US 10783192

A review of US Patent 10,783,192 and a search of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) database and the 2026 dockets of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) provides the following summary.

Patent Details for US 10,783,192

• Title: System, method, and user interface for a search engine based on multi-document summarization
• Assignee: The patent is assigned to an "Individual."
• Inventor: Dmitri Soubbotin
• Filing Date: December 4, 2015
• Issue Date: September 22, 2020
• Abstract: The patent describes a method for a computer system to search multiple documents. A user's query is sent to a system core, which passes it to a search component. The search component finds related documents and returns the results to the system core. A specified number of these results are then sent to a summarization component. This component processes the documents, removes duplicate information, and creates a multi-document summary. The final summary is then provided by the system core. (Source: US Patent 10,783,192 Abstract)

Litigation Search

A search of the CAFC 2026 dockets for patent number 10,783,192 did not yield any matching results. This indicates that as of today's date, May 1, 2026, there are no publicly docketed appeals concerning this patent at the Federal Circuit. It is important to note that this does not preclude the possibility of litigation at the district court level, which would not appear in CAFC dockets until an appeal is filed.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims

An analysis of the patent's claims is required to provide a plain-language overview of the independent claims. Based on the provided patent text, I am unable to definitively identify and analyze the independent claims. The full claims section of the patent document is necessary for an accurate summary. I am unable to provide a plain-language overview of the independent claims without the full text of the patent's claims section.

As of May 1, 2026, a comprehensive search of publicly available litigation databases, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER), and Unified Patents litigation portal, reveals no known litigation involving US Patent 10,783,192.

Proceedings overview

The USPTO ODP API indicates no AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 10,783,192 as of the most recent ingest. Therefore, there is no PTAB activity to report.

Strategic summary

There is no PTAB activity for US Patent 10,783,192. All claims of the patent remain untested by AIA trial proceedings. This means that for a defendant facing assertion of this patent, all prior-art grounds remain available for potential IPR, PGR, or CBM petitions, assuming statutory eligibility requirements are met. The absence of PTAB challenges could be interpreted in several ways: the patent may not have been widely asserted yet, potential challengers may have evaluated the claims and deemed them sufficiently robust against prior art, or no party has yet found it strategically advantageous to file an AIA trial.

Recommended next steps

As there are no PTAB proceedings on file for US Patent 10,783,192, a defendant facing assertion of this patent has the full scope of AIA trial mechanisms available. It would be advisable to conduct a thorough prior art search and claim analysis to determine the strength of potential IPR or PGR petitions against the patent's claims.

Inventors

The sole named inventor for US Patent 10,783,192 is Dmitri Soubbotin. At the time of filing (December 4, 2015), the patent identifies the original assignee as "Individual," which suggests Dmitri Soubbotin was self-assignee or the patent was initially assigned to him directly. There is no employer explicitly listed for the inventor at the time of filing within the provided patent document.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent US10783192B1 is "Individual" (as per Google Patents and the patent document itself). Given the assignee is an individual, it is not possible to definitively determine if a product embodying the claims was shipped by this "Individual" in a traditional commercial sense, nor to define their primary line of business or current operating status as one would for a corporate entity. The patent describes a "System, method, and user interface for a search engine based on multi-document summarization," indicating the invention is a functional software system.

Assignment timeline

As a large language model, I do not have direct access to live, real-time external databases such as the USPTO Patent Assignment Search portal (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/). Therefore, I cannot reconstruct the full assignment record for US Patent 10,783,192 as of today's date, 2026-05-30.

Based on the information available in the patent document and Google Patents, the original assignee on record is an "Individual." If no assignments are found in the USPTO database, it typically indicates that the patent remains owned by the original assignee.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10783192
    2015 : Application filed by Individual
    2020 : Patent granted to Individual

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Unclear. The original assignee is an "Individual," not a named corporate entity. Without assignment records, it's impossible to determine if it was later transferred to a shell entity.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. There are no recorded assignments visible in the provided patent information to any known NPEs.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear. Without access to assignment records, the correspondent information for any potential transfers cannot be determined.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There are no recorded assignments in the provided patent information to indicate any transfers, let alone cascading ones.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. No litigation has been identified as of May 1, 2026, and no transfer records are available.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no indication in the provided patent information or litigation search results that the original assignee (Individual) has filed for bankruptcy or that the patent was sold in such proceedings.
7. Privateering — Unclear. There are no recorded assignments, nor any SEC filings or other public information indicating a privateering arrangement.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. There are no recorded assignments indicating transfer to a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Insufficient data

Without access to the USPTO Patent Assignment Search database, it is not possible to determine the complete ownership chain of US Patent 10,783,192 beyond the original assignee being an "Individual." Consequently, there is insufficient data to confidently identify any NPE/troll patterns.

(Verification: USPTO Patent Assignment Search)

Prior Art Analysis for U.S. Patent No. 10,783,192

A detailed review of the prior art cited in U.S. Patent No. 10,783,192, "System, method, and user interface for a search engine based on multi-document summarization," reveals several key patents and publications that were considered by the USPTO during the examination process. This analysis outlines these references and their potential relevance to the claims of the '192 patent. The claims of the '192 patent generally revolve around a system and method for receiving a search query, obtaining a set of search results, generating a multi-document summary from a subset of these results, and presenting this summary to the user, often with interactive features allowing for refinement.

Below are the most relevant prior art references and an analysis of which claims they might anticipate, in whole or in part, under 35 U.S.C. § 102. This analysis is for informational purposes and does not constitute a legal opinion on the validity of any claim.

Cited U.S. Patent Documents

• U.S. Patent No. 6,658,423 B1

  • Title: System and method for generating a customized document summary
  • Publication Date: December 2, 2003
  • Filing Date: June 30, 2000
  • Brief Description: This patent, assigned to IBM, describes a method for generating a summary of a single document based on a user's query. It focuses on extracting sentences from the document that are most relevant to the query terms to create a concise summary.
  • Potential Anticipation: This reference appears to disclose the concept of generating a summary in response to a user query. It could be argued to anticipate the core elements of claim 1 of the '192 patent, which describes receiving a query, obtaining search results, and generating a summary. However, the '423 patent primarily focuses on single-document summarization, whereas the '192 patent is directed at multi-document summarization. The novelty of the '192 patent may lie in the aggregation and deduplication of information from multiple sources.

• U.S. Patent No. 7,028,029 B2

  • Title: Methods, systems, and computer program products for providing search results summaries from multiple search services
  • Publication Date: April 11, 2006
  • Filing Date: June 21, 2002
  • Brief Description: This patent, also assigned to IBM, details a system that submits a user's query to multiple search engines, receives the results, and generates a composite summary from these results. It describes a "meta-search" approach combined with summarization.
  • Potential Anticipation: This patent is highly relevant as it explicitly addresses multi-document summarization in the context of search. It appears to anticipate the broader concepts of claims 1 and 15 of the '192 patent, which involve obtaining results from a search component and then creating a summary. The '192 patent's claims, however, include more specific limitations regarding the user interface, such as checkboxes to select sources for summarization and options to modify the summary length, which may not be explicitly taught in the '029 patent.

• U.S. Patent No. 7,716,218 B2

  • Title: System and method for generating a topical summary of a search result set
  • Publication Date: May 11, 2010
  • Filing Date: October 27, 2005
  • Brief Description: This patent, assigned to Yahoo! Inc., describes a method for generating a "topical summary" from a set of search results. This summary is organized by topics and sub-topics identified from the result documents, providing a structured overview of the information available.
  • Potential Anticipation: This reference is pertinent to the '192 patent's claims related to the organization and presentation of the summary. While the '192 patent focuses on a more linear text summary, the concept of extracting and organizing key information from multiple documents is present. It could be argued that this patent anticipates aspects of claims that involve identifying and presenting "key semantic concepts" from the source documents. The distinction may lie in the specific method of summary generation and the user interface for interacting with the summary.

• U.S. Patent No. 8,239,358 B1

  • Title: System, method, and user interface for a search engine based on multi-document summarization
  • Publication Date: August 7, 2012
  • Filing Date: January 30, 2008
  • Brief Description: This patent is an earlier patent from the same inventor, Dmitri Soubbotin, and is part of the same patent family as the '192 patent. It lays the foundational groundwork for the system described in the '192 patent.
  • Potential Anticipation: As a parent patent, it discloses much of the core technology. The claims of the '192 patent are likely continuations or divisional claims that are directed to more specific embodiments or aspects of the invention not covered in the '358 patent. Therefore, while not strictly "prior art" in the traditional sense for invalidating the '192 patent (due to the priority claim), it is crucial for understanding the prosecution history and the novel contributions of the '192 patent's claims over this earlier disclosure.

• U.S. Patent No. 9,218,414 B2

  • Title: System, method, and user interface for a search engine based on multi-document summarization
  • Publication Date: December 22, 2015
  • Filing Date: June 29, 2012
  • Brief Description: This is another patent in the same family as the '192 patent, also by inventor Dmitri Soubbotin. It continues the development of the multi-document summarization search engine.
  • Potential Anticipation: Similar to the '358 patent, this reference is part of the claimed priority chain of the '192 patent. The claims of the '192 patent were likely drafted to be patentably distinct from the claims of this patent.

Cited U.S. Patent Application Publications

• US 2006/0064411 A1

  • Title: Method and system for providing a search query result as a summary
  • Publication Date: March 23, 2006
  • Filing Date: September 19, 2005
  • Brief Description: This application describes a system that generates a summary of search results. It emphasizes the ability to create a concise and readable summary that synthesizes information from various sources returned by a search engine.
  • Potential Anticipation: This application is highly relevant and likely discloses the core idea of summarizing search results from multiple documents. It could be seen as anticipating the general process described in the independent claims of the '192 patent. The patentability of the '192 claims would depend on specific features not present in this application, such as the interactive user interface elements for summary customization.

• US 2007/0150493 A1

  • Title: Generating query-biased summaries of search results
  • Publication Date: June 28, 2007
  • Filing Date: December 22, 2005
  • Brief Description: This application, assigned to Microsoft Corporation, focuses on generating summaries that are specifically tailored to the user's query. It describes techniques for identifying and extracting sentences and passages from search result documents that are most relevant to the query's intent.
  • Potential Anticipation: This reference strengthens the body of prior art related to query-focused summarization. It could be used to argue that the concept of generating a summary relevant to a user's query from multiple search results was known. The '192 patent's claims may distinguish themselves through the specific implementation of the summarization engine and the user-facing controls for manipulating the summary.

In summary, the prior art cited against U.S. Patent No. 10,783,192 establishes that the general concept of summarizing search results from multiple documents was known in the art prior to the '192 patent's priority date. The patentability of the '192 patent's claims likely rests on the specific implementation details of the system, particularly the user interface elements that allow for user control and refinement of the generated summary, and the methods for processing and integrating information from diverse sources into a coherent summary.

Obviousness Analysis for US Patent 10,783,192 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis identifies combinations of prior art references that would likely render claims of US Patent 10,783,192 (the '192 patent) obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention, and explains the motivation for such combinations. The '192 patent generally concerns a system and method for generating multi-document summaries from search results, incorporating user interface elements for refinement.

Legal Standard for Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103):
A patent claim is unpatentable if "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains." This analysis considers:

1. The scope and content of the prior art.
2. The differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. The level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Secondary considerations of non-obviousness (not explicitly addressed in this section, but typically include commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc.).

Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art:
A PHOSITA in this field would likely have a strong background in computer science, natural language processing (NLP), information retrieval, and user interface design. They would be familiar with search engine technologies, document summarization techniques (both single and multi-document), and principles of effective human-computer interaction.

Combination 1: US 7,028,029 B2 (IBM) in view of US 2006/0064411 A1

• US 7,028,029 B2 (IBM) - "Methods, systems, and computer program products for providing search results summaries from multiple search services": This patent is highly relevant as it explicitly teaches a system for obtaining search results from multiple search services and generating a composite summary from these results. It describes a "meta-search" approach combined with summarization, directly addressing the multi-document summarization aspect of the '192 patent.

• US 2006/0064411 A1 - "Method and system for providing a search query result as a summary": This application further reinforces the concept of generating a summary from search results, emphasizing the creation of a concise and readable summary that synthesizes information from various sources.

• Motivation for Combination: A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine the teachings of the '029 patent and the '411 application to enhance the utility and user experience of search engines. The '029 patent clearly establishes the benefit of multi-document summarization for search results. The '411 application further elaborates on the importance of creating concise and readable summaries. It would be an obvious design choice to implement the summarization techniques described in '411 A1 within the multi-source search and summarization framework of '029 B2 to provide a more refined and user-friendly summarized output. Both aim to efficiently deliver synthesized information from multiple documents in response to a query. The combination would lead to a system that not only gathers results from diverse search services but also processes them to produce a high-quality, synthesized summary as described in '411 A1.

• Anticipated Elements (from '192 patent claims): This combination would likely render obvious claims related to:

  • Receiving a search query.
  • Obtaining search results from multiple documents.
  • Generating a multi-document summary from these results.
  • The general concept of a "system core" or equivalent for managing the flow between search and summarization components.

Combination 2: US 7,028,029 B2 (IBM) or US 2006/0064411 A1 in view of US 2007/0150493 A1 (Microsoft)

• US 7,028,029 B2 (IBM) or US 2006/0064411 A1: As discussed above, these references teach the core concept of multi-document summarization of search results.

• US 2007/0150493 A1 (Microsoft) - "Generating query-biased summaries of search results": This application focuses on generating summaries specifically tailored to the user's query ("query-biased summaries"). It describes techniques for identifying and extracting sentences and passages from search result documents that are most relevant to the query's intent.

• Motivation for Combination: A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine the multi-document summarization systems of '029 B2 or '411 A1 with the query-biased summarization techniques of '493 A1. It is a well-known goal in information retrieval to provide users with the most relevant information. Having a system that not only summarizes multiple documents but also prioritizes information highly relevant to the specific query (as taught by '493 A1) would be a natural and obvious improvement to deliver more accurate and useful summaries. The '493 A1 publication directly addresses how to make summaries more effective by biasing them towards the user's query, which would be a desirable feature for any multi-document summarization system.

• Anticipated Elements (from '192 patent claims): This combination would likely render obvious claims related to:

  • Generating a multi-document summary.
  • Using the user's query to focus the summary on a particular topic.
  • Identifying key concepts or text fragments based on relevance to the query.

Combination 3: US 7,716,218 B2 (Yahoo!) in view of US 7,028,029 B2 (IBM) or US 2006/0064411 A1

• US 7,716,218 B2 (Yahoo!) - "System and method for generating a topical summary of a search result set": This patent describes generating "topical summaries" from a set of search results, organized by topics and sub-topics.

• US 7,028,029 B2 (IBM) or US 2006/0064411 A1: These references teach the fundamental concept of multi-document summarization from search results.

• Motivation for Combination: A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine the topical organization of summaries from '218 B2 with the multi-document summarization capabilities of '029 B2 or '411 A1. While the '192 patent describes a "list of sentences" or "list of semantic concepts" for its summary presentation, the '218 B2 patent offers a structured way to present such a summary, which would naturally enhance user understanding and navigation of complex information sets. Organizing a multi-document summary by topics would be an obvious improvement to make the summary more digestible and useful, particularly when dealing with a large number of diverse search results. The goal is to present information clearly and efficiently, and topical organization is a well-known method for achieving this.

• Anticipated Elements (from '192 patent claims): This combination would likely render obvious claims related to:

  • Presenting the summary in various formats (e.g., list of semantic concepts, cluster hierarchy).
  • Extracting key semantic concepts from documents and organizing them in the summary.

Specific User Interface Elements and Motivation for Combination with General Multi-Document Summarization:

The '192 patent also includes specific user interface elements, such as:

• A summary request button (FIG. 1, 100).
• A text fragments field to specify the number of sentences (FIG. 1, 105).
• Checkboxes to select/deselect search results for summarization (FIG. 1, 110).
• Options to hide/show sources and group sentences per source (FIG. 2, 223, 225, 227).
• Ability to regenerate summaries based on user modifications (FIG. 2, 215).

While the prior art references discussed above establish the core multi-document summarization concepts, a PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine these with conventional user interface design principles to create a more interactive and customizable search experience.

• Motivation: Given the existence of multi-document summarization (e.g., '029 B2, '411 A1) and query-biased summarization ('493 A1), a PHOSITA would naturally seek to provide users with control over the summary generation process. It is a common design goal in software applications to allow users to customize outputs.
  • Summary Request Button: The idea of a button to initiate an action (like "Get text summary of results!") is a fundamental and ubiquitous GUI element. Placing such a button on a search results page (as shown in FIG. 1) would be a straightforward design choice to trigger the known summarization function.
  • Specifying Summary Length (Text Fragments Field): Providing a numerical input field (e.g., "text fragments field 105") for users to define the length of a generated summary is a common user preference setting in document processing and summarization tools. It would be obvious to a PHOSITA to offer this control, as different users have different needs for summary conciseness.
  • Selecting Sources for Summarization (Checkboxes): Allowing users to select which search results to include in a summary via checkboxes (e.g., "checkboxes 110") is a standard way to enable user filtering and customization of input sets. This would be an obvious way to empower users to refine the basis for their summary, especially in a multi-document context where not all initial results may be equally desirable.
  • Display Options (Hide/Show Sources, Group Sentences): Providing options to control the presentation of the summary, such as hiding or showing source references (e.g., "hide sources setting 223," "show sources setting 225") or grouping sentences by source (e.g., "group sentences per source setting 227"), would be obvious to a PHOSITA interested in improving the readability and utility of the summary display. These are common display preferences offered in many content presentation applications.
  • Regenerating Summary: The ability to modify parameters and regenerate a summary (e.g., "modify summary button 215") is a logical extension of offering user controls. If users can change input or display preferences, the system must logically be able to re-process and re-display the output accordingly.

Therefore, while the specific combination of all these UI elements might represent a particular implementation, each element, when considered in the context of the established prior art for multi-document summarization and general UI design principles, would likely be deemed obvious to a PHOSITA. The motivation would be to provide a more flexible, user-centric, and interactive summarization tool for search results.