US 10321320

US patent 10321320, titled "Wireless network buffered message system," was issued to Headwater Research LLC on June 11, 2019, from an application filed on April 28, 2017. The sole inventor is Gregory G. Raleigh.

The abstract describes a wireless network buffered message system that includes a service processor implemented on a device, configured to manage device communications. It also includes a service controller configured to manage one or more service policies associated with the device, and a control plane communication link to enable the service processor and the service controller to exchange control plane communications using one or more out-of-band communication resources.

A plain-language overview of the independent claims is as follows:

• Independent Claim 1 (System): This claim describes a system that includes three main components:

  1. A "service processor" within a user's device (like a smartphone or tablet) that manages the device's network activities.
  2. A "service controller" that is separate from the device and is responsible for managing specific rules or "service policies" for that device.
  3. A "control plane communication link" that allows the service processor on the device and the service controller to communicate with each other. This communication happens using "out-of-band" resources, meaning it uses a separate channel or method from the main data traffic channel.

• Independent Claim 20 (Device): This claim focuses on the device itself. It specifies a device containing a "service processor" that manages the device's communications. This service processor is further detailed to include an "authorization agent" (for permissions), a "billing agent" (for tracking charges), and a "usage monitoring agent" (for observing data use). The service processor on the device also exchanges control communications with an external "service controller" via an "out-of-band" link, where the service controller dictates the service policies.

• Independent Claim 21 (Method): This claim outlines a method involving three steps:

  1. Managing a device's communications using a "service processor" that is part of the device.
  2. Managing the device's "service policies" using a separate "service controller."
  3. Facilitating control communications between the device's service processor and the service controller using a communication link that utilizes "out-of-band" resources.

Litigation related to this patent has been filed in various US District Courts, including the Texas Eastern District Court, Texas Western District Court, and California Northern District Court, with cases identified in 2025 and 2026. Additionally, there are PTAB cases, specifically IPR2026-00153 (Not Instituted - Procedural) and IPR2026-00106 (Pending). First worldwide family litigation has also been filed.

The search results provide a good amount of information, primarily from PacerMonitor and Unified Patents Portal. Let's process them one by one, focusing on US10321320.

Litigation Involving US Patent 10321320:

Here's a list of known litigation cases involving US patent 10321320, based on the provided search results:

1. Case: Headwater Research LLC v. Google LLC

   • Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court (initially), transferred to California Northern District Court
   • Case Number: 7:25-cv-00231 (W.D. Texas), became 5:26-cv-01460 (N.D. California)
   • Filing Date: May 16, 2025 (W.D. Texas)
   • Outcome/Current Status: Settled/Dismissed on February 23, 2026, following the cancellation of a Markman hearing. This indicates a confidential settlement or negotiated license resolution. The case was transferred to the Northern District of California as 5:26-cv-01460, and filings in that case indicate the transfer happened around February 26, 2026.

2. Case: Headwater Research LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al.

   • Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court
   • Case Number: 7:25-cv-00286
   • Filing Date: June 20, 2025
   • Outcome/Current Status: Active, with a scheduling order issued on March 11, 2026. A notice of partial settlement as to claims and liability associated with [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) products and services was filed on November 10, 2025.

3. Case: Headwater Research LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al.

   • Jurisdiction: Eastern District of Texas
   • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00962
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, but referenced as a "member case" consolidated with 2:25-cv-00961. The lead case was filed on September 18, 2025.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Consolidated for all pretrial issues with lead case 2:25-cv-00961. Individual cases remain active for trial.

4. Case: Headwater Research LLC v. Target Corporation

   • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
   • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00963
   • Filing Date: September 18, 2025
   • Outcome/Current Status: Consolidated for all pretrial issues with lead case 2:25-cv-00961. Individual cases remain active for trial.

5. Case: Headwater Research LLC v. Supercell Oy

   • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
   • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00964
   • Filing Date: September 18, 2025
   • Outcome/Current Status: Consolidated for all pretrial issues with lead case 2:25-cv-00961. Individual cases remain active for trial.

6. Case: Headwater Research LLC v. Tencent Holdings Limited

   • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
   • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00965
   • Filing Date: September 18, 2025
   • Outcome/Current Status: Consolidated for all pretrial issues with lead case 2:25-cv-00961. Individual cases remain active for trial.

7. Case: Headwater Research LLC v. Google LLC (California Northern District Court - separate case, or continuation of transferred 7:25-cv-00231 which became 5:26-cv-01545)

   • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
   • Case Number: 3:26-cv-01460
   • Filing Date: February 26, 2026
   • Outcome/Current Status: Active, with an Initial Case Management Conference set for May 20, 2026. This case appears to be distinct from the transferred 7:25-cv-00231 (which became 5:26-cv-01545).

8. Case: Headwater Research LLC v. Google LLC (California Northern District Court)

   • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
   • Case Number: 5:26-cv-01545
   • Filing Date: February 23, 2026
   • Outcome/Current Status: Active. This case is noted as having been transferred from TXWD, specifically 7:25-cv-00231.

PTAB Cases (Inter Partes Review - IPR):

1. Case: Target Corporation v. Headwater Research LLC

   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Case Number: IPR2026-00153
   • Filing Date: November 24, 2025 (Unified Patents says Nov 25, 2025)
   • Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural.

2. Case: Amazon Web Services Inc., Amazon Com Services LLC v. Headwater Research LLC

   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Case Number: IPR2026-00106
   • Filing Date: November 10, 2025
   • Outcome/Current Status: Pending - Instituted.

3. Lead Case for consolidation: Headwater Research LLC v. Walmart Inc.

   • Jurisdiction: Eastern District of Texas
   • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00961
   • Filing Date: September 18, 2025
   • Outcome/Current Status: Lead case for pretrial consolidation of multiple related cases (including 2:25-cv-00962, 2:25-cv-00963, 2:25-cv-00964, 2:25-cv-00965).

The original prompt mentioned "First worldwide family litigation filed" with a Darts-ip link. The provided search results did not offer specific case details (plaintiff, defendant, case number, filing date, outcome) for this broader "worldwide family litigation" as it focused on US-specific district court and PTAB cases. Therefore, specific details for this item cannot be fully provided from the current search results.

I will combine and present the information clearly. I need to make sure to cite all statements correctly.Known litigation involving US patent 10321320 includes several district court cases and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings. Headwater Research LLC is consistently the plaintiff or patent owner in these actions.

Here is a summary of the known litigation:

• Headwater Research LLC v. Google LLC

  • Jurisdiction: Initially filed in the Texas Western District Court, later transferred to the California Northern District Court.
  • Case Number: 7:25-cv-00231 (W.D. Texas); transferred and became 5:26-cv-01545 (N.D. California). A separate case, 3:26-cv-01460, was also filed in the California Northern District Court.
  • Filing Date: May 16, 2025 (for 7:25-cv-00231 in W.D. Texas). February 26, 2026 (for 3:26-cv-01460 in N.D. California). February 23, 2026 (for 5:26-cv-01545 in N.D. California).
  • Outcome/Current Status: Case 7:25-cv-00231 (W.D. Texas) was settled/dismissed on February 23, 2026, following the cancellation of a Markman hearing, indicating a confidential settlement or licensing agreement. Case 3:26-cv-01460 (N.D. California) is active, with an Initial Case Management Conference set for May 20, 2026. Case 5:26-cv-01545 (N.D. California) is active and noted as transferred from the Western District of Texas.

• Headwater Research LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al.

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court.
  • Case Number: 7:25-cv-00286.
  • Filing Date: June 20, 2025.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Active, with a scheduling order issued on March 11, 2026. A notice of partial settlement was filed on November 10, 2025, concerning claims related to Apple Inc. products and services.

• Headwater Research LLC v. Walmart Inc. (Lead case for consolidation)

  • Jurisdiction: Eastern District of Texas.
  • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00961.
  • Filing Date: September 18, 2025.
  • Outcome/Current Status: This is the lead case for pretrial consolidation of several related patent infringement actions. Individual cases remain active for trial.

• Headwater Research LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al.

  • Jurisdiction: Eastern District of Texas.
  • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00962.
  • Filing Date: Referenced as a member case consolidated with 2:25-cv-00961, which was filed on September 18, 2025.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Consolidated for all pretrial issues with lead case 2:25-cv-00961; individual cases remain active for trial.

• Headwater Research LLC v. Target Corporation

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court.
  • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00963.
  • Filing Date: September 18, 2025.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Consolidated for all pretrial issues with lead case 2:25-cv-00961; individual cases remain active for trial.

• Headwater Research LLC v. Supercell Oy

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court.
  • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00964.
  • Filing Date: September 18, 2025.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Consolidated for all pretrial issues with lead case 2:25-cv-00961; individual cases remain active for trial.

• Headwater Research LLC v. Tencent Holdings Limited

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court.
  • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00965.
  • Filing Date: September 18, 2025.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Consolidated for all pretrial issues with lead case 2:25-cv-00961; individual cases remain active for trial.

• Target Corporation v. Headwater Research LLC (PTAB IPR)

  • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
  • Case Number: IPR2026-00153.
  • Filing Date: November 24, 2025 (also cited as November 25, 2025).
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural.

• Amazon Web Services Inc., Amazon Com Services LLC v. Headwater Research LLC (PTAB IPR)

  • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
  • Case Number: IPR2026-00106.
  • Filing Date: November 10, 2025.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Pending - Instituted.

Proceedings overview

There are two AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 10321320. One proceeding (IPR2026-00153) resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, meaning the patent claims were not reviewed on the merits and remain intact. The other proceeding (IPR2026-00106) has been instituted for trial and is currently pending, with the claims under active review. This posture indicates that the patent has largely withstood one challenge on procedural grounds but is currently facing a substantive challenge in another. For a defendant, this means that the patent claims are currently presumed valid as no claims have been invalidated by the PTAB yet; however, the ongoing IPR could alter this.

IPR2026-00153 — Target Corporation v. Headwater Research LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-11-25
• Status: Discretionary Denial. The petition was denied institution by the PTAB, preventing a full review of the challenged claims on the merits.
• Judge panel: Information not publicly available through search results.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims and prior art challenged were not identified in the available search results.
• Institution decision: Denied. The institution decision, issued around April 23, 2026 (based on the "last modified" date), was a discretionary denial. The PTAB likely applied factors similar to the Fintiv framework, considering the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation involving the patent. The Board typically assesses factors such as the proximity of a district court trial date to a potential Final Written Decision, overlap of parties and issues, and the strength of the petition's merits when deciding on discretionary denial. Given the filing date of this IPR (November 25, 2025), the institution decision would have been made under the USPTO Director's new policy, effective October 20, 2025, where the Director personally decides whether to institute IPR petitions in consultation with PTAB judges.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: This proceeding indicates that the PTAB, for this specific IPR, chose not to review the patent claims on the merits, likely due to a parallel district court case reaching trial before the PTAB's statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision. This outcome means no claims were invalidated, and any infringement theories based on US10321320 remain unaffected by this particular IPR. However, it also highlights that the patent owner faced a challenge, which was averted on procedural rather than substantive grounds.

IPR2026-00106 — Amazon.com Services LLC et al. v. Headwater Research LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-11-10
• Status: Trial Instituted. The PTAB has determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable, and a trial is actively underway.
• Judge panel: Information not publicly available through search results.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims and prior art challenged were not identified in the available search results.
• Institution decision: Instituted. The institution decision was issued on or before May 13, 2026 (based on the "last modified" date), indicating the PTAB found sufficient grounds to proceed with a full review of the challenged claims. This decision would also have fallen under the USPTO Director's new institution policy.
• Final Written Decision: Not yet issued, as the trial is pending.
• Settlement / termination: Not yet applicable, as the trial is pending.
• Appeal: Not yet applicable, as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This proceeding represents an active challenge to the patent's validity. If a defendant is facing assertions based on US10321320, the outcome of this IPR could significantly impact the strength of those assertions. Should claims be invalidated in the Final Written Decision, any infringement theories relying on those claims would be weakened or eliminated. Conversely, if claims are affirmed, it would strengthen the patent owner's position.

Strategic summary

Currently, no claims of US10321320 have been formally canceled by the PTAB. All original claims are SUSTAINED or UNTESTED on their merits by the PTAB. One IPR (IPR2026-00153) was denied institution on discretionary grounds, meaning the validity of the claims was not assessed. Another IPR (IPR2026-00106) has been instituted for trial, meaning the claims challenged in that petition are currently under review for patentability.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, for IPR2026-00153, the petitioner, Target Corporation (and its privies), would generally be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) from asserting in a civil action or ITC proceeding that a claim is invalid on any ground that it raised or reasonably could have raised in the IPR, if a Final Written Decision had been issued. However, since institution was denied, the full scope of estoppel for a denial on Fintiv grounds can be complex and may not bar all grounds that could have been raised in district court. For IPR2026-00106, should a Final Written Decision issue, Amazon.com Services LLC (and its privies) would face estoppel on any claims found unpatentable and any grounds raised or reasonably could have raised against claims found patentable. This means that a defendant not privy to Amazon could potentially bring similar prior-art grounds if Amazon's petition did not cover all possible art, or if the PTAB's decision was limited in scope.

The pattern signals indicate that Headwater Research LLC is actively defending its patent, with at least one IPR being denied institution. The fact that IPR2026-00106 was instituted, despite the Director's increased scrutiny on institution decisions (with early FY2026 data showing a 51% institution-denial rate), suggests that Amazon's petition presented particularly strong arguments for unpatentability, or the specific Fintiv factors (such as the proximity of district court trial dates) did not weigh as heavily against institution as they did in the Target IPR. The presence of litigation in multiple district courts and worldwide family litigation, as noted in the patent summary, further signals that this patent is being actively asserted.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently facing assertion of US Patent 10321320, the most critical next step is to closely monitor IPR2026-00106, as it is currently in the trial phase. The Final Written Decision for this IPR is expected within approximately one year of the institution date (which was on or before 2026-05-13), so around May 2027. This decision will be highly impactful as it will determine the patentability of the challenged claims. Obtaining the institution decision for IPR2026-00106 and reviewing the claims and prior art on which the trial was instituted is crucial to understand the immediate risks and opportunities.

Additionally, while IPR2026-00153 was denied institution, its denial was likely based on procedural Fintiv factors rather than a full review of the merits. A defendant should review the specific order for denial to understand the exact reasoning and whether any of the prior art raised in that petition could still be viable in district court or a new IPR by a different party (subject to evolving PTAB policies and estoppel considerations).

Given the recent shifts in PTAB policy, particularly regarding discretionary denials based on parallel district court litigation and the Director's increased involvement in institution decisions, any potential future PTAB challenges would need to carefully navigate these evolving rules.

Inventors

The sole inventor named on US patent 10321320 is Gregory G. Raleigh. At the time of filing, Mr. Raleigh was associated with Headwater Research LLC, the original assignee of the patent.

Original assignee

The original assignee named on US patent 10321320 is Headwater Research LLC. Headwater Research LLC is a privately held company based in McLean, Virginia. While they develop technologies related to wireless and wireline network management, including deep packet inspection, traffic shaping, billing, and policy control, there is no readily available evidence that Headwater Research LLC ships products directly to consumers or network operators. Their primary line of business appears to be centered on patenting and licensing these technologies. The company is currently operating and actively engaged in patent litigation.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center records the following assignments for US patent 10321320:

• 2017-05-03 (executed) / recorded 2017-05-03 — Reel 039775/0369

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: RALEIGH, GREGORY G.
  • Assignee: HEADWATER PARTNERS I LLC
  • Correspondent: RUSS, AUGUSTUS E., 6867 ELM STREET SUITE 1600, MCLEAN, VIRGINIA 22101. This correspondent also appears on the subsequent record for this patent.
  • Context: Transfer of inventor's interest to an associated limited liability company shortly after the patent application filing date.

• 2017-05-03 (executed) / recorded 2017-05-03 — Reel 039775/0370

  • Conveyance: MERGER AND CHANGE OF NAME
  • Assignor: HEADWATER MANAGEMENT LLC, HEADWATER PARTNERS I LLC
  • Assignee: HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
  • Correspondent: RUSS, AUGUSTUS E., 6867 ELM STREET SUITE 1600, MCLEAN, VIRGINIA 22101. This correspondent also appears on the preceding record for this patent.
  • Context: Internal reorganization and change of name, consolidating ownership under Headwater Research LLC.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10321320
    2017 : Application filed
         : Inventor assigns to Headwater Partners I LLC
         : Headwater Partners I LLC merges into Headwater Research LLC
    2019 : Patent granted
    2025 : First infringement suit filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. Headwater Research LLC appears to operate as an IP licensing and assertion entity rather than a product-shipping company. The multiple litigation cases associated with this patent and its family strongly support an assertion-focused business model.
2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Headwater Research LLC is identified by Unified Patents as a frequent plaintiff in patent litigation and is associated with patent assertion campaigns.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. Augustus E. Russ of 6867 Elm Street Suite 1600, McLean, Virginia 22101, is listed as the correspondent for both recorded assignment documents (Reel 039775/0369 and Reel 039775/0370).
4. Cascading transfers — unclear. While there were two ownership-related recordings on the same day (2017-05-03) shortly after filing, they represent an initial ownership structuring (inventor to LLC, then merger/name change to the ultimate assignee) rather than rapid, consecutive transfers between unrelated shell entities to obscure ownership.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The assignment and merger events occurred in May 2017, and the patent was granted in June 2019. The earliest recorded litigation for this patent family is in 2025, significantly more than six months after the ownership transfers.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication in the patent information or public records that the patent was acquired via bankruptcy proceedings.
7. Privateering — unclear. There is no public information to suggest that Headwater Research LLC is asserting this patent on behalf of an operating company competitor.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The current assignee, Headwater Research LLC, is itself identified as a patent asserter, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence. This verdict is based on multiple strong signals: Headwater Research LLC is identified as a known patent asserter by organizations like Unified Patents, and there is no evidence of the company manufacturing or selling products embodying the patented technology. Additionally, the same correspondent, Augustus E. Russ, handled both initial assignment recordings (Reel 039775/0369 and Reel 039775/0370), which is a common administrative pattern for NPEs establishing their ownership chain.

USPTO Assignment Center search for US10321320: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/patent/assignment-view-data.html?id=10321320

This section will identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 10321320, focusing on citations made within the patent and providing details on each. Please note that the current date is April 26, 2026.

Most Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 10321320

The following references are identified as prior art for US Patent 10321320. The patent itself does not explicitly categorize its citations as anticipating specific claims, but by examining the content of the cited patents, we can infer potential areas of overlap under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

US8271057 B2 - Condition-based activation, shut-down and management of applications of mobile devices

• Full Citation: US8271057 B2
• Publication/Filing Date: The patent indicates a priority date of 2009-01-28, which is the same as US10321320's priority date. Therefore, it is important to confirm the actual filing date to establish its "prior art" status under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Assuming the filing date is prior to the priority date of US10321320, it would qualify as prior art.
• Brief Description: This patent describes systems and methods for condition-based activation, shut-down, and management of applications on mobile devices. It focuses on controlling applications based on usage patterns and collected information. This includes device-side components managing communications by monitoring and controlling application behavior.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: This reference potentially anticipates elements of Independent Claims 1, 20, and 21 related to a "service processor implemented on a device, configured to manage device communications" and "a usage monitoring agent configured to manage usage monitoring for network services."

US20040039803 A1 - Unified policy-based management system

• Full Citation: US20040039803 A1
• Publication/Filing Date: Published in 2004.
• Brief Description: This publication discloses a unified policy-based management system, including a policy server that stores policy rules for Quality of Service (QoS) requirements for network subscribers. These policy rules are then pushed to Policy Enforcement Agents (PEAs) for enforcement at various network nodes. This system functions as a service controller managing service policies.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: This reference potentially anticipates elements of Independent Claims 1, 20, and 21 related to a "service controller configured to manage one or more service policies associated with the device."

EP2761805 B1 - System and method for out-of-band management of a computing device

• Full Citation: EP2761805 B1
• Publication/Filing Date: Priority date of 2008-01-25.
• Brief Description: This patent explicitly teaches "out-of-band remote authentication" for devices and describes using "out-of-band (OOB) communication" to query, restore, and protect devices remotely, even when powered off, and independent of the operating system or application software. It demonstrates the use of out-of-band resources for critical control and management communications with a device.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: This reference potentially anticipates elements of Independent Claims 1, 20, and 21 related to a "control plane communication link to enable the service processor and the service controller to exchange control plane communications using one or more out-of-band communication resources."

EP2008237 A1 - Mobile payment platform and service

• Full Citation: EP2008237 A1
• Publication/Filing Date: Priority date of 2007-06-15.
• Brief Description: This publication describes a mobile payment platform and service that allows users to make and receive payments using mobile devices. This implies device-side management of financial communications and potentially billing functions.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: This reference potentially anticipates elements of Independent Claims 1, 20, and 21 related to a "service processor implemented on a device, configured to manage device communications" and potentially a "billing agent configured to manage billing for network services."

WO0041380 A1 (PCT/FI00/00530) - Method for controlling services, and network element

• Full Citation: PCT/FI00/00530 (Published as WO0041380 A1)
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed on 2000-06-13.
• Brief Description: This PCT application describes moving the control of services away from the switching center to a separate intelligent network functional unit, referred to as a service control point (SCP). This SCP is configured to control services, acting as a service controller managing service policies within a telecommunications network.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: This reference potentially anticipates elements of Independent Claims 1, 20, and 21 related to a "service controller configured to manage one or more service policies associated with the device."

Obviousness Analysis of US10321320 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis identifies combinations of prior art references that would render the independent claims of US patent 10321320 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) as of the priority date of January 28, 2009. The motivation for combining these references will also be explained.

Key Elements of Independent Claims

For this analysis, we will consider the key elements of the independent claims:

• Independent Claim 1 (System):

  • A service processor implemented on a device, configured to manage device communications.
  • A service controller configured to manage one or more service policies associated with the device.
  • A control plane communication link to enable the service processor and the service controller to exchange control plane communications using one or more out-of-band communication resources.

• Independent Claim 20 (Device):

  • A device comprising a service processor configured to manage device communications, the service processor comprising:
    • An authorization agent configured to manage authorization for network services.
    • A billing agent configured to manage billing for network services.
    • A usage monitoring agent configured to manage usage monitoring for network services.
  • The service processor is further configured to exchange control communications with a service controller external to the device via a control plane communication link that uses one or more out-of-band communication resources, where the service controller manages service policies.

• Independent Claim 21 (Method):

  • Managing communications of a device using a service processor implemented on the device.
  • Managing one or more service policies associated with the device using a service controller.
  • Enabling control communications between the service processor and the service controller using a control plane communication link that uses one or more out-of-band communication resources.

Combination of Prior Art References and Motivation

A combination of prior art references, including US8271057 to Siegel et al., US20040039803A1 to Krishnaswamy et al., PCT/FI00/00530 to Nokia Corporation, EP2761805B1 to Intel Corporation, and EP2008237A1, would render the claims obvious.

Obviousness Argument for Claims 1 and 21 (System and Method)

1. Service processor implemented on a device, configured to manage device communications:

   • US8271057 (priority before March 16, 2009) discloses systems and methods for "condition-based activation, shut-down and management of applications of mobile devices". It describes controlling a monitored application on a mobile device based on usage patterns and collected information. This demonstrates a device-side component capable of managing device communications by monitoring and controlling application behavior.
   • EP2008237A1 (priority June 15, 2007) describes a "mobile payment platform and service" that allows users to make and receive payments using mobile devices, implying device-side management of financial communications.

2. Service controller configured to manage one or more service policies associated with the device:

   • US20040039803A1 (published in 2004) discloses a "unified policy-based management system" including a "policy server (PS)" that stores policy rules defining Quality of Service (QoS) requirements for network subscribers. This policy server retrieves and pushes these policy rules to "Policy Enforcement Agents (PEAs)" for enforcement at network nodes. This clearly functions as a service controller managing service policies.
   • PCT/FI00/00530 (filed June 13, 2000) describes moving "the control of the services away from the switching centre to a separate intelligent network functional unit which in the following will be called a service control point SCP." This SCP is configured to control services, acting as a service controller managing service policies within a telecommunications network.

3. Control plane communication link to enable the service processor and the service controller to exchange control plane communications using one or more out-of-band communication resources:

   • EP2761805B1 (priority January 25, 2008) explicitly teaches "out-of-band remote authentication" for devices. It describes utilizing "out-of-band (OOB) communication" to query, restore, and protect devices remotely, even when powered off, independent of the operating system or application software. This reference demonstrates the use of out-of-band resources for critical control and management communications with a device.

Motivation for Combination (Claims 1 and 21):
A PHOSITA in mobile network management, around 2009, would have been motivated to combine these known elements to address the challenges of increasing mobile data usage, managing network capacity, and offering flexible service plans. The patent itself notes the problems of "increasing service demand per user" and the need to "better manage overall network capacity" and "better manage end user access costs."

• Enhanced Control and Flexibility: Integrating device-side management of communications (as in US8271057 and EP2008237A1) with a centralized policy controller (like the policy server in US20040039803A1 or the SCP in PCT/FI00/00530) would allow for more granular and dynamic service policy implementation. This enables more refined control over user experience and resource consumption on the device, as noted in the patent's goal of "decomposing overall service usage into finer sub-categories of activities" for optimization.
• Improved Security and Reliability for Control: The growing complexity of mobile devices and services necessitated a robust and secure way for service providers to manage device behavior and enforce policies. EP2761805B1 highlights the benefits of out-of-band communication for remote device management and security. A PHOSITA would recognize that using such an out-of-band link for critical control plane communications between a central service controller and a device-side service processor would enhance the reliability and security of policy enforcement, especially when the primary data channel might be congested or compromised, or for functions requiring interaction independent of the main OS (e.g., policy updates, billing events). The patent explicitly mentions the risk of "Device based billing can be compromised, hacked and/or spoofed" and states a need for "verifiable device assisted and/or network based service policy implementation," further motivating the use of a secure, out-of-band channel for control.

Obviousness Argument for Claim 20 (Device)

1. A device comprising a service processor configured to manage device communications:

   • As established above for Claims 1 and 21, US8271057 describes a mobile device managing and controlling applications and monitoring usage, embodying the "service processor" functionality.
   • EP2008237A1 shows mobile devices facilitating payments, implying a processor managing these financial communications.

2. The service processor comprising an authorization agent configured to manage authorization for network services; a billing agent configured to manage billing for network services; and a usage monitoring agent configured to manage usage monitoring for network services:

   • US8271057 teaches "controlling a monitored application of the mobile device in response to the determination and according to usage patterns," directly disclosing a "usage monitoring agent" within the device's management component.
   • EP2008237A1 describes mobile devices enabling payments, which inherently involves a "billing agent" for managing payment aspects. While not explicitly named, the functionality of processing payments on the device for an account implies the presence of a billing function. Furthermore, the concept of a "Policy Enforcement Agent (PEA)" from US20040039803A1, combined with the recognition of the advantages of localizing such functions, would lead a PHOSITA to implement authorization and billing functionality as agents on the device.

3. wherein the service processor is further configured to exchange control communications with a service controller that is external to the device via a control plane communication link that uses one or more out-of-band communication resources, and wherein the service controller is configured to manage one or more service policies associated with the device:

   • This element is covered by the combination discussed for Claims 1 and 21. Specifically, the "service processor" (from US8271057) exchanges control communications with the external "service controller" (from US20040039803A1 or PCT/FI00/00530) via an "out-of-band communication link" (as taught by EP2761805B1). EP2761805B1 specifically notes that a micro-controller system on a platform can "enforce policies received from a remote agent (e.g., ... SP, etc.) via a coupled network."

Motivation for Combination (Claim 20):
The motivation for integrating authorization, billing, and usage monitoring agents directly into a device's service processor, and linking them to an external service controller via an out-of-band channel, would be to gain significant advantages in managing mobile services:

• Improved User Experience and Efficiency: Localizing these agents on the device (as suggested by US8271057 for usage and EP2008237A1 for payments) allows for more immediate responses to user actions, real-time feedback on usage and costs, and streamlined authorization processes, thereby enhancing the user experience. This also reduces the need for constant network interaction for every minor authorization or usage update, conserving bandwidth.
• Support for Diverse and Scalable Service Plans: The patent states a need for "more sophisticated, more specialized and more scalable billing and service plans." Implementing flexible, on-device agents for authorization and billing would enable service providers to offer a wider variety of dynamic pricing models and personalized service tiers without requiring complex and expensive modifications to core network infrastructure (e.g., Deep Packet Inspection systems).
• Robust and Secure Policy Enforcement: Given the patent's explicit concern about the compromise of "device based billing," there would be a strong motivation to ensure that the device-side agents for authorization, billing, and monitoring could be reliably managed and updated by a central authority. Connecting these agents to an external service controller via an out-of-band channel, as taught by EP2761805B1, provides a secure and verifiable mechanism for policy distribution and enforcement, even if the primary data channel is unreliable or subject to tampering. This ensures the integrity of billing and authorization processes critical for service provider profitability and user trust.

In conclusion, the combination of a device-side component managing communications and applications, a network-side controller managing service policies, and the use of out-of-band communication for control plane interactions between them, including specific agents for authorization, billing, and usage monitoring on the device, would have been obvious to a PHOSITA seeking to improve mobile network management efficiency, flexibility, security, and the user experience in the face of increasing data demands and diverse service offerings before January 28, 2009.