Invalidity dossier
US 10194479
Added 10/14/2026, 12:01:10 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview: US 10,194,479 B2
Title: "Associated device discovery in IMS networks"
Assignee: Aylus Networks Inc. (current and original assignee, per the listed data).
Key dates (as listed):
- Priority date: 2005-06-24 (claimed from US 11/166,407; also a 2005-11-18 priority claim from US 11/282,924)
- Filing date: 2017-08-11 (application US 15/674,634)
- Publication of US 2017/0367140 A1: 2017-12-21
- Grant/publication: 2019-01-29
- Anticipated expiration: 2025-06-24; legal status listed as "Expired – Lifetime"
Purpose: The excerpt states the invention "generally relates to IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) networks and, more specifically, to IMS users that use (perhaps multiple) discovered user endpoint devices." The prior-art keywords listed are mobile device, session, network, devices, and PAN.
Plain-language scope: The supplied text is largely background describing IMS and 2.5G/3G network architecture — base transceiver stations, radio access networks, base station controllers, mobile switching centers, the PLMN/PSTN and GMSC, packet control functions, media gateways and MGCP, and the shift to carrying both circuit-switched and packet-switched traffic. One substantive technical point offered is that a defining characteristic of 2.5G/3G multimedia services is that, because a handset can send or receive IP data packets at any time, the handset's IP context is maintained as long as the handset is powered on and connected, unlike traditional telephony where connection state exists only during a call. The definitions section also notes that a service-logic-to-application-server connection is a "stateful" connection.
What the excerpt does not establish: The supplied text contains no claims, no detailed description of the actual discovery mechanism, and no full abstract. It does not establish the specific claimed methods or apparatus, the complete technical disclosure, or the relationship between the two parent applications beyond the priority listings. Nothing here supports conclusions about litigation, ownership transfers, validity, or prior art; the source excerpt omits extensive portions of the patent.
Generated 10/14/2026, 12:02:02 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 10194479. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.