US 10374740

I'll search for this specific patent number across the requested sources.

Let me search more specifically for litigation/docket and assignment records.

Found a potentially relevant 2026 case. Let me verify whether patent 10374740 is actually asserted in it.

Summary — US Patent 10,374,740 B2

Sources: the authoritative full patent text supplied for this analysis (Google Patents, fetched 2026-09-24), plus live web searches. Where searches were silent, I flag uncertainty rather than fill gaps.

⚠️ Scope note: You asked me to search USPTO and CAFC 2026 dockets for the exact number 10374740. I searched and did not find any CAFC 2026 docket or USPTO adversarial proceeding citing that exact number. What I did find is a 2026 district-court case brought by the current assignee (Radiant Patents LLC) — but the patent list in that case does not confirm '740. Details and caveats are in the litigation section below.

Bibliographic data

Assignment chain (literal, per the record text):

• 2016-01-25 — filed by NEC Corp
• 2017-08-07 — assigned to NEC CORPORATION (inventor Matsuyama)
• 2024-03-21 — → NEC Asia Pacific Pte Ltd.
• 2024-10-03 — → IP WAVE PTE. LTD.
• 2025-03-20 — → PLS XLIV LLC
• 2025-10-01 — → RADIANT PATENTS LLC (recorded as a "CHANGE OF NAME" from PLS XLIV LLC)
• 2025-11-13 — corrective assignment to PLS XLIV LLC (correcting application/patent numbers erroneously recorded on Reel 70575 / Frame 77)

Note: the 2025-11-13 corrective entry postdates the 2025-10-01 change-of-name, and its stated purpose was to fix mis-recorded application/patent numbers. I have no authoritative confirmation of the net current title position beyond the "Current Assignee" field listing Radiant Patents LLC. Treat the final owner as uncertain.

Abstract (as issued)

An add/drop multiplexer (11) includes a communication unit (101) that communicates an optical signal with at least one client device and at least one network and a control unit (102) that indicates a transfer destination of the optical signal according to an attribute of the received optical signal to the communication unit (101). The control unit (102) indicates an attenuation amount of the optical signal to the communication unit (101) for each connected device. When a connected device is changed, the control unit (102) instructs the communication unit (101) to change the attenuation amount. The communication unit (101) attenuates the optical signal with the attenuation amount indicated by the control unit (102) and transfers the attenuated optical signal to a transfer destination.

Independent claims — plain-language overview

The patent has 8 claims; only Claim 1 is independent. Claims 2–8 all depend (directly or indirectly) from Claim 1. There is no independent method claim and no independent computer-readable-medium claim in the issued claims, despite the title referencing a "transmission method" and "non-transitory computer readable medium."

Claim 1 — Network system (control device + add/drop multiplexer):
Two-part system:

1. A control device (a management/NMS-style element) having an interface to the add/drop multiplexer and a first controller. When a device connected to the multiplexer changes, the control device sends connection information telling the multiplexer that the connected device changed.
2. An add/drop multiplexer having:
   • a transmitter that can selectively route a received wavelength-multiplexed optical signal per-wavelength to at least one client device and at least one network (i.e., a WSS/ROADM-type switching function); and
   • a second controller that (a) tells the transmitter where to send a given-wavelength optical signal based on that signal's attribute, and (b) when it receives the "device changed" connection information, indicates the per-connected-device attenuation amount to the transmitter.
   • The transmitter then attenuates the signal at the predetermined wavelength by that attenuation amount and forwards it to the destination.

The inventive core is: attenuation is re-specified per connected device in response to a change in what is plugged into a port, so ports can be re-purposed without breaking power balance. (Note: Claim 1 contains a grammatical omission in the final clause — "...the transmitter [attenuates] the optical signal at the predetermined wavelength..." — reproduced literally as issued.)

Dependent claims (added limitations, abbreviating):

• Claim 2 — Multiplexer attenuates add-side traffic and adds it to the outbound signal, and/or attenuates network traffic and drops from it.
• Claim 3 — Both operations (add-side attenuation + drop-side attenuation) recited together.
• Claim 4 — Recites structure: multiple optical input ports, attenuators per input port, a wavelength multiplexer combining attenuated signals, an output unit forwarding the multiplexed signal, and a controller setting attenuation per attenuator.
• Claim 5 — Adds wavelength demultiplexers demultiplexing input into different wavelengths and an optical switch selecting one demultiplexed wavelength; attenuators act on the selected signal.
• Claim 6 — Controller can specify attenuation per wavelength demultiplexed by the demultiplexer.
• Claim 7 — Recites drop-side structure: demultiplexer → variable optical attenuators (per specified attenuation) → optical switch selecting output port → multiplexer per output port.
• Claim 8 — Second controller can specify attenuation per wavelength (parallel to Claim 6, for the drop-side architecture).

Litigation / docket check — what I found and what I could not confirm

No CAFC 2026 docket citing 10374740 was found. I also found no PTAB/IPR, ITC, or other adversarial proceeding citing that exact number.

What exists is a 2026 district-court case by the current assignee:

• Radiant Patents LLC v. Nokia Corp, Case No. 2:26-cv-00074, E.D. Tex., filed 01/26/26, Cause of Action: Patent Infringement (Nature of Suit 830). Accused products are Nokia optical systems (1830 PSS/GX, PSE-V/PSE-6, ICE-6/7/X, etc.).
• A party-level docket listing shows the asserted patents abbreviated as "'431, '789, '095, '188, '366 +3 more" (eight total, three unnamed). The named ones I could confirm include 10,623,095 (signal detection device / optical channel monitor) and the '188 and '789 PCS-related patents.

Uncertainty flag: I cannot confirm that 10,374,740 is one of the patents asserted in that case. The shorthand list I retrieved does not include "'740," but three asserted patents are not identified in the source I found, so I cannot rule it out. Do not treat '740 as asserted based on this analysis. The "+3 more" would need to be resolved against the actual complaint (E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00074, Dkt. 1) or the case's docket report.

I also did not retrieve a direct USPTO PatentCenter/Assignment record page or a CAFC docket page for the number itself; the bibliographic data above comes from the authoritative patent text supplied, whose assignment entries carry the caveats noted.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10374740 across patent litigation sources.

Let me search more targeted sources for litigation involving this patent.

Let me dig deeper into the specific Nokia litigation and whether '740 is asserted.

Summary of findings on U.S. Patent 10,374,740

Bottom line: I could not confirm any litigation that names U.S. Patent No. 10,374,740 (the '740 patent) itself as an asserted patent. However, the '740 patent is part of a patent family (Google Patents family ID 56542984; all members claiming priority to JP 2015‑013258, priority date 2015‑01‑27) for which there is known litigation activity involving a continuation family member and the same current owner.

What I confirmed

1. Family-level litigation flag. The Google Patents record for US10374740 states "Family has litigation — First worldwide family litigation filed" (via a Darts‑IP link, family=56542984). This flags litigation somewhere in the family, not necessarily on the '740 patent itself.

2. Radiant Patents LLC v. Nokia Corp (Nokia case).

• Plaintiff: Radiant Patents LLC (current assignee of the '740 family; f/k/a PLS XLIV LLC; an NPE described by Unified Patents as an entity of MVRE LLC)
• Defendant: Nokia Corp. (and related Nokia entities)
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Judge Rodney Gilstrap, per the docket numbering and related briefing)
• Case No.: 2:26-cv-00074
• Filing date: 01/26/2026
• Status: Open / pending
• Patents I saw identified in reporting on this case: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,623,095 (signal detection device / optical channel monitor), 11,431,431 (optical wavelength-path communication node), and others (referred to as the '188 and '789 patents, involving probabilistic constellation shaping). Accused products include Nokia's 1830 PSS/GX optical line systems and PSE/ICE photonic engines.

3. The key family link. US 11,431,431 (the '431 patent) — asserted in the Nokia case — is in the same family as, and a continuation descendant of, the '740 patent (family members: US10374740 → US11095387 → US11431431 → US11973579, all sharing the 2015‑01‑27 priority date). Unified Patents describes the '431 patent as relating to "an optical wavelength-path communication node, essentially an add/drop multiplexer for optical networks" — i.e., the same subject matter as the '740 patent's add/drop multiplexer.

Important caveats

• I did not find any case naming US 10,374,740 specifically. The confirmed Nokia assertion appears to be on sibling/continuation patents in the same family (notably the '431 patent), not the '740 patent. I do not want to overstate this — a complaint could list additional patents I did not see in full.
• The '740 patent's ownership chain (per the patent record) is: NEC Corp → NEC Asia Pacific Pte Ltd (2024) → IP WAVE PTE. LTD. (2024) → PLS XLIV LLC (2025) → Radiant Patents LLC (2025‑10‑01). This aligns with Radiant Patents as the likely asserting entity for any '740-family litigation.
• I could not access PACER or the Darts‑IP family-litigation record directly (both are paywalled/access-restricted), so a definitive, per-patent litigation list for '740 cannot be certified from the sources I was able to reach.

Sources

• Google Patents record for US10374740B2 (family/litigation flag, assignment history): https://patents.google.com/patent/US10374740/en
• Case page for Radiant Patents LLC v. Nokia Corp, 2:26-cv-00074 (E.D. Tex., filed 01/26/26): https://ai-lab-cl-prod.azurewebsites.net/case/dct/txed/2:26-cv-00074/radiant-patents-llc-v-nokia-corp
• Complaint analysis identifying Nokia-asserted patents: https://ai-lab-cl-prod.azurewebsites.net/case/dct/txed/2:26-cv-00074/doc/analysis/16
• Unified Patents coverage ("Radiant Patents optical networking patents prior art found"; "$4,000 for Radiant Patents optical patents prior art"): https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights

If you need a per-patent confirmation for '740, the next step would be to pull the full complaint in 2:26-cv-00074 (and any sibling cases against other defendants) from PACER and check the asserted-patent exhibit, plus query the Darts‑IP family litigation record for family 56542984.

I'll verify the structured block's default with targeted searches before writing anything.

Those searches surfaced no relevant hits. Let me run a few more targeted checks on the patent, its family, and the current owner before concluding.

The Unified Patents hits are directly relevant to this family. Let me pin down whether any AIA trial targets the '740 patent itself or its '431 continuation.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file against US 10,374,740. The USPTO ODP structured data returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming this patent, and my independent web searches surfaced no petition, institution decision, or Final Written Decision directed at the '740 patent — so the defensive posture is not "the patent is hardened by surviving IPRs" and not "claims 1–5 are canceled." It is the far more common and less comfortable posture for a defendant: the '740's eight claims are entirely untested at the Board, no petitioner is estopped, and every § 102/§ 103 ground a defendant can assemble remains fully available.

One important family-level caveat: the '740 is the first patent in a four-member family that has since become an active NPE assertion vehicle (family ID 56542984), and a defensive aggregator is now publicly working the family's continuation. Details below.

Proceedings on file

None. There is no proceeding to itemize. Per the instruction not to invent proceeding numbers, I am not going to construct placeholder sections.

For completeness, the near-miss hits my searches returned were all different patents and are listed here only so a reader doesn't confuse them with the '740:

None of these involve NEC, Radiant Patents, or optical add/drop multiplexing. Flagging this because "the '740 patent" is a heavily overloaded shorthand across the PTAB docket.

What the searches did surface — family-level, and it matters

Google Patents shows the family lineage as:

US 10,374,740 (this patent) → US 11,095,387 → US 11,431,431 → US 11,973,579 (all continuations, all claiming priority to 2015-01-27, all still active).

Ownership chain per the record: NEC Corp → NEC Asia Pacific Pte Ltd (2024-03-21) → IP WAVE PTE. LTD. (2024-10-03) → PLS XLIV LLC (2025-03-20) → RADIANT PATENTS LLC (2025-10-01, change of name).

Two verified data points on the family:

1. Unified Patents is actively working this family. In a post dated 2026-05-05, Unified announced it "successfully identify[ied] and chart[ed] prior art against U.S. Patent 10,623,095 and U.S. Patent 11,431,431, owned and asserted by Radiant Patents LLC (f/k/a PLS XLIV LLC), an NPE and entity of MVRE LLC. The patents have been asserted against Nokia." Unified describes the '431 as relating to "an optical wavelength-path communication node, essentially an add/drop multiplexer for optical networks" — i.e., the same subject matter as the '740. Source: https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2026/5/5/radiant-patents-optical-networking-patents-prior-art-found
2. Unified also ran a PATROLL crowdsourcing contest for prior art on these Radiant optical patents, awarding $4,000 (2026-04-29): https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2026/4/29/4000-awarded-for-radiant-patents-optical-patents-prior-art

I also encountered a third-party litigation-analytics page referencing Radiant Patents LLC v. Nokia Corp, No. 2:26-cv-00074 (E.D. Tex.), with asserted claims including at least claim 1 of the '095 patent. I could not independently confirm the docket number or the full asserted-patent list, and that page also referenced unrelated patents ('188, '789, "probabilistic constellation shaping"), so treat the case caption as reported-but-unverified rather than "on file."

Critical distinction: the '431 is a separate continuation with different claims. Prior-art charting against the '431 is not a PTAB challenge to the '740, and I found no evidence any AIA petition has been filed against the '431 either — only pre-petition prior-art work. Google Patents does carry a family-level "First worldwide family litigation filed" flag, which confirms family litigation exists without telling us which member is in suit.

Strategic summary

Claim status on the '740 itself. All eight claims (1–8, the granted set) are UNTESTED at the PTAB. None canceled, none sustained, none narrowed by certificate. The only claim-scope reality check available is prosecution: the issued set is narrow and structurally oriented — claim 1 recites a network system with a control device transmitting "connection information" and an add/drop multiplexer whose second controller indicates attenuation per connected device; claim 4 recites input ports + attenuators + wavelength multiplexer; claim 7 recites wavelength demultiplexer + variable optical attenuators + optical switch + per-output-port multiplexer. These are hardware-and-control-logic claims in a crowded ROADM/WSS art space, which is normally fertile IPR ground — but that is a prediction, not a proceeding.

Estoppel landscape. Because no petitioner has ever filed, § 315(e)(2) estoppel applies to no one. There is no petitioner/privy bar, no "reasonably could have raised" closure, and no estoppel inherited from a related proceeding on the '431 or '579 (estoppel is patent- and party-specific; a challenge to a sibling continuation does not estop a challenge to the '740). Likewise the § 315(b) one-year bar has not been triggered for any defendant as far as public records show — meaning a defendant served today still has the full one-year window to petition, and defendants not yet served have no clock running at all.

Pattern signals. (a) Single-patent, single-family monetization: the same NPE chain (IP WAVE → PLS XLIV → Radiant Patents, described by Unified as an entity of MVRE LLC) holds the whole family — a classic "assert one continuation, keep the others in reserve" structure, so a defendant sued on one member should expect the siblings to appear in later suits. (b) Defensive aggregator present at the prior-art-hunting stage: Unified is crowd-sourcing and charting art, which is the typical precursor to a Unified-filed IPR — but on the '431 and '095, not the '740. (c) No patent-owner appellate activity: NEC/Radiant have never had to defend a PTAB loss, because there has never been one.

Recommended next steps

• If you have been sued or demanded on the '740: there is nothing to cite at the Board, and you cannot point to a canceled claim. Your validity case must be built from scratch. The most efficient starting point is the prior-art set Unified already published against the sibling '431 (https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2026/5/5/radiant-patents-optical-networking-patents-prior-art-found) — but verify claim-by-claim mapping to the '740's language before relying on it, because the '431 claims differ, and the '740 claims are drafted in system terms (control device + add/drop multiplexer + per-device attenuation indication) that a '431 chart may not track.
• Watch the 2:26-cv-00074 Nokia matter and Unified's docket. If Unified or Nokia files an IPR on the '431 or the '095, the institution decision will reveal the Panel's view of the shared specification (the '740 shares that specification), and an instituted IPR on a sibling is a strong signal that the '740 is vulnerable on the same art. Confirm the case caption and asserted patents on CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%22Radiant+Patents%22) and the PTAB E2E / USPTO PTAB Decisions systems (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/ , https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board) rather than relying on aggregator pages — I could not verify the docket number from primary sources in this session.
• Calendar the § 315(b) clock from service on you, not from the case filing. No prior petition means no bar and no estoppel; if you intend to petition the '740, you keep the full statutory window and, per the Board's parallel-petition practice (CTPG), you should plan a single petition — the '740 has only 8 claims and would not support a two-petition justification.
• Do not over-read the absence. Zero PTAB activity on a 2015-priority patent asserted in 2026 is a mild negative signal for the patent owner's record only if you assume well-asserted patents attract IPRs; on this family, the assertion target has so far been the '095 and '431, so the '740 may simply not yet be in anyone's crosshairs. Patent term currently runs to 2036-03-28, so there is no near-term expiration off-ramp.

Confidence and gaps: I am highly confident there is no AIA trial proceeding on US 10,374,740 (structured ODP data plus negative search corroboration). I am not able to rule out an extremely recently filed petition not yet indexed by ODP or the web; if such a petition exists, it would not yet appear in E2E file histories. The family-level Unified Patents activity and the Nokia case are from secondary web sources and should be verified against PTAB E2E and the district court docket before being relied on in any filing.

I'll research the assignment chain, correspondent-of-record details, and NPE signals for this patent.

Strong signals emerging. Let me pin down the specific reel/frame records and correspondent for '740 itself.

I've hit the tool-call ceiling, but I gathered enough to reconstruct the chain and the NPE signals. Here is the analysis. Note up front: I could not retrieve the '740-specific reel/frame numbers or correspondent directly — the Google Patents legal-events text supplied as the authoritative source lists the transfers but without reel/frame. I therefore cite reel/frame only where I actually found it (on sibling patents), and I flag clearly what is confirmed vs. inferred.

Inventors

• Single-inventor patent. No co-inventors to cross-check.
• No evidence of an inventor-departure pattern. I found no data showing Matsuyama leaving NEC within 12 months of the 2016-01-25 filing. This is a not-present / no-data call, not a negative finding — but the common single-inventor-plus-corporate-assignment structure here is neither unusual nor, on its own, a fire-sale precursor.

Original assignee

• NEC Corporation (Japan) — named on the issued patent; inventor-assignment recorded 2017-08-07.
• Primary line of business: diversified IT/telecom, including optical transport. NEC built and shipped optical networking gear in precisely this space — the patent's own FIG. 9 describes a "wavelength path communication node device" (ROADM/WXC with WSS), and related NEC patents cited in the family (e.g., WO2009145118, "Wavelength path communication node device," assignee 日本電気株式会社/NEC) confirm NEC is an operating company that embodied this class of claim.
• Status: Operating. No bankruptcy, liquidation, or Chapter 7/11 event involving NEC appears in the record. The divestiture of this optical portfolio to Singapore/US holding entities in 2024–2025 is a portfolio monetization wind-down, not a distress sale.

Assignment timeline

⚠️ Reel/frame caveat: The authoritative patent record lists the transfers below but does not expose reel/frame or the recording correspondent. I could not retrieve the '740-specific reel/frame via search. The reel/frame figures shown in italics brackets are from a sibling/adjacent NEC→IP Wave patent (US 9,482,632) in the same divestiture wave — they corroborate the corporate chain and the recurring correspondent, but they are NOT records of '740 and must not be attributed to it.

• 2016-01-25 (filed) / recorded 2016-01-25 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Assignment of application by operation of employment / original filing
  • Assignor: NEC Corp (applicant)
  • Assignee: NEC Corporation
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Original corporate filing (National Stage Entry of PCT/JP2016/000346).

• 2017-08-07 / recorded 2017-08-07 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: MATSUYAMA, Yurie (inventor)
  • Assignee: NEC CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Routine inventor→employer assignment.

• 2024-03-21 / recorded 2024-03-21 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: NEC CORPORATION
  • Assignee: NEC Asia Pacific Pte Ltd.
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: First step of the corporate portfolio relocation (JP parent → Singapore regional affiliate). Sibling US 9,482,632 shows the parallel NEC→NEC Asia Pacific Pte Ltd step at Reel 066376/0276 (executed 2024-01-18), i.e., the same migration.

• 2024-10-03 / recorded 2024-10-03 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: NEC Asia Pacific Pte Ltd.
  • Assignee: IP WAVE PTE. LTD. (20 Collyer Quay, #23-01, Singapore 049319)
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved for '740] — the recurring correspondent across this IP Wave divestiture wave is MR. DEREK M. RABY, Sughrue Mion PLLC, 2000 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 9000, Washington DC 20006 (draby@sughrue.com), as shown on the IP Wave→Cloud Byte recording for sibling US 9,482,632. Flag: same correspondent recurs across the IP Wave divestitures.
  • Context: Transfer into the Singapore holding entity that packaged former NEC optical assets for onward divestiture.

• 2025-03-20 / recorded 2025-03-20 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: IP WAVE PTE. LTD.
  • Assignee: PLS XLIV LLC
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved for '740] — Derek M. Raby / Sughrue Mion recurs across the IP Wave chain.
  • Context: Transfer-to-asserter. IP Wave pushed assets into a numbered Delaware LLC ("PLS XLIV"), the standard structure for the MVRE LLC-funded plaintiff family.

• 2025-10-01 / recorded 2025-10-01 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: CHANGE OF NAME (not a transfer of title)
  • Assignor: PLS XLIV LLC
  • Assignee: RADIANT PATENTS LLC
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Change of name only — same legal entity, relaunched under an assertion-facing brand. Unified Patents describes Radiant Patents LLC as "f/k/a PLS XLIV LLC, an NPE and entity of MVRE LLC."

• 2025-11-13 / recorded 2025-11-13 — Reel 70575/0077 (per the corrective-entry text; this is the only reel/frame reference I can partially reconstruct)

  • Conveyance: CORRECTIVE ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: IP WAVE PTE. LTD.
  • Assignee: PLS XLIV LLC
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Corrective record to fix application/patent numbers "erroneously recorded" on Reel 70575/Frame 77 (the entry names patent numbers 10924188, 10581518, 10200117, 12009865). This is a bookkeeping correction, not a new title transfer.

Net title position: The recorded chain runs NEC Corp → NEC Asia Pacific Pte Ltd → IP WAVE PTE. LTD. → PLS XLIV LLC → (renamed) RADIANT PATENTS LLC, with a later corrective recording back under the PLS XLIV name. Google Patents lists the Current Assignee as Radiant Patents LLC. Because a corrective assignment postdates the change-of-name, the exact legal title-holder naming is slightly uncertain — but both names are the same MVRE-affiliated entity.

If any of the above entries turn out to be absent in the Assignment Center on a fresh pull, the fallback finding would be the same: the chain still terminates at the PLS XLIV / Radiant Patents entity.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10374740
    2016 : Filed by NEC Corp
    2017 : Inventor assignment to NEC Corporation
    2019 : Patent issued
    2024 : Assigned to NEC Asia Pacific Pte Ltd
         : Assigned to IP WAVE PTE LTD
    2025 : Assigned to PLS XLIV LLC
         : Renamed Radiant Patents LLC
         : Corrective booking recorded
    2026 : Nokia suit filed by Radiant Patents

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT. The patent left operating-company hands (NEC, 2024-03-21 → NEC Asia Pacific Pte Ltd) and passed to IP WAVE PTE. LTD. (2024-10-03), then to the numbered Delaware LLC PLS XLIV LLC (2025-03-20), renamed Radiant Patents LLC (2025-10-01). Unified Patents independently characterizes Radiant Patents as "an NPE and entity of MVRE LLC." The "XLIV" numbering and the "Patents" suffix match the shell-LLC pattern, and the corroborating sibling patent shows a Suite-204 Delaware address for the parallel entity (Cloud Byte LLC). Concrete evidence, not naming alone: an NPE designation by Unified plus a numbered single-purpose Delaware LLC.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT. Radiant Patents LLC is surfaced by Unified Patents as an asserting NPE (its PATROLL contest ran against '095 and '431, "asserted against Nokia"). Per your instruction, "any entity surfaced by Unified Patents or RPX as a high-frequency plaintiff" counts. Note: neither Radiant/PLS XLIV nor MVRE appears on your enumerated legacy list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid, etc.), so this is a Unified/RPX-sourced finding, not a legacy-list match.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — PRESENT at firm level (partially confirmed). The recurring recording attorney for the IP Wave divestiture wave is MR. DEREK M. RABY, Sughrue Mion PLLC, 2000 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 9000, Washington DC 20006 (draby@sughrue.com), appearing on the IP Wave→Cloud Byte recording (Reel 067944/0332, executed 2024-03-05) and again on a PTAB petition exhibit naming IP Wave as assignor. I could not confirm Raby on the '740-specific reels. Treat as: same correspondent drives the IP Wave portfolio divestitures; '740 is part of that wave; direct '740 reel corroboration not obtained.

4. Cascading transfers — PRESENT. Four recorded steps in ~19 months: 2024-03-21 → 2024-10-03 → 2025-03-20 → 2025-10-01. Consecutive LLC/holding transfers inside a <24-month window, correlated with the same correspondent firm, is the textbook cascade pattern.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — PRESENT (family-level). Radiant Patents took the name on 2025-10-01; the Nokia suit (Radiant Patents LLC v. Nokia Corp, 2:26-cv-00074, E.D. Tex.) was filed 2026-01-26 — roughly 4 months later, within your 6-month window. Unified confirms Radiant asserted U.S. 11,431,431 against Nokia; '431 is a continuation in the same family as '740 (per the family-applications table). So the chain was plainly assembled ahead of assertion, even though I still cannot confirm '740 itself is in the Nokia complaint (the abbreviated asserted list reads "'431, '789, '095, '188, '366 +3 more," leaving three unnamed).

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No NEC bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding appears. This divestiture is a corporate portfolio wind-down/monetization, not a distressed sale.

7. Privateering — UNCLEAR. The structure (operating company → holding entity → NPE that asserts optical patents against other optical vendors, including a competitor to NEC's optical line) fits the privateering shape, but I found no SEC filing or Patent Progress/EFF coverage linking NEC to the Nokia assertions on NEC's behalf. Insufficient direct evidence.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain terminates at an asserting NPE (Radiant Patents / MVRE), not at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. The patent has not been neutralized.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two-plus strong, evidence-backed signals drive this: (a) a shell-entity transfer out of operating-company NEC through Singapore holding IP WAVE PTE. LTD. into numbered Delaware LLC PLS XLIV LLC, later renamed Radiant Patents LLC — an entity Unified Patents explicitly designates "an NPE and entity of MVRE LLC"; and (b) a cascading four-step transfer (2024-03-21 → 2024-10-03 → 2025-03-20 → 2025-10-01) completed only ~4 months before the 2026-01-26 Nokia suit, consistent with pre-litigation chain assembly. The same Sughrue Mion / Derek M. Raby correspondent recurs across the IP Wave divestiture wave (sibling Reel 067944/0332). The single caveat is that I could not retrieve '740's own reel/frame or confirm '740 is a named patent in the Nokia complaint — but the family patent '431 is confirmed asserted by Radiant against Nokia.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 10374740); legacy interface — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. Google Patents legal events for '740: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10374740](/patent/US10374740)/en. Unified Patents coverage: https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2026/5/5/radiant-patents-optical-networking-patents-prior-art-found.

Explicit uncertainty flags: (1) '740-specific reel/frame numbers and recording correspondent were not obtained — the reel/frame figures cited (066376/0276; 067944/0332; 70575/0077) belong to sibling patents or to the corrective text, not confirmed '740 records. (2) Whether '740 itself is asserted in 2:26-cv-00074 is unconfirmed; three asserted patents remain unnamed. Neither gap changes the ownership-chain verdict.

I'll research this patent's prior art citations. Let me verify the USPTO record and dig into the key references.

Let me verify the key prior-art references' content and dates.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,374,740 B2

Analyst note: The authoritative full patent text supplied for this analysis is the primary source. Live searches were used only to corroborate reference content. Where I could only see a reference's title/assignee (not its full text), I say so explicitly rather than inventing content. Patent numbers and identifiers are reproduced literally as they appear in the record.

A. USPTO record confirmation — the specific number 10374740

Searching for the exact number 10374740 (not similar numbers) returns a single match:

The '740 patent has 8 claims; Claim 1 is the sole independent claim (a "network system" combining a control device + an add/drop multiplexer). Claims 2–8 depend from it. This matters for the §102 analysis below: the only claim for which full-reference anticipation is even theoretically possible is Claim 1; the dependent claims are narrower and easier to anticipate individually.

B. Scope / method caveat

• §102 vs. §103. The task asks which claim(s) each reference "potentially anticipates under §102." Strictly, §102 anticipation requires a single reference disclosing every element of the claim as arranged. Most references below disclose only parts of Claim 1 and are therefore better characterized as §103 (obviousness) references, or as §102 art against specific dependent claims. I flag this per reference rather than overstating anticipation.
• Prior-art date. The '740 effective filing/priority date is 2015‑01‑27. Japanese/Chinese/WO/US publications dated before that qualify under §102(a)(1). A few cited references published after 2015‑01‑27 (e.g., US 2016/0156429 A1, pub. 2016‑06‑02) can only qualify under §102(a)(2)/§102(e) via their earlier effective filing dates.
• "Inferred" content. For several citations the record gives only title + assignee. Those descriptions are marked [inferred from title/assignee].

C. Full citation list of the '740 references

The record lists 32 citation entries (and a re-duplicated "Patent Citations (36)" set; JP2007148042A appears twice). Five entries carry an examiner-citation asterisk (*) in the record: US 2004/0179845 A1, US 2007/0025729 A1, US 2007/0147841 A1, US 2011/0188851 A1, US 2016/0156429 A1.

C.1 — The four "Patent Literatures" expressly discussed in the '740 background

The '740 specification itself characterizes PL1–PL4 as ROADM art in which "optical signals transmitted from a connection destination are attenuated, a difference in power between the optical signals is adjusted, and the adjusted optical signals are multiplexed." That admission is significant: it concedes that attenuation + power balancing across a WSS node was known, leaving the asserted point of novelty to be the per-connected-device re-specification of attenuation triggered by connection-change information from a separate control device.

C.2 — Remaining cited references (32-entry set)

D. §102 analysis — the most relevant references

For each, I state what it discloses, what it lacks relative to Claim 1, and the claim(s) it most credibly anticipates.

D.1 — WO 2009/145118 A1 (NEC) — the strongest structural reference (PL4)

• Citation: WO 2009/145118 A1, "Wavelength path communication node device, wavelength path communication control method, program, and recording medium," NEC; filed 2008‑05‑26, pub. 2009‑12‑03 (pre‑2015, so §102(a)(1) art).
• Disclosure: WSS-based node with a port-switch function connecting input WDM signals to different output ports per wavelength, plus a per-wavelength attenuation (ATT) function, where selective ports connect to other WSSs, aggregators, and clients — i.e., the exact architecture the '740 patent reproduces as its Fig. 9 wavelength-path communication node device.
• §102 potential: Claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (input ports + attenuators + wavelength mux/demux + optical switch + per-wavelength attenuation) are each individually in substantial tension with this reference. Against Claim 1, it discloses the A/D-multiplexer side but not the separate control device that transmits "connection information indicating that the device connected to the add/drop multiplexer is changed." → §103 combination reference for Claim 1, not clean §102.

D.2 — CN 101222277 A (FiberHome) — per-channel power equalization in WSS ROADM

• Citation: CN 101222277 A, "method for automatic equalization of optical channel power in WSS-type ROADM node equipment," filed 2008‑02‑02, pub. 2008‑07‑16 (§102(a)(1)).
• Disclosure: Automatic per-channel optical power equalization in a WSS ROADM node — directly reads on the attenuation-amount-per-wavelength feature.
• §102 potential: Claim 1 (attenuation element), Claims 6 and 8 (per-wavelength attenuation). Does not, on the title-level record available, disclose the connection-change-triggered re-specification by a separate NMS.

D.3 — US 7,218,858 B1 (Ciena) — VOA power management

• Citation: US 7,218,858 B1, "System and method for use of a variable optical attenuator in an optical network," Ciena Corp.; filed 2002‑05‑20, issued 2007‑05‑15 (§102(a)(1)).
• Disclosure: Confirmed by full text: a VOA controlled in a feedback "zone" loop for power management at a node that can perform "routing and add/drop multiplexing"; explicitly contrasts its adjustable VOA against fixed attenuators (PADs) that "cannot adjust … attenuation" when signal levels change (e.g., after a network switching event) — which is essentially the problem statement of the '740 patent.
• §102 potential: Claim 1's attenuation step and Claims 4/6/8 (per-element attenuation control). It is a strong §103 foil for the "change attenuation when conditions change" concept but does not specify attenuation per connected device driven by a connection-change message from a control device.

D.4 — US 2016/0156429 A1 (Boduch) — examiner-cited; wavelength equalizing arrays

• Citation: US 2016/0156429 A1, "Method and apparatus for construction of compact optical nodes using wavelength equalizing arrays," M. E. Boduch; filed 2016‑01‑22, pub. 2016‑06‑02, est. priority 2013‑06‑22; examiner-cited *.
• Disclosure: Confirmed: ROADM with wavelength equalizers = DMUX + per-wavelength EVOAs feeding switches/multiplexer, for directionless add/drop; EVOAs "programmed" to pass/block/partially attenuate individual wavelengths.
• §102 potential (via §102(a)(2)/(e), 2013‑06‑22 effective date): Claims 7 and 8 (wavelength demultiplexer → variable optical attenuators per wavelength → optical switch selecting output port → multiplexer per output port). This is the clearest structural anticipation candidate among the examiner-cited art.

D.5 — JP 2011‑040997 A (NTT, PL1) — colorless/directionless ROADM

• Citation: JP 2011‑040997 A, "Optical wavelength multiplex transmission system," NTT; filed 2009‑08‑11, pub. 2011‑02‑24 (§102(a)(1)). Confirmed content: color/direction-agnostic WSS-based ROADM where Add/Drop wavelength and route can be "arbitrarily set and changed."
• §102 potential: Claim 1 (per-wavelength selective transfer + attribute-based route), Claims 5–8. Directly supports the "arbitrarily change what a port/Add-Drop connects to" premise.

D.6 — WO 2011/055724 A1 / US 2012/0218617 A1 (NEC) — optical power control

• Citation: WO 2011/055724 A1 (NEC), "Optical power control system, optical power control node device, and optical power control method"; filed 2009‑11‑05, pub. 2011‑05‑12 (§102(a)(1)); US sibling US 2012/0218617 A1.
• §102 potential: Claim 1 attenuation element; Claims 6/8 (per-wavelength power control). NEC-owned, same subject matter family as the '740 node — a likely §103 reference.

D.7 — JP 2010‑103781 A (NTT) — management control system

• Citation: JP 2010‑103781 A, "Management control system and management device," NTT; filed 2008‑10‑23, pub. 2010‑05‑06.
• §102 potential: Bears on Claim 1's "control device … interface … first controller" element — a management device controlling node elements. Best used to show the control-device half of Claim 1 was known.

D.8 — US 2004/0179845 A1 (NEC) — examiner-cited

• Citation: US 2004/0179845 A1, "Optical node processor, optical network system and its control method," NEC; filed 2003‑03‑10, pub. 2004‑09‑16; examiner-cited *.
• §102 potential: Claim 1 (node controller routing per signal attribute).

D.9 — JP 2014‑022865 A (NEC) — branch/insertion devices

• Citation: JP 2014‑022865 A, "Optical signal branching device and optical signal insertion device," NEC; filed 2012‑07‑17, pub. 2014‑02‑03 (§102(a)(1)).
• §102 potential: Claims 2 and 3 (drop/branch and add/insert operations), Claim 7 (drop-side demux→ATT→switch→mux).

D.10 — Others (brief)

• JP 2013‑123205 A (NTT, PL2) — optical amplification/power method: Claims 1, 4, 6, 8 (per-channel attenuation/amplification control).
• JP 2013‑531909 A (NEC Labs America, PL3) — transponder aggregator: Claims 2–3 (aggregation of add/drop).
• US 2007/0147841 A1 (Fujitsu *) and US 2007/0025729 A1 (Barnard *) — OADM / reconfigurable WDM ring: Claims 2–3.
• US 2011/0188851 A1 (Fujitsu *) — optical network control: Claim 1 (network-level control).
• US 2012/0224170 A1 (NEC), RU 2505940 C2 (NEC), JP 2012‑005088 A (NTT), US 2012/0148236 A1 (Kumar) — node/connection checking, distributed control, path design, in-band control: generally Claim 1 supporting elements (attribute/control signaling).
• CN 1466304 A, CN 102790653 A, JP 2007‑148042 A, JP 2011‑254309 A, JP 2013‑005016 A, US 7,706,690 B2, US 2011/0182585 A1 — ROADM/WSS/mux structure: Claims 4–8.
• JP 2001‑230730 A, JP 2001‑274751 A, JP 2007‑208691 A, US 2006/0018658 A1, US 8,917,988 B2, JP 2013‑201517 A — background/tangential; weak or no §102 relevance to the asserted claims.

E. Bottom line

1. Exact-number search confirmed the target is US 10,374,740 B2 (app. 15/545,588), 8 claims, Claim 1 the only independent claim.
2. No single cited reference appears to anticipate Claim 1 in full. Claim 1's distinguishing limitation is the combination of a separate control device that transmits connection-change information with an A/D multiplexer that re-specifies the per-connected-device attenuation amount in response. The cited art discloses these pieces separately (power/VOA control: Ciena '858, NEC WO'724, FiberHome CN'277; WSS-ROADM structure: NEC WO'118, NTT JP'997, Boduch US'429; management/control: NTT JP'781, NEC US'845).
3. Best per-claim §102 candidates:

• Claims 4–8 (structural): NEC WO 2009/145118 A1 and examiner-cited US 2016/0156429 A1 (Boduch) — the latter is the cleanest anticipation candidate for Claims 7–8.
• Claims 2–3 (add/drop): Fujitsu US 2007/0147841 A1, Ciena/Barnard US 2007/0025729 A1, NEC JP 2014‑022865 A.
• Claim 1: no clean §102 hit; treat WO'118 + US'858 + CN'277 + JP'781/US'845 as the §103 combination set.

1. Caveat: For several references I could access only title/assignee/date, so their internal disclosure was inferred. Any assertion of anticipation for those must be verified against the full reference text before relying on it.

Primary source: Google Patents record for US 10,374,740 B2 — https://patents.google.com/patent/US10374740/en (citation list, dates, examiner asterisks, and claim set). Corroborating full texts: US 7,218,858 B1 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7218858), US 2016/0156429 A1, JP 2011‑040997 A (https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2011040997A/en), WO 2009/145118 A1.

I did not retrieve a live USPTO PatentCenter artifact in this session; the bibliographic data above derives from the authoritative patent text supplied and the cited public records.

I'll research the key prior-art references cited on the '740 patent's face so the obviousness analysis is grounded in what those references actually disclose.

Let me pull details on the remaining high-relevance references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 10,374,740 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Building on the earlier sections (bibliography, claim map, litigation). This section does not repeat them. Grounded in the prior-art listing on the '740 face (the "Citations"/Patent Literature 1–4 entries) plus text I retrieved for the most load-bearing references. Where I could not retrieve a reference's full text, I say so.

1. Framework and the reference set in play

The '740 patent has one independent claim (Claim 1) and seven dependents. Effective prior-art date is 2015-01-27 (JP 2015-013258), so all references cited on the face qualify under AIA §102(a)(1)/(a)(2).

The examiner-cited art clusters into four buckets, which is itself suggestive that the invention sits at the intersection of four well-trodden arts rather than in a new field:

2. Level of ordinary skill

A POSITA here would have a B.S. (or M.S.) in EE/optics plus ~2–5 years designing WDM transport, ROADM/WSS nodes, and optical power management — i.e., someone who knows that (a) a WSS switches and attenuates per-wavelength, (b) any reconfiguration perturbs per-channel power, and (c) NMS/EMS provisioning is the normal way connections are changed. That skill level is what makes the combination below not merely possible but routine.

3. Claim 1 — element-by-element and the primary combination

Primary reference: CN101222277A (with US20040179845A1 and JP2010103781A as secondary references).

CN101222277A is the single most damaging reference. Its own claim 1 and abstract disclose a WSS-based ROADM transmission device comprising a WSS module, an optical-performance-monitoring module, an optical switch, a microcontroller control module, and couplers, in which:

• the WSS module performs per-wavelength switching and attenuation;
• when the ROADM performs wavelength scheduling or when the optical power in a line changes, the monitoring module automatically detects power/wavelength for all output lines;
• if per-channel power flatness exceeds a threshold, the module computes the wavelength value and the attenuation amount, and passes line number + wavelength + attenuation to the microcontroller; and
• the microcontroller commands the WSS module to control attenuation of the corresponding optical channel.

Result: Claim 1 is rendered obvious by CN101222277A in view of US20040179845A1 and JP2010103781A. The only genuine gap in CN101222277A standing alone is that its "control module" is internal to the node, whereas claim 1 separates out an external control device that pushes connection-change information. US20040179845A1 (NEC) closes that gap by expressly teaching a VOA controller driven "according to information from an external device," and JP2010103781A supplies the management-device-side provisioning/reconfiguration layer.

Alternative combinations (redundant §103 positions):

• WO2009145118A1 + US7218858B1 + JP2010103781A — The NEC wavelength-path node supplies the per-wavelength switching node; Ciena supplies "variable attenuation responsive to a network switching event"; the NTT reference supplies the reconfiguring management device.
• US7218858B1 + US20040179845A1 + JP2010103781A — a broader, non-ROADM-specific route to the same claim if a fact-finder reads "transmitter" narrowly.

4. Motivation to combine (the KSR rationales)

The motivation is not hindsight-driven because each reference independently states the same problem the '740 patent states:

1. The problem is expressly recognized in the art. CN101222277A states that at a ROADM node, "every time wavelength routing scheduling is performed, the wavelength in the line will change… their optical power will be very different, which needs to be readjusted and balanced," and that manual adjustment "is not only time-consuming, but also prone to errors, which will interrupt existing services." US7218858B1 states that "if signal power levels change as a result of a network switching event, the fixed attenuator device cannot adjust its attenuation which may result in that network element not operating properly." These are the exact defects the '740 patent sets out to cure ("as the attenuation amount of the optical signals is fixed, there is a problem that a device to be connected… cannot be changed").

2. Predictable solution, predictable result. Once reconfiguration is known to perturb per-channel power, computing and applying a new per-channel attenuation is the identified, predictable fix (KSR, finite number of identified, predictable solutions). CN101222277A even automates the computation and delivery of line/wavelength/attenuation to the controller — precisely claim 1's "indicate the attenuation amount… to the transmitter."

3. Design incentive / market pressure. CN101222277A and US20040179845A1 both frame the goal as economical, flexible metropolitan ROADM nodes. "Reconfigurable" is definitional to ROADM; enabling a port to be re-purposed without a field visit is an obvious design objective, not an inventive leap.

4. Applicant's own admission. The '740 specification cites WO2009145118A1 (NEC) as Patent Literature 4 background — NEC's own wavelength-path node. That is an admission that the node architecture was known; the only asserted delta is re-specifying attenuation on a connection change.

5. Combining is within the ordinary skill. All references are the same field (WDM/ROADM), address the same power-management function, and use the same building blocks (WSS, VOA, controller, NMS). No change in principle of operation is required.

5. Dependent claims 2–8

Because Claims 2–8 are merely conventional implementations of WSS-ROADM arithmetic (demux/switch/attenuate/mux) that the cited art already performs, they add little independent patentable weight. Claim 6 and Claim 8 are especially exposed, since CN101222277A's whole point is per-wavelength attenuation computation.

6. Closest single-reference (§102) check

No single reference appears to disclose every element of Claim 1, chiefly because Claim 1 packages an external control device plus the node. CN101222277A keeps control inside the node's microcontroller. That is why the correct vehicle is §103 (a two-reference-plus combination), not §102.

Claim-drafting caveats affecting construction: Claim 1's final clause omits the verb ("the transmitter [attenuates] the optical signal…"), and the control-device interface clause reads "configured to be capable of transferring the add/drop multiplexer." Both appear to be scrivener's errors and would likely be construed as "attenuates" and "an interface configured to transfer to the add/drop multiplexer," respectively. Also note that Claim 1 uses "transmitter" where the specification means the switching/communication unit — a construction point that, if a patentee tried to narrow, would collide directly with the WSS-ROADM art above.

7. Secondary considerations

I found no evidence of secondary considerations in the record I have: no known industry praise, licensing-at-a-premium, or copying tied to the '740 claims, and no unexpected-result data. Absent a nexus, they do not rebut the prima facie case. Note also the family history (US11095387 → US11431431 → US11973579) — serial continuations are consistent with applicants seeking claims the cited art did not already cover, which itself signals how close the art is.

8. Caveats and uncertainties (flagged per operating rules)

• Reference texts I verified: US7218858B1, CN101222277A/B, WO2009145118A1 (title/metadata), US20040179845A1, JP2010103781A. Not fully verified: US20160156429A1, JP2007148042A, US7706690B2, JP2013531909A, JP2011040997A, JP2013123205A, US20110188851A1 (search returned no content for the last two attempts before I stopped). Conclusions about those references rest on their face-cited titles/abstracts and are correspondingly weaker.
• US 2002/0093703 A1 (Maeno) is a strong "attribute → optical value" reference but is not in the '740 face-citation list — I found it via search. Treat it as supplementary art, to be confirmed before relying on it.
• Regarding the litigation flag: as noted in the earlier section, I could not confirm that the '740 patent itself is asserted in Radiant Patents LLC v. Nokia Corp., 2:26-cv-00074 (E.D. Tex.). This obviousness analysis is therefore presented as technical/defensive, not as a response to any confirmed '740 assertion.
• Dates/identifiers are reproduced literally from the record; the CN reference is cited on the '740 face as CN101222277A (FiberHome), with the corresponding granted CN101222277B.

Bottom line: If a defendant reaches the merits, the strongest §103 attack is CN101222277A as the primary reference, combined with US20040179845A1 (external control of attenuation) and JP2010103781A (management-device provisioning), with US7218858B1 supplying the admitted "reconfiguration breaks fixed attenuation" motivation. That combination reaches every element of Claim 1 and, given the per-wavelength attenuation core of CN101222277A, largely moots Claims 6 and 8.