US 10339746

I'll verify the record and look for claim text and any 2026 litigation activity for this specific patent number.

Let me pull the actual claim text and check for any Federal Circuit activity.

US 10,339,746 B1 — Summary

Important preliminary caveat on scope of verification

I was able to verify the front matter, abstract, prosecution chain and status of this exact patent from multiple independent sources that agree with each other. I was not able to retrieve the verbatim claim set (the authoritative full text supplied to me is truncated in the middle of the Detailed Description, before the claims, and my searches returned the patent's front page/abstract rather than the claim column). I therefore do not report claim numbers or quote claim language, because doing so would be fabrication. My claim overview below is expressly labeled as provisional/inferred.

1. Identification and bibliographic data (verified)

Sources: Google Patents https://patents.google.com/patent/US10339746/en ; Justia https://patents.justia.com/patent/[10339746](/patent/10339746) ; issued PDF front page https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/99/95/b3/0fb311d5b356a0/US10339746.pdf ; Unified Patents portal https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/[6091956](/patent/6091956) .

Discrepancy I am flagging rather than resolving: Google Patents lists the priority date as 1999‑08‑10, the Unified Patents portal lists 1999‑08‑09, and the PTO front page ties the 1999 date to provisional 60/147,987. I am not auto-correcting either value; the PTO front page (Aug. 10, 1999) is the more authoritative of the three.

Assignment chain (from Google Patents legal-events record): GoFigure Payments LLC → JADLOW, LTD. (2013‑02‑12) → corrected to JADLOW COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.C. (2013‑02‑14) → JADLOW, L.L.C. (name change) → GOFIGURE, L.L.C. (name change) → GOFIGURE PAYMENTS, LLC (2015‑09‑14).

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"A system for enabling a payment includes a mobile wireless communications device having voice and data functionality and a payments system. The system enables a payment to be made by a user of the mobile wireless communications device to a party with which the user is in voice communication via the wireless communication link over which the voice communication is made. The voice communication link may be a wireless Voice-over-IP (VoIP) communications link."

3. Provisional/inferred overview of the independent claims

Explicit uncertainty statement: I have not verified the claim set for this patent. The following is an inference from the sole authoritative claim-adjacent text available to me (the abstract) plus the incorporated specification. Treat it as a research lead, not as claim construction.

• Apparent independent claim category — a "system for enabling a payment." The abstract's opening phrase mirrors typical claim preamble language ("A system for enabling a payment includes…"), which is strongly suggestive of at least one independent system claim, likely with a counterpart method claim.
• Core elements the independent claims appear to require: (a) a mobile wireless communications device having both voice and data functionality (i.e., a device that can carry a voice call and transmit payment data — not a single-purpose payment token); and (b) a payments system functionally coupled to that device.
• The apparent point of novelty over the parent disclosure: the payment is enabled to a party with which the user is contemporaneously in voice communication, and the payment is made over the same wireless communication link that carries the voice communication. The abstract expressly contemplates that this link "may be a wireless Voice-over-IP (VoIP) communications link." That is a materially narrower, more specific concept than the 1999-era point-of-sale/wireless-terminal disclosure in the specification — consistent with the claims having been recast in this 2010-filed continuation to a voice-call-concurrent (person-to-person / VoIP) mobile payment species.
• Why I am confident the claim scope is narrower than the specification: the specification's detailed description is dominated by point-of-sale terminal association, central-processing-facility debiting, DTMF encoding, transponder/CID and Bluetooth proximity, consolidated telephony-plus-purchase billing, etc. None of that appears in the abstract. An abstract essentially tracks the broadest claim, so the claim set on its face emphasizes the voice-plus-data/VoIP payment scenario rather than the POS-terminal architecture.

I do not know, and will not guess: the total number of claims, the number of independent claims, whether there are apparatus/method/CRM claim sets, or the exact boundaries of any dependent claim.

4. Litigation / docket check (as requested)

• Federal Circuit 2026 dockets: I found no Federal Circuit docket, appeal, or opinion referencing US 10,339,746 in the 2026 time frame. My searches surfaced only an unrelated 2026 Federal Circuit matter (Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc., Fed. Cir. No. 2026‑2012, noticed July 8, 2026), which does not involve this patent.
• Practical note: the patent's recorded status is Expired – Fee Related with an adjusted expiration of 2021‑08‑07 (20 years from the Aug. 10, 2000 parent filing, plus the 362-day PTA). If that status is accurate, there would be no live patent right to litigate in 2026, and any 2026 appellate activity would more plausibly concern past damages, IPR appeals, or related family members than ongoing infringement of an unexpired '746 patent.
• Caveat: my searches were web-based (Google Patents, Justia, Unified Patents, PTAB document repositories, CourtListener). I did not run a PACER/CAFC CM/ECF docket query on the patent number, and the PTAB hits returned during my search dealt with different patents (e.g., US 11,620,634, US 9,037,502, US 10,163,103, US 11,093,907) and different parties (Apple/CardWare, etc.) — none of which I can attribute to the '746 patent. I cannot rule out an existing IPR or district court case involving this patent.

5. Related family members (as listed in the Google Patents record for this patent)

The record shows priority relationships to applications 13/447,662 (US 8,249,982), 13/588,064 (US 8,504,472), 13/959,364 (US 8,756,153), and 15/154,057 (US 2016/0253654 A1), all sharing the Rolf/GoFigure priority chain to provisional 60/147,987. I have not individually verified each mapping in this session.

6. Where I am uncertain (summary)

1. Claim text, count, and independent-claim structure — not retrieved; the overview in §3 is inference from the abstract.
2. Exact priority date for the 1999 provisional — sources disagree (Aug. 10 vs. Aug. 9, 1999); PTO front page says Aug. 10, 1999.
3. Litigation/PTAB history specific to '746 — no hits found, but no authoritative docket query was performed.
4. Current owner of record — Google Patents lists both Jadlow Ltd and GoFigure Payments LLC; the assignment record shows a complex chain of name corrections and changes.

Recommended verification path: USPTO Patent Public Search / PatentCenter for the complete claim set of 12/913,563, and PACER/CAFC CM-ECF plus the PTAB API for any proceedings citing US 10,339,746.

I'll search for litigation involving US Patent 10,339,746 across patent litigation databases.

Let me search more specifically for litigation involving the patent owner and related patents.

Let me check the Unified Patents portal and CourtListener directly.

Litigation Search: US Patent 10,339,746

Bottom line

I was unable to identify any litigation involving US Patent 10,339,746 ("Mobile device for making a mobile payment," Devon A. Rolf, originally assigned to GoFigure Payments LLC). Based on the searches I ran, there is no publicly indexed federal district court action, ITC Section 337 investigation, or PTAB (IPR/PGR/CBM) proceeding that names this patent.

I want to be candid about the limits of this finding rather than overstate it: this is a negative search result from the sources I could reach, not a verified "no litigation exists" conclusion.

What I searched and what I found

The only hits that referenced the number at all were patent-data aggregators, not litigation dockets:

• PatentLeaderboard — lists US 10,339,746 among Devon A. Rolf's patents (assignee: GoFigure Payments).
• GoodIP — GoFigure Payments portfolio page.
• Unified Patents portal — patent page (assignee Jadlow Ltd / GoFigure Payments LLC), no litigation listing.

Important caveats (why this is not conclusive)

1. I reached the maximum number of search steps before I could directly query the primary litigation sources you named — the Unified Patents litigation caselist (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist), CourtListener/RECAP, PACER, and the CAFC docket. Those are the authoritative places this should be confirmed.
2. Search-engine coverage of district court dockets is incomplete, especially for recently filed, settled, or voluntarily dismissed cases, and for complaints that were filed but not indexed by aggregators.
3. Number-confusion risk. "10339746" is also a UK Companies House registration number (Y & A Holdings Ltd) and a DOI digit string, which pollutes keyword searches. I did not auto-correct the number and I did not return results for similar patent numbers.

Suggested verification steps (primary sources)

To close this out with confidence, I recommend running these direct lookups:

• CourtListener / RECAP: search the docket database for "10,339,746" and for assignee "GoFigure Payments" / "Jadlow."
• Unified Patents litigation caselist (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist): look up by patent number and by the GoFigure/Jadlow entities.
• USPTO PTAB (PTAB Center / PTAB E2E) and USPTO Assignment records: confirm no IPR/PGR/CBM was instituted against the '746 patent, and trace any transfer of enforcement rights (the chain shown is JADLOW, LTD. → JADLOW COMMUNICATIONS, L.C. → GOFIGURE, L.L.C. → GOFIGURE PAYMENTS, LLC).
• CAFC docket and PACER for any appeal from a district court matter.
• Note the family: the '746 patent is a continuation of the '939 application (now tied to US 7,376,583) and is related to US 8,249,982, US 8,504,472, US 8,756,153, among others (per the Google Patents "priority" entries). If GoFigure/Jadlow did enforce the portfolio, litigation may be recorded under sibling patents rather than the '746 number itself — worth checking those numbers too.

If you'd like, I can run the CourtListener and Unified Patents caselist lookups directly (within tool limits) to try to confirm the negative result.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0.

The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block — the canonical USPTO Open Data Portal list — returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings for US 10,339,746. My independent web checks (PTAB-related queries keyed to the patent number, the title, patent owner GoFigure Payments LLC, predecessor assignee Jadlow, and inventor Devon A. Rolf, plus the family members '583/'982/'472/'153) surfaced no AIA trial petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or Federal Circuit appeal naming this patent. Status breakdown is therefore: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0.

Bottom line for a defendant: there is no PTAB track record to lean on and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel to inherit — if this patent had ever been worth asserting in volume, someone would very likely have filed an IPR, and nobody did. Critically, however, the more important defensive fact here is not PTAB at all: the patent is reported by Google Patents as expired, with an adjusted expiration of 2021-08-07 (status verbatim: "Expired - Fee Related, expires 2021-08-07"). That date sits roughly 20 years after the 2000-08-10 filing date of the earliest non-provisional in the chain (Ser. No. 09/635,935) plus roughly one year of patent term adjustment — i.e., it looks like statutory term expiry, not a lapsed maintenance fee. That should be the first thing you verify on the face of the patent, because if confirmed it ends the case before PTAB strategy is even relevant.

⚠️ Two caveats, stated plainly. (1) "No PTAB activity found" is a conclusion drawn from the ODP block plus my search coverage — it is not the same as a certified PTAB E2E docket printout; run the Patent Center "Proceedings" tab and the PTAB E2E search yourself before relying on it in a brief. (2) The expiration status on Google Patents is a third-party rendering and carries the standard disclaimer that legal status is "an assumption and is not a legal conclusion." Verify against the patent's own PTA "(*) Notice" field and the USPTO maintenance-fee/expiration record.

Proceedings

None to list. There are no proceeding sections to render, because no proceeding numbers exist to render. I will not manufacture one.

Strategic summary

Claim status: entirely untested. No claim of US 10,339,746 has ever been canceled, confirmed, or construed by the PTAB. There is no FWD to quote, no claim-level outcome to map, and no surviving-claims list to give you — not because the claims were sustained, but because no one challenged them. Untested is not the same as sturdy: this family's claims have never been exposed to the adversarial claim-construction and invalidity scrutiny that an IPR produces. That cuts both ways. It means you cannot point to a PTAB win, but it also means the patent owner cannot point to a PTAB win, and the claims have no post-issuance narrowing that would help them survive a § 112 or § 101 attack.

Estoppel landscape: empty, and that is a one-way ratchet in your favor. Because no IPR/PGR was ever instituted, no petitioner or privy is barred under § 315(e)(2), and you are not inheriting anyone else's foreclosed grounds. Equally, the patent owner has no PTAB-hardened record built on a full adversarial record. The practical consequence: this patent comes to you with all invalidity grounds still live in district court, none pre-consumed by a prior IPR petitioner's estoppel — but if you file, that first IPR will be a solo effort with none of the "second-petitioner" cost-sharing or prior-PTAB-record benefit you'd get on a heavily-challenged patent.

Pattern signals: none favorable to a plaintiff. No serial-petitioner pattern (no multiple IPRs by one petitioner), no defensive-aggregator challenge (Unified Patents appears in search hits only as the tagging portal for related prior-art patents — that is not evidence of a Unified-filed challenge, and I found no Unified petition), and no patent-owner appeal pattern at the Federal Circuit because there are no PTAB decisions to appeal. The family itself shows conventional continuation practice — Ser. Nos. 13/447,662 (→ 8,249,982), 13/588,064 (→ 8,504,472), 13/959,364 (→ 8,756,153), and 15/154,057 (→ US 2016/0253654 A1) — with ownership moving Jadlow → GoFigure Payments/JADLOW Ltd. Notably, the asserted application sat in prosecution from 2010-10-27 to grant on 2019-07-02 (≈8.7 years), an unusually long pendency that typically signals heavy rejection, RCEs, or appeal — worth mining in the file wrapper, because it usually yields strong § 112 and prosecution-history-estoppel material.

The real vulnerability is the calendar, not the PTAB. Term for a continuation runs 20 years from the earliest benefit-claimed filing date, not the continuation's own filing date. Here that points to 2020-08-10 (twenty years from 2000-08-10) plus PTA, which reconciles almost exactly with the reported 2021-08-07 adjusted expiration. If that is right, the patent has been expired for roughly five years as of today (2026-09-27). Two consequences follow: (a) no prospective relief — no injunction, no ongoing royalty, no post-expiration damages; and (b) the § 286 six-year lookback still theoretically reaches conduct back to about 2020-09-27, so a plaintiff filing today could still chase pre-2021-08-07 damages for a limited further window (the tail closes around 2027-08-07). After that, the claim is worth nothing to anyone.

Recommended next steps

1. Verify expiration first — this outranks PTAB strategy. Open the patent face (US 10,339,746 on Google Patents) and read the "() Notice" PTA line plus the "[] Term of patent" statement. Cross-check against the USPTO maintenance-fee/expiration record in Patent Center. If term expiry on 2021-08-07 is confirmed, respond to any demand letter by demanding the plaintiff identify a single act of infringement occurring on or before 2021-08-07 — that is the entire universe of its claim.

2. Confirm the zero-PTAB finding on the record, then cite it as absence. Pull the Patent Center "Proceedings" tab and PTAB E2E for US 10,339,746 and its family (7,376,583; 8,249,982; 8,504,472; 8,756,153). A screenshot showing no proceedings is a legitimate, citable fact and useful context: it tells the court and the plaintiff that no neutral tribunal has ever validated these claims despite a 20+ year assertion window.

3. Do not budget for an IPR unless you need the estoppel or the speed. With the patent expired, an IPR would be a waste of the filing fee — the Board would likely be asked to decide moot patentability while the § 286 damages tail runs out anyway. The PTAB's statutory 1-year trial deadline from institution and its non-appealable institution decisions give you no advantage a simple § 282 invalidity defense plus the expiration argument does not already give you.

4. If damages exposure is real, mine the file wrapper rather than the PTAB docket. The ~8.7-year pendency of Ser. No. 13/913,563 is the most promising vein for § 112 written-description/enablement and prosecution-history-estoppel arguments, none of which would be pre-consumed by any IPR estoppel because no IPR exists. Note that § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not apply to grounds you could not have raised in an IPR (§ 112 is outside IPR scope under § 311(b)), so those remain fully available.

5. I could not confirm, and did not find, any district-court assertion of this patent or any Federal Circuit appeal. I decline to cite a docket number I could not verify; a plaintiff's own complaint is the authoritative source for its assertion history. Any pre-2021 enforcement of this patent is worth checking for § 286 laches-adjacent and notice issues, but that is a search to run against the docket, not a conclusion to assert here.

6. If any live or recently-filed proceeding does surface on your E2E check, the milestones to calendar are: the § 314(b) three-month institution-decision deadline from the patent owner's preliminary response (or one month after waiver), the § 316(a)(11) 12-month trial clock from institution to FWD, and the one-month window after a final written decision to notice appeal under Fed. Cir. R. 15. None of those apply today, because the docket is empty.

I'll reconstruct the assignment chain for US 10,339,746 using the assignment data in the patent record plus targeted searches for the USPTO Assignment Center entries and correspondent attorneys.

Useful leads surfaced — a PTAB proceeding (IPR2024-01321, Google v. the Rolf '583 patent) and a Waco case number. Let me dig into those plus the assignment records.

Assignment & Ownership Chain — US 10,339,746 B1

Scope note / method. My only working tool in this session was web search, and I exhausted the step budget before I could open the USPTO Assignment Center interface directly (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). Accordingly, the reel/frame values, conveyance types, and dates below are drawn from the legal-events record embedded in the patent text itself (which you designated authoritative), supplemented by search hits. I could not retrieve the Assignment Center's correspondent fields (the attorney/agent of record on each cover sheet), so signal #3 below is reported as unclear rather than guessed. I flag every place where I am inferring versus citing.

Inventors

Pattern notes.

• No co-inventors. The "all inventors departing within 12 months" fire-sale tell is structurally inapplicable — this is a single-inventor portfolio.
• The inventor is unusual: Rolf states in the 2020 PTAB-comment letter that he is "an inventor on thirty four (34) issued U.S. patents and … registered to practice before the USPTO." So the inventor is simultaneously the assignor, the founder of the assignee, and a licensed patent attorney. PatentLeaderboard independently lists 34 patents under Devon A. Rolf / GoFigure Payments and confirms '746 is one of them (patentleaderboard.com).
• Prosecution counsel of record on the '746 patent is a separate firm: the face of the patent names "Erickson Kernell IP, LLC; Kent R. Erickson" as attorney/agent (per the patent PDF at patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/.../US10339746.pdf). Worth reconciling against the assignment cover-sheet correspondent, which I could not see.

Original assignee

• Entity named on the issued '746 patent: GoFigure Payments, LLC, Paola, KS (US) (face of patent, (73) Assignee).
• Line of business: mobile-payment / transaction-processing software. Rolf describes GoFigure as a software venture (devon@gofigure.com; Overland Park, KS), not a hardware or merchant-operating business.
• Product embodying the claims: Unverified. I found no evidence of a commercially shipping GoFigure product. Caution: there is an unrelated academic "GoFigure" imaging-software project (Harvard/insitu imaging, insight-journal.org/pdfs/170.pdf); do not conflate it with Rolf's GoFigure payments entity. I did not find the two to be related.
• Current status: not determinable from the sources I could reach. The assignee is a private LLC; no SEC filings exist. The patent itself is recorded by Google Patents as "Expired – Fee Related; adjusted expiration 2021-08-07" — i.e., the '746 term ran out roughly one year after issuance (consistent with a 20-year term measured from the 2000-08-10 parent non-provisional plus 362 days PTA, though Google's "Fee Related" label could also indicate a maintenance-fee lapse). Either way, the patent is expired and cannot support a new assertion campaign. This is a material finding for the verdict below.

Assignment timeline

Dates below are the recording/event dates shown in the patent's legal-events record. Google Patents does not expose the execution dates from the cover sheets, so I have not invented them. Only two reel/frame pairs appear anywhere in the record, and both are quoted inside corrective-assignment descriptions; the other four recordings' reel/frame values were not surfaced by my sources.

• Recorded 2013-02-12 — Reel not exposed (see next entry; this is the assignment later corrected)

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: Devon A. Rolf
  • Assignee: JADLOW, LTD. (later corrected)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from my sources — must be pulled from Assignment Center.
  • Context: inventor-to-company assignment (Rolf transferring his individual rights into his own entity).

• Recorded 2013-02-14 — Reel 029798 / Frame 0989

  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment (corrects assignee name on the originally recorded assignment at reel 029798/0989)
  • Assignor: Devon A. Rolf
  • Assignee: JADLOW COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.C. (corrected from "Jadlow, Ltd.")
  • Correspondent: not retrievable.
  • Context: documentation cleanup only — a naming correction, not a change of ownership.

• Recorded 2015-09-14 (first of four same-day events) — Reel 029817 / Frame 0835 (referenced in a corrective assignment)

  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment (corrects the assignee name previously recorded at reel 029817/0835)
  • Assignor: devon a. rolf
  • Assignee: JADLOW COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.C.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable.
  • Context: documentation cleanup only — second naming correction on the same inventor-to-company grant.

• Recorded 2015-09-14 — Reel not exposed

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: JADLOW COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.C.
  • Assignee: JADLOW, L.L.C.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable.
  • Context: internal reorg / name change only (no change in beneficial ownership).

• Recorded 2015-09-14 — Reel not exposed

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: JADLOW, L.L.C.
  • Assignee: GOFIGURE, L.L.C.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable.
  • Context: internal reorg / name change only — the Jadlow entity is rebranded to the GoFigure name.

• Recorded 2015-09-14 — Reel not exposed

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: GOFIGURE, L.L.C.
  • Assignee: GOFIGURE PAYMENTS, LLC (the current owner of record)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable.
  • Context: related-entity transfer — a genuine assignment (not a name change) between two Rolf entities, contemporaneous with the two name changes above; looks like a portfolio-wide reorganization into a payments-focused LLC.

Bottom line of the timeline: there is no third-party acquirer anywhere in this chain. Every recorded event is either (a) the solo inventor assigning into his own company, (b) a pure name change, or (c) a same-day related-entity reorganization. No shell-entity acquisition, no NPE purchase, no security interest, no release.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10339746
    1999 : Provisional filed by Devon Rolf
    2000 : Non-provisional filed
    2008 : Parent patent US 7376583 issues
    2010 : Continuation 12/913/563 filed
    2013 : Rolf assigns rights to Jadlow Ltd
         : Corrective naming recorded
    2015 : Jadlow renamed Jadlow LLC
         : Renamed GoFigure LLC
         : Assigned to GoFigure Payments LLC
    2019 : US 10339746 issues
    2021 : Patent term expires

(Note: I wrote the 2010 and 2019 event text with plain slashes only in the application number; if your renderer rejects it, use "Continuation filed" and "Patent issues". I kept punctuation out of the remaining lines.)

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Insufficient data.

The assignment record for US 10,339,746 is a single-family chain: the only inventor, Devon A. Rolf, assigned his rights into his own company (recorded 2013-02-12, corrected at reel 029798/0989 on 2013-02-14 and again at reel 029817/0835 on 2015-09-14), after which the entity was renamed twice and reorganized into GoFigure Payments, LLC — all on 2015-09-14 — with no third-party acquirer, no known asserter, and no defensive aggregator anywhere in the chain. None of the strong NPE tells (a shell-entity purchase, a listed high-frequency plaintiff, a pre-suit assignment) is evidenced; the evidence that is present — a same-day burst of name changes and one related-entity assignment — is a corporate-housekeeping signature, not an NPE acquisition. I therefore cannot affirmatively classify this as an NPE chain, an operating-company assertion, or a defensive aggregation; the honest call on the assignee side is insufficient data, sharpened by the fact that the patent expired ~2021-08-07, which forecloses most future assertion value.

Values I am not inventing: execution dates and the reel/frame for four of the six recordings are absent from every source I could reach, and the correspondent fields are missing entirely. The three things to verify at the primary source are (i) the correspondent on each cover sheet, (ii) the execution dates, and (iii) whether GoFigure Payments, LLC ever licensed or asserted the family.

Primary-source links for verification:

• USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 10339746; also https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html)
• Patent record (legal events): https://patents.google.com/patent/US10339746/en

Contradiction to flag: Unified Patents' portal lists the '746 priority date as 1999-08-09, whereas the patent text and Google Patents both show 1999-08-10 (the filing date of provisional 60/147,987). Treat the patent text/Google Patents date as authoritative; the Unified page appears to be off by one day.

I'll search for US Patent 10,339,746 and its cited prior art references.

Let me get the full "References Cited" list directly from the patent document sources.

Let me pull the patent's own citation lists from Google Patents and Justia.

I hit the tool-step limit before I could open the patent's own Google Patents page directly, so I'll answer from what I did retrieve plus the authoritative full text you supplied, and I'll be explicit about what is confirmed versus what is not.

Prior Art Analysis — US Patent 10,339,746

Patent identification (confirmed from authoritative full text)

Abstract (authoritative): "A system for enabling a payment includes a mobile wireless communications device having voice and data functionality and a payments system. The system enables a payment to be made by a user of the mobile wireless communications device to a party with which the user is in voice communication via the wireless communication link over which the voice communication is made. The voice communication link may be a wireless Voice-over-IP (VoIP) communications link."

Important scope caveat before the analysis

The task asks me to "look at each patent citation for 10339746." There are three distinct things called "citations" on a U.S. patent, and they must not be conflated:

1. References cited in the specification (background art the applicant discusses) — I retrieved these reliably from the full text.
2. Front-page "(56) References Cited" — U.S. patent documents cited by the examiner/attorney — I could not definitively retrieve this list within my search budget.
3. Front-page foreign patent documents and Non-Patent Citations — not retrieved.
4. "Cited By" (forward citations) — these are not prior art and cannot anticipate. I flag them only to avoid confusion.

I will not fabricate the examiner's (56) list. Below I give what is confirmed and what is reported-but-uncertain.

A. References cited in the specification (CONFIRMED — from authoritative text)

These are the only two prior-art patents the '746 specification itself discusses in its "Description of Related Art." Both predate the 1999-08-10 priority date.

A1. U.S. Pat. No. 5,890,052

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 5,890,052.
• Description (as characterized in the '746 spec): "a portable wireless telephone structure in which a foldable wallet carries a telephone, in addition to having a pocket to house paper currency. The telephone may be utilized to transfer money from a bank account to the Smart Card."
• Date: Filed/issued in the 1990s (patent number range and the spec's framing place issuance in 1999 — I did not independently verify the exact issue date; treat the year as approximate).
• §102 relevance: Discloses a wireless telephone used to move monetary value from a bank account — potentially relevant to claims reciting "a mobile wireless communications device … and a payments system … to enable a payment." However, it does not disclose payment to a party with which the user is in voice communication over the same wireless link (the core of the '746 abstract/claim 1). A §102 anticipation of independent claim 1 is therefore unlikely; it is better characterized as §102 art against broad dependent/system claims or as §103 background.

A2. U.S. Pat. No. 5,796,832

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 5,796,832.
• Description (as characterized in the '746 spec): "a wireless transaction information system which permits a wireless or cellular telephone hook up to a financial institution. A particular feature of the invention is that a 'Smart Card' is utilized to verify authorization for banking transactions, or to maintain a secure record of available funds."
• Date: Issued in the late 1990s (the spec places it in the pre-1999 art; exact issue date not independently verified here).
• §102 relevance: Discloses a cellular telephone linked to a financial institution for transactions — squarely in the field of independent claim 1's "payments system." Again, it lacks the "in voice communication with the payee over the link" limitation, so it would not anticipate claim 1 as written but is strongly probative background and a §103 candidate.

B. Reported U.S. patent documents list (PROVENANCE UNCERTAIN — flagged)

A Google Patents-derived citation table in my search results returned the following nine items under a "Citations (9)" header adjacent to the '746 entry:

Why I am flagging this list rather than asserting it:

• The snippet's provenance was ambiguous — it was returned from a US 6,023,682 page (a 1997-priority credit-card-authorization patent), and this set of nine references fits that patent's vintage/field better than a 1999-priority mobile-payment continuation.
• Item #3 (carbon-carbon composite tubes) is plainly unrelated to payments and is a strong indicator of scraper contamination or mis-attribution.
• The '746's own two spec references (US 5,890,052 and US 5,796,832) do not appear in this list, which is another warning sign.

Treat Section B as unverified. It is not a substitute for the patent's actual (56) front page.

Under a pre-AIA §102 framework (the application was filed 2010-10-27, before the 2012-03-16 AIA change), all nine items pre-date both the 2010 filing date and the 1999-08-10 priority date, so all would be §102(a)/(b) prior art as to some effective date — but none of them discloses the defining limitation of claim 1 (payment to a party while the user is in voice communication with that party over the same wireless link, optionally VoIP). Consequently, on the record I can see, none of these anticipates claim 1 under §102; they are §103-style secondary references at most.

C. Foreign patent documents and Non-Patent Citations

Not retrieved. One search result surfaced a European search-report page for EP 0 708 547 A3, "Cellular telephone as an authenticated transaction controller," whose "Cited by" list includes US 10,339,746 B1. That confirms a forward-citation relationship only; it does not make EP 0708547 an anticipatory reference on the '746, though its subject matter ("cellular telephone as an authenticated transaction controller") is highly on-point for the field and would be worth checking as potential §102/§103 art against the broader family (e.g., the '583 patent). I could not confirm whether it appears on the '746's own front page.

D. Related family members (NOT prior art — for completeness only)

Per the search results and the '746 cross-reference section, the following share the 1999-08-10 priority and are not §102 art against the '746:

• US 7,376,583 ('583) — parent
• US 8,249,982; US 8,504,472; US 8,756,153 — siblings
• US 2016/0253654 A1 (application 15/154,057) — later continuation publication

§102 framework applied to the '746 claims

Because claim 1 (per the abstract) recites (i) a mobile wireless communications device having voice and data functionality, and (ii) a payments system enabling a payment to a party with which the user is in voice communication over the same wireless link (the spec expressly contemplates VoIP and voice/data on the same channel):

Net: On the evidence I could actually retrieve, there is no single reference that anticipates the '746's independent claim 1 under §102. The realistic prior-art exposure is (a) old credit/POS/telephony patents as §103 secondary art, and (b) the mobile-payment art that developed 1999–2010 as potential §103 combinations. This is a provisional conclusion pending the confirmed (56) list.

Verification steps I recommend (to close the gap)

1. USPTO Patent Public Search / PatentCenter for application 12/913,563 → open the "References Cited" (PTO-892 / examiner citations) and the "Foreign References" & "Non-Patent References" tabs. This is the authoritative (56) list.
2. Google Patents → US10339746B1 → "Citations" section (distinct from "Cited By") to cross-check.
3. Justia (patents.justia.com/patent/10339746) — its "Patent History"/prosecution tab typically reproduces the examiner citations and office actions (a search hit indicates a "Non-final Office Action dated Feb…" exists in the file).
4. Confirm the exact issue dates of US 5,890,052 and US 5,796,832, and check EP 0 708 547 for citation status.

Bottom line

• Confirmed prior art discussed in the '746 specification: US 5,890,052 and US 5,796,832 — both pre-1999; neither anticipates claim 1.
• A nine-item U.S. reference list was retrieved but is unverified (likely belongs to US 6,023,682, and contains a clearly irrelevant carbon-composite item). I am not representing it as the '746's (56) list.
• The definitive front-page citation lists (U.S., foreign, NPL) were not obtained within the search budget — so any claim-by-claim §102 mapping to examiner citations remains provisional. I'd rather state that plainly than fabricate a citation list.

Note: this does not contradict the earlier litigation finding — nothing I retrieved shows any district-court, ITC, or PTAB proceeding naming US 10,339,746.

I'll first try to close the biggest gap flagged in the earlier sections — the actual claim text — and verify the prior-art references that appear in the supplied page.

The front page confirms 14 claims but I still lack claim text. Let me make targeted attempts to retrieve the claim set and the patent's own "References Cited" (its Prior Art section).

§ 103 Obviousness Analysis — US 10,339,746 B1 ("Mobile device for making a mobile payment")

0. Scope, evidence base, and a required disclosure before I analyze anything

Two record inconsistencies I will not silently resolve:

1. The task header says "Current Date: April 26, 2026," while the operating prompt says today is 2026‑09‑27. I do not know which is correct and will not pick one. Nothing in this analysis turns on it.
2. The priority-date discrepancy flagged in the earlier section (1999‑08‑10 per Google Patents / PTO front page vs. 1999‑08‑09 per Unified Patents) stands unresolved. It is immaterial to the outcome below.

What "the Prior Art section of this page" consists of, on my reading of the supplied text. The Google Patents text I was given contains no Cited By, Similar Documents, or Patent Citations block. What it actually contains that qualifies as prior art is:

I must be explicit about two hard limits:

• I still do not have the claim text. I confirmed from the issued PDF front page that the patent has "14 Claims, 9 Drawing Sheets" (US10339746.pdf), but I could not retrieve the claim column in this session. I therefore do not quote, number, or paraphrase any claim. The element framework in §3 is derived from the abstract (the only claim‑adjacent text I have) and is expressly labeled as an inference. This is a framework for a claim chart, not a claim chart.
• This is not an invalidity opinion. A defensible § 103 opinion requires (a) the claim set, (b) the full prior art of record with citations to columns/lines, and (c) the prosecution history. I have none of the three. What follows is an analytical roadmap for a POSITA‑level obviousness case, conditional on the apparent claim scope.

1. Refinements to the previously generated sections

Building on, not repeating, the prior summary:

• Claim count partially resolved: 14 claims total (front page). The prior section's statement that claim count was unknown is now superseded on the count — but not on the content, independence, or category of those claims.
• Term arithmetic confirms the chain: The recorded adjusted expiration of 2021‑08‑07 equals 20 years from the 09/635,935 filing (Aug 10, 2000) + 362 days PTA. This is consistent with the PTO having treated the § 154 term chain as running to the 2000 non‑provisional — a useful data point for § 2 below.
• Pendency observation: 12/913,563 was filed 2010‑10‑27 and issued 2019‑07‑02 — roughly 8.75 years, with 362 days of PTA. Long pendency of this kind usually indicates multiple Office Actions, possible § 101/§ 112 rejections, and/or appeal. The prosecution history is therefore the single highest‑value document for any § 103 re‑assessment, and I did not retrieve it.

2. The dispositive threshold issue: the effective filing date (pre‑AIA § 103(a))

The application was filed 2010‑10‑27, so the pre‑AIA versions of §§ 102/103 govern (AIA first‑inventor‑to‑file provisions do not apply to an application filed before 2013‑03‑16 absent a later‑added claim with a post‑2013 effective date).

Because the '746 is a straight continuation (11/434,939 → 09/635,935 → provisional 60/147,987), its specification is, by definition, the same disclosure as its parents — a continuation cannot contain new matter. Therefore whatever "VoIP / voice‑call‑concurrent payment" support exists in the '746 is necessarily present in the 2000 (and possibly 1999) disclosure. The supplied text appears to bear this out: the specification expressly contemplates "an Internet (or related) telephone device which permits voice to be transmitted over the Internet via an Internet (or related) protocol and, which also permits data transmission via an Internet (or related) protocol," and "purchase orders made over the telephone."

Consequence, and it is unfavorable to an obviousness challenge: the critical date is most likely 1999‑08‑10 (provisional) or 2000‑08‑10 (09/635,935). Almost all of the attractive secondary art on VoIP payments (2001–2010) falls after that date and is therefore unavailable. If instead priority for the voice‑concurrent‑payment limitations fails for lack of § 112 support in the 1999 provisional — but holds to 2000‑08‑10 via the '935 parent — the difference is one year and changes little. A shift all the way to 2006 or 2010 is, in my assessment, unlikely given the continuation chain and the on‑point 2000 specification text. This is the first thing an adversary would attack and the first thing to verify.

3. Element framework (INFERRED from the abstract only — not claim construction)

The narrowest point of novelty is E4+E5 read together — paying the counterparty on the call over the call's own link. E6 is likely the weak link in the patentee's position, precisely because it is phrased permissively.

4. Prior art inventory available from the page

Primary (the page's own Background):

• US 5,890,052 — Northern Telecom, "Foldable wireless telephone wallet." Verified text: a wallet with a telephone carried in it, and the express statement that the telephone "may be used in conjunction with a 'smart' card for transferring monetary amounts to the smart card to be used for transaction purposes" (US5890052.pdf; FreePatentsOnline).
• US 5,796,832 — characterized by the '746's own Background as "a wireless transaction information system which permits a wireless or cellular telephone hook up to a financial institution," with a Smart Card used "to verify authorization for banking transactions, or to maintain a secure record of available funds." ⚠️ I could not retrieve '832's own text this session; I am relying on the applicant's characterization and treat it as an admission binding on the patentee rather than as a verified disclosure.

Secondary (the page's "References Cited," partially retrieved): U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,652,795 (Wolf), 3,764,747 (Nakajima), 3,906,460 (Halpern), 3,971,916 (Moreno), 4,004,133 (Hannan), 4,053,735 (Foudos), 4,087,092 (Krause), 4,092,524 (Moreno), 4,211,919 (Ugon), 4,277,837 (Stuckert), 4,298,793 (Melis), 4,341,951 and 4,454,414 (Benton), 4,460,965 (Trehn) — plus "Notice of Allowance dated Aug. 21, 2007, in U.S. Appl. No. 09/635,935." These are predominantly 1970s–80s stored‑value/smart‑card and POS apparatus art. I did not verify the disclosure of each individually and will not characterize them beyond their numbers and apparent vintage.

Spec‑internal admissions usable as prior art (MPEP 2129): DTMF encoding of transaction data; data transmission that "interrupt[s] or periodically interrupt[s] the voice channel or occup[ies] some percentage of the communications channel, while the remaining band remains available with voice communications"; and Internet‑protocol telephony devices carrying both voice and data. These admissions are the most damaging material in the entire document, because they supply the very "same‑link voice/data concurrency" teaching that E5 recites.

5. Grounds of rejection

Ground 1 — § 103 over US 5,796,832 in view of US 5,890,052

Covers E1–E4 (mobile voice device + payments system + payment to a counterparty/account reachable over the wireless link). Both references are named in the '746's own Background — a classic "applicant's own admitted prior art" combination.
Motivation: both are wireless‑telephony cashless‑payment systems addressing the same problem (making a payment without a card reader); US 5,890,052 expressly motivates moving monetary amounts from a bank account into a transaction instrument via the telephone. MPEP 2143 rationales (A) (known elements combined for predictable results) and (C) (known technique improving a similar device in the same way). Expectation of success is high because both operate on the same bearer (cellular voice) and the same instrument (the telephone's own account).

Ground 2 — § 103 over Ground 1 further in view of the admitted in‑band voice/data technique

Supplies E5. The specification itself admits that data may be transmitted by DTMF encoding and by interrupting the voice channel. DTMF is in‑band signaling over the voice bearer; a POSITA would recognize that sending a payment instruction as DTMF during (or interrupting) an ongoing voice call transmits the payment "via the wireless communication link over which the voice communication is made." MPEP 2143 (D) — applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement, predictable result. This is a strong combination precisely because the teaching comes from the patentee's own text.

Ground 3 — § 103 over Ground 2 further in view of Internet‑telephony / VoIP devices (as admitted in the specification)

Supplies E6. The spec concedes that Internet telephony devices "permit[] voice to be transmitted over the Internet via an Internet (or related) protocol and ... also permit[] data transmission via an Internet (or related) protocol."
Motivation: (i) the single network carries both media, so no architectural change is needed to add a payment message; (ii) cost (avoiding separate PSTN/charging infrastructure); (iii) the patentee's own consolidated‑billing concept — already admitted in the spec — presupposes that a voice service account is a legitimate payment account; (iv) MPEP 2143 (F): known work in one field (IP telephony) prompts predictable variations in an adjacent field (payment) based on market forces. KSR's "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" rationale (E) also applies: the artisan choosing how to carry payment data on a voice call faces a small, enumerated set of options (in‑band DTMF, voice‑channel interruption, subcarrier, parallel data channel) — and the patent's own specification enumerates them.

Ground 4 — § 103 over a wireless‑radio telephony payment system further in view of US 4,831,647 (D'Avello et al.)

D'Avello is described in IPR briefing I retrieved as disclosing "a communication system 'incorporating a financial card reader at a mobile radio‑telephone unit'" (PTAB petition excerpt). D'Avello is 1989 — safely before the critical date — and is useful to rebut any argument that integrating payment capability into the telephone itself (as opposed to a wallet accessory) was non‑obvious. MPEP 2143 (B) (simple substitution of one known element for another).

Ground 5 (contingent on a later effective date) — EP 0 820 178 (Motorola, pub. 1998‑01‑21)

"Cellular telephone (10) incorporates the electronics for implementing both a cellular telephone function (46) and a smartcard function (45) ... also includes an RF interface (40) for wireless communication between the smartcard and an external reader ... information associated with the smartcard function may be updated or modified via existing cellular telephone infrastructure" (EP0820178A3.pdf). This directly pre‑dates even the provisional and is an excellent reference against any claim requiring voice and payment functionality in one handheld.

6. Motivation‑to‑combine summary (KSR / MPEP 2143)

Reasonable expectation of success is supported because the payment message needs only a low‑bandwidth bearer (the specification itself contemplates DTMF), and the voice call already provides an authenticated, addressed, billable session between the two parties — the reduction to practice requires no new science.

7. Candidate references I encountered but which are outside the page's prior‑art section (labeled as such)

These came from unrelated PTAB/IPR documents in my searches, not from the '746 page, and I flag them as leads, not grounds:

• US 2002/0087478 A1, "Wireless financial transactions" — handheld devices maintaining sessions with a server over at least partially wireless, TCP/IP paths, where the server controls the device UI and maintains the session when no transaction data is being exchanged (PDF). Post‑dates 2000 → unavailable if priority holds.
• US 8,706,627 (Shore; PCT filed 2001‑02‑09, WO 01/59732) — wireless payment via handheld phones/PDAs. Post‑dates 1999/2000 → likely unavailable.
• US 6,600,928 B1 (Ahya et al.) — surfaced in a search report I retrieved; I did not verify its subject matter and will not rely on it.
• Rolf's own US 7,788,174 (filed 2006‑07‑13, GoFigure) — same inventor/owner; the pre‑AIA § 103(c) common‑ownership exception and the family relationship make it a poor § 103 reference.

8. Where the patent most plausibly survives

• E4 read strictly — "a party with which the user is in voice communication" as the payee — is a specific arrangement. The 1999/2000 art is overwhelmingly merchant‑POS‑centric; person‑to‑person payment during an active call is a narrower proposition, and if the claims require the payee to be the call counterparty (not a merchant terminal), the obviousness case weakens materially.
• Concurrency — if a claim requires the payment to traverse the identical wireless link while voice is carried (rather than sequentially), the patentee will argue the art teaches sequential or out‑of‑band data. The specification's own concurrency admission is the best counter, but it is an admission of capability, not of payment.
• Priority — if the effective date holds at 1999/2000, the best art is off the table and the remaining combination is thin. This is the single most significant obstacle to any obviousness challenge.
• No litigation, expired status — as the earlier Litigation section found, no case has ever adjudicated these claims, so there is no judicial validity holding in either direction to build on.

9. Secondary considerations

No objective‑indicia record is available to me. I found no evidence in the retrieved materials of commercial success, licensing, copying, industry praise, or a failure‑of‑others narrative, and — critically — no nexus evidence tying any such indicia to the E4/E5 limitations. For a patent that expired 2021‑08‑07 with no identified litigation, the practical prospects for a robust secondary‑considerations case appear weak, but I cannot rule out evidence existing in the parties' hands.

10. Bottom line and verification path

Bottom line: The most defensible § 103 theory is a three‑reference combination grounded in the patent's own admitted prior art and admissions — (1) a wireless telephony‑to‑financial‑institution payment system [US 5,796,832 / US 5,890,052 / US 4,831,647 / EP 0 820 178], (2) in‑band or interrupted‑voice‑channel data transmission [specification admissions; DTMF], and (3) Internet‑protocol telephony carrying voice and data [specification admission] — combined with a motivation of predictable single‑device integration and market‑driven IP‑telephony adoption. However, I cannot state that any claim is invalid, because (a) I have not read the claims, (b) the strongest specific prior art I located post‑dates the likely critical date, and (c) I have not seen the prosecution history, which for an 8.75‑year pendency is where the real record lives.

To close the gaps, in priority order:

1. USPTO PatentCenter / Patent Public Search for 12/913,563 — full claim set, and the complete file history (Office Actions, references applied, appeal/RCE record). This is the only way to convert § 3's framework into a real claim chart.
2. The complete "References Cited" list on the '746 front page (I retrieved only an initial run) plus the IDS submissions in both 09/635,935 and 12/913,563.
3. The 1999 provisional 60/147,987 text — determine whether the voice‑concurrent payment limitations are supported there; this sets the critical date.
4. US 5,796,832's own disclosure — verify columns/lines rather than relying on the patentee's characterization.
5. Full text of US 4,831,647 (D'Avello) and EP 0 820 178 A2/A3 — confirm the cited passages before relying on them.

Caveat repeated for compliance: I did not auto‑correct any patent or application number in this analysis. Where the record was unavailable (notably the claim column and the full prior‑art list), I have said so rather than supplying language I could not verify.