Anupam; 6,072,595 Yoshiura; 6,076,076 Gottfrid; 6,076,109 Kikinis; 6,078,906 Huberman; 6,087,060 Chase; 6,088,450 Davis; 6,091,956 Hollenberg; 6,101,291 … [list truncated at 6,101,291; subject-matter characterizations of the individual references in this list are from my general knowledge and are [verify]-grade].

The examiner thus already had of record: network printing/print-job management (Levine '973; Jacobs '898; Burkes '715; Rademacher '466), network file/document delivery (Dillon '721; Lamming '321; Rangan '265; Hamilton '464), biometric authentication (Pare '723), access control to network-delivered content (Schneck '498), and network security/firewall authentication (Nessett '176). Those four alone supply the "authentication information" genus (password, ID, PIN, security key, biometric/fingerprint) recited in claims 1, 8, and 16.

3.2 Standards / published specifications (dates from general knowledge — [verify] each against a dated copy before relying)

3.3 Secondary references (relevant, but with date caveats I could not close)

• US 2002/0051184 A1 (Eriksson et al., Allgon AB; "Method, and arrangement in a communications network") — printing a document using a protocol profiled for printing in the Bluetooth protocol architecture. Priority 2000-05-30; US filing 2001-05-30; published 2002-05-01. Note the Hilmer problem: pre-AIA § 102(e) gives a US patent/publication only its US filing date (2001-05-30), not its Swedish priority, so it is not § 102(e) art against a Nov. 20, 2000 priority. Usable only (a) as evidence of the state of the art / § 103 "what a PHOSITA knew" (published 2002, likely too late for that too), or (b) as § 102(a)(2) art if the claims lose the 2000/2001 priority. Use with care. https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-20020051184-A1
• US 6,922,258 B2 (Pineau; "Method and apparatus for printing remote images using a mobile device and printer"; granted 2005-07-26) — appeared as a cited/citing reference in the Flexiworld family pages. Filing date not verified this session [verify]; only usable if its filing/priority predates the relevant critical date.
• US 6,813,039 B1 ("Method and system for accessing the internet") — surfaced as citing the '527; if this is the Silverbrook/netpage-family network-printing-and-server-authentication art, it is a strong secondary reference for limitation F (printer ↔ network server with session-key/ID authentication, including biometric authentication). Date and identity [verify].

---

4. Combination grounds

Ground 1 — Kaylor '548 in view of Bluetooth 1.0B, further in view of IEEE 802.11-1997 (and/or the Bluetooth LAN Access Profile)

Covers: claims 1, 8, 16 (A–F).

• A/B/C: Kaylor discloses a printer that is discoverable/addressable by, and directly wirelessly linked to, a portable device over an over-the-air IR/RF link for the express purpose of receiving configuration and control information. Bluetooth 1.0B's inquiry procedure supplies literal "makes itself discoverable … transmitting at least an attribute or identification to the client" (FHS packet: device address + class of device), and the direct short-range link over which the two devices "wirelessly communicate."
• D: Bluetooth 1.0B's pairing/authentication (PIN → link key) literally is "an authentication procedure … detecting authentication information … a PIN … a security key." The LAN Access Profile adds PPP user name/password authentication for obtaining network access. IEEE 802.11-1997's shared-key authentication supplies "security key."
• E/F: IEEE 802.11-1997 supplies the WLAN; the LAN Access Profile/HomeRF/WAP supplies "connect to a server over the Internet … access a service," and the recited ordering (connect after authentication) is the ordinary order of network admission — authentication necessarily precedes authorized service access.

Motivation (KSR (i), (ii), (iv)): Kaylor's own stated problem — printers have crippled UIs and cannot conveniently receive an IP address or network configuration — is solved by giving the printer a short-range radio so a UI-rich phone can push configuration to it. Once the printer holds network configuration, having it join the WLAN (802.11) and reach an Internet service is the purpose of the configuration step, not a new invention. Substituting Bluetooth/802.11 for Kaylor's IR/RF link is a predictable substitution of one known wireless transport for another. The Bluetooth SIG was standardizing exactly this in 1999; the number of candidate transports (IR, Bluetooth, 802.11) was small and their relative ranges/bandwidths known, so the arrangement was obvious to try. Reasonable expectation of success: Bluetooth printing profiles and the LAN Access Profile were published, interoperable designs; 802.11 print servers were already commercial.

Ground 2 — Bluetooth 1.0B (LAN Access Profile) + an Internet print/content service reference (e.g., the network-printing art of record in the '527: Levine '973 / Jacobs '898 / Burkes '715, plus 6,813,039-type network-printer-and-server art) + Kaylor for the client-side bootstrap

Covers: claims 1, 8, 16, and best addresses limitation F's "service provided by the server."

Motivation: a device that has just been configured and authenticated over a short-range link (Ground 1) reaching a print/content service on the Internet is the known business model of network printing (print jobs dispatched to network printers by a server — already of record in the '527's cited art). KSR (i): combination of known elements (network printer + Internet content/print service + wireless client bootstrap) with predictable results.

Ground 3 — Pare '723 (biometric), Schneck '498 (access control), Nessett '176 (network security), each in view of Ground 1 or 2

Covers: the dependent claims and the "authentication information" Markush group in independent claims 1/8/16 ("biometric," "fingerprint," "user name," "password," "security key," "voice"). Pare '723 discloses fingerprint/tokenless biometric authorization; Schneck '498 discloses restricting access to network-delivered content based on stored authorization data; Nessett '176 discloses authenticating data flows at a network boundary. Because these were before the examiner in this very application, they are the cleanest § 103 ground for the dependent claims — a PHOSITA seeking to secure the printer's access to an Internet service would have selected from the finite, familiar menu of credential types (PIN, password, key, biometric).

Ground 4 (conditional) — if the claims lose the 2000/2001 priority (see § 5)

If the '527 claims are not supported by the provisionals/2001–2002 applications, the effective date is 2016-11-22 and the § 103 case becomes overwhelming, with art including: UPnP (1999–2000), multicast DNS/Bonjour (2002), WPA/Wi-Fi Protected Setup (2003–2007), Wi-Fi Simple Configuration, and the entire modern framework ecosystem (Apple AirPrint 2010, HP ePrint 2010, Google Cloud Print 2010, DLNA 2003, Bluetooth Secure Simple Pairing 2007, NFC-based Wi-Fi provisioning). All of these disclose short-range discovery/pairing followed by WLAN connection to an Internet service with authentication — the exact claim architecture and step order. Flexiworld's own family publications (US 2002/0097417 etc.) would likely be shielded by the § 102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership exception, but the third-party universe is not.

---

5. Priority is the fulcrum — flag this as the crux of the § 103 case

The claim vocabulary of the '527 ("smart phone," "IEEE 802.11," "servers over the Internet," "an antenna," "one or more communication chips") reads as recast rather than as 2000-era disclosure, and this patent issued 18 years after the claimed priority date. Two competing risks:

1. If priority holds (pre-AIA): the invalidity case rests on Kaylor '548 + Bluetooth 1.0B + IEEE 802.11-1997 + the examinatorial art of record. This is a strong but not slam-dunk case, because I have not located a single pre-Nov-2000 reference that discloses the entire ordered combination of short-range authentication then WLAN-to-Internet-service in one document (no anticipatory reference surfaced).
2. If priority fails for any claim (post-AIA): the same claims face Art Unit-typical § 102/§ 103 rejections on AirPrint/ePrint/Cloud Print/WPS-class art, and the case becomes very difficult for the patentee.

Also flag the double-edged ITOX point: the PTAB credited the Flexiworld inventors with an October 2000 conception date in Unified Patents v. Flexiworld (IPR2022-00775, FWD Paper 41, 2023-11-01, claims 27–28 of 9,836,257 upheld). That evidence is what makes Kaylor '548 (filed 2000-06-15) a § 102(e) reference — it precedes even the patentee's own conception evidence. But it also means a defendant must be prepared to litigate conception/diligence dates rather than assume the filing date.

---

6. Dependent claims (2–7, 9–15, 17–20)

Based on the independent-claim overview, the dependents add nothing that raises the inventive height materially; they appear to be species of the same genus (particular authentication-information types, particular communication-unit counts, particular device/service types). For each: the ground is Ground 1 or 2 + Pare '723 / Schneck '498 / Nessett '176, and the KSR rationale is the finite-menu / predictable-substitution rationale — selecting PIN vs. password vs. fingerprint as the credential type is the kind of "design choice among a small number of known options" that KSR holds obvious, particularly where the specification itself treats the credential list as interchangeable. I could not re-fetch verbatim dependent-claim text in this session; the dependents must be charted individually before filing.

---

7. Anticipated rebuttals and how the record answers them

---

8. Bottom line

• Best available primary reference: US 6,990,548 (Kaylor / HP, filed 2000-06-15) — a portable wireless device directly configuring a printer over an over-the-air IR/RF link, expressly including network/IP configuration. Combined with Bluetooth Specification v1.0/v1.0B (1999) (discoverability + short-range link + PIN/link-key authentication; LAN Access Profile with user name/password) and IEEE 802.11-1997 (WLAN + shared-key authentication), limitations A–E of claims 1, 8, and 16 are met or obvious; limitation F is met by the network-printing/Internet-service art already of record in the '527 (Levine '973, Jacobs '898, Burkes '715, 6,813,039-type art) plus WAP/LAN-Access-Profile-based Internet access. The motivation is supplied by Kaylor's own stated problem (printers have inadequate UIs) and by the predictable-substitution/obvious-to-try rationales.
• Strongest § 103 ground for the credential-type limitations: the references the examiner already cited — 5,870,723 (Pare, biometric/fingerprint), 5,933,498 (Schneck, access control), 5,968,176 (Nessett, network security).
• Biggest swing factor: priority. If the 2000/2001 benefit chain fails for the claims as written, the effective date moves to 2016-11-22 and the claims are exposed to a decade of provisioning/pairing art (WPS, AirPrint, ePrint, Cloud Print, Bonjour/UPnP) that maps onto the claim architecture far more directly than any pre-2000 reference.
• Caveats I will not paper over: (a) the Prior Art section referenced by the prompt was not provided and I could not regenerate it; (b) the cited-references list from uspto.report was truncated at 6,101,291 and I could not re-query it; (c) the subject-matter characterizations of the face-of-patent references and all standards dates are [verify]-grade from memory, not verified this session; (d) I found no single anticipatory reference — this is an obviousness case, not an anticipation case.
• Immediate next steps: (1) verify each reference's date/content and pull the full cited list via USPTO Patent Center/Global Dossier; (2) chart claims 1, 8, 16 (and each dependent) against Kaylor + Bluetooth 1.0B + 802.11-1997; (3) research the priority-support question claim-by-claim (this is where the case is won or lost); (4) note the patent is expired ("Expired – Fee Related," anticipated expiration 2021-11-18), so the invalidity case runs in parallel with damages exposure limited to the § 286 lookback — and any IPR would have to be filed within the § 315(b) window if the patent is still being asserted.