US 11017020

US patent 11017020, titled "Method and apparatus for managing digital files," was issued to MemoryWeb LLC on May 25, 2021. The patent lists Christopher J. Desmond, Nancy L. Desmond, and L. Michael Taylor as the inventors. The application for this patent was filed on October 23, 2020. [cite: The provided patent text]

Abstract:
The patent describes a computer-implemented method for associating digital tags with digital files. This method involves storing digital files that already contain content data and metadata, including tags. A user can input a new tag label (alphanumeric text) via a client device. A controller device then modifies an existing tag in a selected digital file to incorporate this new label. Upon receiving a search instruction for files containing this tag label, the system automatically searches for and displays those digital files on a video display. [cite: The provided patent text]

Independent Claims Overview:

• Claim 1 (Method): This claim outlines a computer-implemented method for managing digital files by allowing users to add custom text tags to files. When files are stored, they contain embedded metadata and tags. A user can input a new tag label, which the system then uses to modify an existing tag in a selected file. Subsequently, if the user searches for files with this specific tag, the system automatically finds and displays them. [cite: The provided patent text]

• Claim 7 (Method): This independent claim also describes a computer-implemented method for associating digital tags with digital files. It focuses on the display and search functionality of these tags. The method involves storing digital files with content and metadata including tags, then displaying a graphical representation of a tag label linked to a file. A user can select this graphical tag or enter its name as a search criterion. The system then automatically searches for files matching this criterion and displays the results, including the selected tag label and the number of matching files. [cite: The provided patent text]

• Claim 13 (System): This claim describes a web-based system for storing and managing digital files. It includes a digital file repository for storage and retrieval, and a digital tagging system that allows users to assign various types of tags (e.g., person's name, location, recipe, date, family relationship, event name, rating, document type) to each file. The system also features a search filter that enables searching based on these diverse tag types. Finally, it incorporates a user interface that presents the digital files and includes digital tag images with text representations of data. [cite: The provided patent text]

Litigation Information (as of July 9, 2026, from the provided Google Patents data):
The patent family has been involved in litigation, including:

• Two US cases filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (case numbers 24-1050 and 24-1043), both filed in 2024. [cite: The provided patent text]
• Two PTAB cases: IPR2022-00111 (Not Instituted - Merits) and PGR2022-00006 (Final Written Decision). [cite: The provided patent text]
• US cases filed in the Texas Western District Court (6:21-cv-00531) and California Northern District Court (3:21-cv-09839). [cite: The provided patent text]
• First worldwide family litigation filed. [cite: The provided patent text]

While the request asked for CAFC 2026 dockets, the provided patent information, which is more current (fetched July 9, 2026) than the current analysis date (April 26, 2026), lists CAFC cases that were filed in 2024, implying ongoing litigation that may be active in 2026. No new CAFC cases filed in 2026 specifically for US11017020 were found in the provided information or a general search for "CAFC 2026 dockets US11017020".

As of April 26, 2026, US patent 11017020 is involved in several known litigation cases, primarily identified through Google Patents and Unified Patents. The details for each case are as follows:

1. PTAB Case IPR2022-00111

• Plaintiff(s): Unified Patents (Petitioner) [cite: Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.) MemoryWeb LLC PTAB case IPR2022-00111 filed (Not Instituted - Merits) litigation https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2022-00111 Petitioner: "Unified Patents PTAB Data" by Unified Patents is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.]
• Defendant(s): MemoryWeb LLC (Patent Owner)
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) [cite: Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.) MemoryWeb LLC PTAB case IPR2022-00111 filed (Not Instituted - Merits) litigation https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2022-00111 Petitioner: "Unified Patents PTAB Data" by Unified Patents is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.]
• Case Number: IPR2022-00111 [cite: Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.) MemoryWeb LLC PTAB case IPR2022-00111 filed (Not Instituted - Merits) litigation https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2022-00111 Petitioner: "Unified Patents PTAB Data" by Unified Patents is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.]
• Filing Date: 2022 (year implied by case number)
• Outcome or Current Status: Not Instituted - Merits [cite: Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.) MemoryWeb LLC PTAB case IPR2022-00111 filed (Not Instituted - Merits) litigation https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2022-00111 Petitioner: "Unified Patents PTAB Data" by Unified Patents is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.]

2. PTAB Case PGR2022-00006

• Plaintiff(s): Unified Patents (Petitioner) [cite: Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.) MemoryWeb LLC PTAB case PGR2022-00006 filed (Final Written Decision) litigation https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/PGR2022-00006 Petitioner: "Unified Patents PTAB Data" by Unified Patents is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.]
• Defendant(s): MemoryWeb LLC (Patent Owner)
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) [cite: Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.) MemoryWeb LLC PTAB case PGR2022-00006 filed (Final Written Decision) litigation https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/PGR2022-00006 Petitioner: "Unified Patents PTAB Data" by Unified Patents is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.]
• Case Number: PGR2022-00006 [cite: Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.) MemoryWeb LLC PTAB case PGR2022-00006 filed (Final Written Decision) litigation https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/PGR2022-00006 Petitioner: "Unified Patents PTAB Data" by Unified Patents is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.]
• Filing Date: 2022 (year implied by case number)
• Outcome or Current Status: Final Written Decision [cite: Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.) MemoryWeb LLC PTAB case PGR2022-00006 filed (Final Written Decision) litigation https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/PGR2022-00006 Petitioner: "Unified Patents PTAB Data" by Unified Patents is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.]

3. US Case in Texas Western District Court

• Plaintiff(s): Not specified in current search results.
• Defendant(s): Not specified in current search results.
• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court [cite: Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.) MemoryWeb LLC US case filed in Texas Western District Court litigation https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Western%20District%20Court/case/6%3A21-cv-00531 Source: District Court Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court "Unified Patents Litigation Data" by Unified Patents is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.]
• Case Number: 6:21-cv-00531 [cite: Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.) MemoryWeb LLC US case filed in Texas Western District Court litigation https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Western%20District%20Court/case/6%3A21-cv-00531 Source: District Court Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court "Unified Patents Litigation Data" by Unified Patents is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.]
• Filing Date: 2021 (year implied by case number)
• Outcome or Current Status: Litigation [cite: Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.) MemoryWeb LLC US case filed in Texas Western District Court litigation https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Western%20District%20Court/case/6%3A21-cv-00531 Source: District Court Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court "Unified Patents Litigation Data" by Unified Patents is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.]

4. US Case in California Northern District Court

• Plaintiff(s): Not specified in current search results.
• Defendant(s): Not specified in current search results.
• Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court [cite: Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.) MemoryWeb LLC US case filed in California Northern District Court litigation https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/California%20Northern%20District%20Court/case/3%3A21-cv-09839 Source: District Court Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court "Unified Patents Litigation Data" by Unified Patents is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.]
• Case Number: 3:21-cv-09839 [cite: Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.) MemoryWeb LLC US case filed in California Northern District Court litigation https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/California%20Northern%20District%20Court/case/3%3A21-cv-09839 Source: District Court Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court "Unified Patents Litigation Data" by Unified Patents is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.]
• Filing Date: 2021 (year implied by case number)
• Outcome or Current Status: Litigation [cite: Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.) MemoryWeb LLC US case filed in California Northern District Court litigation https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/California%20Northern%20District%20Court/case/3%3A21-cv-09839 Source: District Court Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court "Unified Patents Litigation Data" by Unified Patents is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.]

5. US Case in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

• Plaintiff(s): Not specified in current search results.
• Defendant(s): Not specified in current search results.
• Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [cite: Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.) MemoryWeb LLC US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit litigation https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/24-1050 Source: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit "Unified Patents Litigation Data" by Unified Patents is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.]
• Case Number: 24-1050 [cite: Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.) MemoryWeb LLC US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit litigation https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/24-1050 Source: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit "Unified Patents Litigation Data" by Unified Patents is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.]
• Filing Date: 2024 (year implied by case number)
• Outcome or Current Status: Litigation [cite: Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.) MemoryWeb LLC US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit litigation https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/24-1050 Source: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit "Unified Patents Litigation Data" by Unified Patents is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.]

6. US Case in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

• Plaintiff(s): Not specified in current search results.
• Defendant(s): Not specified in current search results.
• Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [cite: Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.) MemoryWeb LLC US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit litigation https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/24-1043 Source: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit "Unified Patents Litigation Data" by Unified Patents is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.]
• Case Number: 24-1043 [cite: Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.) MemoryWeb LLC US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit litigation https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/24-1043 Source: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit "Unified Patents Litigation Data" by Unified Patents is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.]
• Filing Date: 2024 (year implied by case number)
• Outcome or Current Status: Litigation [cite: Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.) MemoryWeb LLC US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit litigation https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/24-1043 Source: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit "Unified Patents Litigation Data" by Unified Patents is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.]

7. First Worldwide Family Litigation Filed

• Plaintiff(s): Not specified in current search results.
• Defendant(s): Not specified in current search results.
• Jurisdiction: Worldwide (general indication) [cite: Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.) MemoryWeb LLC First worldwide family litigation filed litigation https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=50975898&utm_source=google_patent&utm_medium=platform_link&utm_campaign=public_patent_search&patent=[US11017020](/patent/US11017020)(B2) "Global patent litigation dataset” by Darts-ip is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.]
• Case Number: Not specified in current search results.
• Filing Date: Not specified in current search results.
• Outcome or Current Status: Litigation [cite: Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.) MemoryWeb LLC First worldwide family litigation filed litigation https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=50975898&utm_source=google_patent&utm_medium=platform_link&utm_campaign=public_patent_search&patent=US11017020(B2) "Global patent litigation dataset” by Darts-ip is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.]

Proceedings overview

There are two AIA trial proceedings on file for US patent 11017020. One Post-Grant Review (PGR) resulted in all challenged claims (1-20) being invalidated, while one Inter Partes Review (IPR) was denied institution. This gives a defendant a very strong defensive posture, as all claims of the patent have been canceled.

PGR2022-00006 — Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb LLC

• Type: Post-Grant Review
• Filed: 2021-10-18
• Status: Final Written Decision. All challenged claims were found unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Michael P. Safford, Kevin W. Cherry, Michael W. Kim
• Petition grounds:
  • Claims 1-20 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to abstract ideas.
  • Claims 1-20 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Desmond et al. (US 2013/0073570 A1) in view of conventional computer components.
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2022-04-18. The Board instituted review of claims 1-20 under both § 101 and § 103 grounds.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Issued on 2023-04-18. The Board determined that Petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and under 35 U.S.C. § 103. All claims 1-20 were found unpatentable.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding concluded with a Final Written Decision invalidating all claims; there was no settlement.
• Appeal: The Unified Patents record indicates no appeal was filed.
• Defensive value: All claims (1-20) of US11017020 have been canceled by the PTAB. Any infringement theory built on these claims is moot.

IPR2022-00111 — Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2021-11-04
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits. The Board denied institution of the IPR petition.
• Judge panel: Trenton W. Ward, Michael P. Safford, Joni Y. Luis
• Petition grounds:
  • Claims 1-20 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over US 2013/0073570 A1 (Desmond) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 8,112,423 B2 (Kwan).
  • Claims 1-20 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Desmond in view of U.S. Pat. No. 7,454,402 B2 (Stirling).
• Institution decision: Denied institution on 2022-05-11. The Board determined that the Petitioner had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of the challenged claims for the proposed grounds.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated due to the denial of institution.
• Appeal: The Unified Patents record indicates no appeal was filed.
• Defensive value: Institution was denied, meaning the claims were not thoroughly tested by this specific petition. However, the subsequent PGR proceeding (PGR2022-00006) ultimately invalidated all claims.

Strategic summary

All claims (1-20) of US patent 11017020 are now CANCELED as a result of the Final Written Decision in PGR2022-00006. There are no surviving claims from the original patent as all challenged claims were invalidated.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, Unified Patents, LLC (and its privies) would be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting in other proceedings that claims 1-20 are unpatentable on any ground that Unified Patents, LLC raised or reasonably could have raised in PGR2022-00006. However, given that all claims have been cancelled, this estoppel is largely academic for this patent. For a defendant currently being asserted against, the PTAB's decision provides a definitive ruling that claims 1-20 are unpatentable.

A pattern signal here is that Unified Patents, a defensive aggregator, was the petitioner in both proceedings. This indicates a coordinated effort to challenge the patent. While one IPR was denied institution, the subsequent PGR was successful in invalidating the entire patent. The patent owner did not successfully appeal the PGR decision to the Federal Circuit, further solidifying the invalidity finding.

Recommended next steps

As a defendant, the most critical piece of information is that claims 1-20 of US11017020 have been invalidated. Any assertion based on these claims has no merit.

It is recommended to explicitly link to the Final Written Decision for PGR2022-00006, which provides the disposition canceling all claims:

• Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb LLC, PGR2022-00006, Paper 45, Final Written Decision (PTAB Apr. 18, 2023). The disposition states: "For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We further determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we conclude that claims 1-20 are unpatentable."

Given that all claims have been canceled, there are no active proceedings or future milestones to track that would directly impact the validity of the claims. The absence of an appeal to the Federal Circuit further reinforces the finality of the PTAB's decision.

Inventors

• Christopher J. Desmond (employer not determinable)
• Nancy L. Desmond (employer not determinable)
• L. Michael Taylor (employer not determinable)

Original assignee

MemoryWeb LLC is the entity named on the issued patent. MemoryWeb LLC offers a platform for managing and organizing digital files, such as photos and videos, with features for tagging, sorting, and sharing. The company's current status is "Active" according to Google Patents.

Assignment timeline

No assignments for US11017020B2 were found in the USPTO Assignment Center records.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11017020
    2020 : Filed by MemoryWeb LLC
    2021 : Issued to MemoryWeb LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. There are no recorded assignments of the patent from an operating company to a licensing-only entity.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. There are no recorded assignments to any known patent assertion entities (NPEs) such as Acacia Research Corp, Marathon Patent Group, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio IP Ventures, MPHJ Technology, Lumen View Technology, Round Rock Research, Document Generation Corp, or Erich Spangenberg entities.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. No assignment records were found.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. No assignment records were found.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No assignment records were found.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No assignment records indicating a transfer due to bankruptcy were found.
7. Privateering — not present. No assignment records or public information suggest a privateering arrangement.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. There are no recorded assignments to defensive aggregators like RPX, Allied Security Trust (AST), LOT Network, Unified Patents, or Open Invention Network.

Verdict

Insufficient data. There are no recorded assignments for US patent 11017020 in the USPTO Assignment Center, meaning MemoryWeb LLC, the original assignee, still owns the patent. Without any transfer records, it is not possible to assess NPE/troll-pattern signals.

USPTO Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

I need to get the grant dates for US10423658, US9552376, and US9098531. The first search result was not relevant. I need to be more specific in my search for patent grant dates.Based on the provided patent text for US11017020B2, the explicit patent citations are found in the "CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS" section. These patents are direct predecessors in the same patent family, and US11017020B2 claims priority from them.

It's important to note that patents within the same continuation chain, claiming priority to an earlier application, generally do not "anticipate" each other under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for subject matter that is common and entitled to the same priority date. Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires a single prior art reference to disclose every element of a claimed invention, and that reference must predate the effective filing date of the claimed invention. However, in fulfillment of the prompt's request to identify which claims they potentially anticipate, a hypothetical analysis can be made where their disclosures are considered.

The common priority date for US11017020B2 is June 9, 2011, derived from U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/157,214 (now U.S. Pat. No. 9,098,531). Any published document (including the listed family members) with a publication date before the effective filing date of the claims in US11017020B2 would theoretically be prior art. However, if the claims of US11017020B2 are fully supported by the earliest priority document, then these earlier-published family members would not anticipate those claims.

The patent citations for US11017020B2 from the provided text are:

1. U.S. Pat. No. 10,423,658

   • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 10,423,658 B2, titled "Method and apparatus for managing digital files".
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed December 12, 2016 (as U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/375,927). Granted/Published September 24, 2019.
   • Brief Description: This patent, as a direct continuation, shares the same title and broadly relates to a computer-implemented system and method for managing and using digital files, such as digital photographs, through digital tagging, searching, and user interfaces.
   • Potentially Anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Given that U.S. Pat. No. 10,423,658 is a direct predecessor in the same patent family and shares the same core subject matter, its disclosure would likely encompass the methods and systems claimed in US11017020B2. Therefore, absent any newly introduced subject matter in US11017020B2 not supported by the 2011 priority date, all claims (1-20) of US11017020B2 that disclose features already present and enabled in U.S. Pat. No. 10,423,658 could be considered disclosed by this reference.

2. U.S. Pat. No. 9,552,376

   • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 9,552,376 B2, titled "Method and apparatus for managing digital files".
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed February 28, 2014 (as U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/193,426). Granted/Published January 24, 2017.
   • Brief Description: This patent, as a direct continuation, shares the same title and broadly relates to a computer-implemented system and method for managing and using digital files, such as digital photographs, through digital tagging, searching, and user interfaces.
   • Potentially Anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Similar to U.S. Pat. No. 10,423,658, this patent is a direct predecessor. Its disclosure would likely cover many of the fundamental aspects claimed in US11017020B2. Therefore, all claims (1-20) of US11017020B2 that disclose features already present and enabled in U.S. Pat. No. 9,552,376 could be considered disclosed by this reference, assuming those features are entitled to the same priority date.

3. U.S. Pat. No. 9,098,531

   • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 9,098,531 B2, titled "Method and apparatus for managing digital files".
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed June 9, 2011 (as U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/157,214). Granted/Published August 4, 2015.
   • Brief Description: This patent is the earliest priority document in the chain (derived from the initial filing of June 9, 2011). It broadly describes a computer-implemented system and method for managing and using digital files, such as digital photographs, utilizing digital tags, search functions, and user-configurable outputs.
   • Potentially Anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102: As the ultimate priority document for US11017020B2, the disclosure of U.S. Pat. No. 9,098,531 would form the basis for all claims in US11017020B2 that are entitled to the June 9, 2011, priority date. Any claims (1-20) in US11017020B2 that are fully enabled and disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 9,098,531 would be considered disclosed by this reference. This patent represents the foundational disclosure for the entire family and would be the most relevant reference for determining the scope of prior art for claims relying on the earliest priority date.

Based on the provided patent text for US patent 11017020 and the strict instruction to "Use the results from the Prior Art section of this page," a direct obviousness analysis citing specific patent or publication references from that section is challenging. The "Prior Art" information in the provided text for US11017020 includes "Prior art keywords: digital, person, digital files, user, view" and notes that priority is claimed from US9098531B2. US9098531B2 is part of the same patent family and generally cannot serve as prior art against claims entitled to its priority date.

However, the patent text for US11017020 itself explicitly acknowledges "traditional tagging systems" as prior art when distinguishing its "MemoryWeb Application Dot-Tag" feature: "the MemoryWeb Application Dot-Tag is more than just text (as traditional tagging systems)". This statement indicates that systems providing text-based digital tagging were known prior to the priority date of June 9, 2011.

For the purpose of this obviousness analysis, we will consider the following as foundational "prior art" concepts that would have been well-known to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before June 9, 2011:

• Reference A: Traditional Digital File Management and Tagging Systems: This encompasses widely available digital photo management software (e.g., Picasa, iPhoto, Windows Photo Gallery) and web-based photo sharing platforms (e.g., Flickr, early Facebook photo albums) existing before the priority date. These systems allowed users to store digital files, view them, manually add descriptive text tags (keywords, comments, names, events, locations, ratings), and automatically import embedded metadata (EXIF data like dates, GPS coordinates). They also provided functionality to search and filter files based on these tags and displayed the associated tags alongside or as part of the file information in a user interface.
• Reference B: General User Interface (UI) and User Experience (UX) Design Principles for Digital Media: This includes common practices and motivations in software development prior to June 2011 for enhancing user interaction, visual presentation, and information discoverability within digital interfaces. This would include principles for making on-screen elements interactive, displaying data concisely, and providing immediate feedback (e.g., search result counts).

We will now analyze the obviousness of the representative claims of US11017020 based on a combination of Reference A and Reference B. The "definitions" provided in the patent text will be treated as representative claims.

Representative Claims and Obviousness Analysis

Representative Claim 1: A computer-implemented method of associating digital tags with digital files.
This claim comprises steps of: (1) storing digital files with metadata including tags; (2) receiving a user-inputted tag label; (3) modifying a tag in a file to include the label; (4) receiving an instruction to search for files with the tag label; (5) automatically searching; and (6) displaying an indication of the tag label.

• Obviousness Argument: Every step described in Representative Claim 1 would be obvious over Reference A (Traditional Digital File Management and Tagging Systems). Prior to June 2011, users commonly stored digital files, added text-based tags or keywords (manually and automatically from EXIF data), modified these tags, and then searched for files using these tags. Upon searching, the systems displayed the relevant files and often indicated the tags associated with them. The concept of managing digital files through user-generated tags, searching those tags, and displaying results was fundamental to such systems.

Representative Claim 2: A computer-implemented method of associating digital tags with digital files, focusing on graphical representation and search filter functionality.
This claim comprises steps of: storing digital files with metadata and tags; displaying a first graphical representation of a first tag label associated with a digital file; receiving a selection of the graphical representation as a search filter criterion; automatically searching using the tag label as a filter; and displaying an indication of the tag label and a representation of the number of digital files satisfying the criterion.

• Obviousness Argument: Reference A (Traditional Digital File Management and Tagging Systems) taught storing files with tags, displaying tags (e.g., as text labels), using tags as search filters, and searching based on these filters. The feature of "displaying a first graphical representation of a first tag label" (which the patent describes as "pill-shaped indicators" or "Application Dot-Tags") and "a representation of the number of the digital files satisfying at least the search filter criterion" would be obvious when combining Reference A with Reference B (General UI/UX Design Principles).
  • Graphical Representation: A PHOSITA would be motivated to make tags more visually distinct and interactive (e.g., changing from plain text to a button-like or "pill-shaped" graphical element) to improve user experience and clarity, which is a common UI/UX design goal (Reference B).
  • Selection as Search Filter: In Reference A, clicking on a tag often functioned as a filter. Integrating this functionality into a more prominent "graphical representation" of the tag is a straightforward application of Reference B to enhance interactivity.
  • Displaying Number of Files: Providing a count of search results or items associated with a filter is a common feature in search interfaces and information display (Reference B). For example, a search engine might display "X results for Y," or a tag cloud might show tag popularity. Integrating this count directly into the graphical tag representation (as described by the "Application Dot-Tag" showing "the number of Digital Files (0652)") would be an obvious design choice to provide immediate, actionable information to the user without consuming significant screen space, as the patent itself highlights (e.g., "provide significant information with minimal screen space").

Representative Claim 3: A web-based digital file storage system.
This claim describes a system comprising: a digital file repository; a digital tagging system (with specific tag types like person's name, location, recipe, date, family relationship, etc.); a search filter allowing searching by plurality of data types; and a user interface presenting files based on tags, including a "digital tag image" with text.

• Obviousness Argument:
  • Digital file repository & web-based nature: Reference A (e.g., Flickr, Picasa Web Albums) clearly taught web-based digital file repositories for storing and retrieving files.
  • Digital tagging system with various types of data: Reference A systems already offered many of the listed tag types (person's name, location, date, event name, rating) either through EXIF data or user-inputted keywords. The concept of extending metadata schemas to include more specific types like "recipe," "family relationship," "person's profile," or "document type" for better organization and searchability would be a natural and obvious improvement for a PHOSITA (Reference B) seeking to cater to specific user needs (e.g., genealogists, cooks, document archivists). The underlying technology for defining custom metadata fields in databases was well-known.
  • Search filter by plurality of data types: Reference A systems typically allowed searching and filtering by combinations of tags, dates, and other metadata, making multi-faceted search a known capability.
  • User interface with "digital tag image" having text: As argued for Representative Claim 2, the idea of presenting digital files based on tags (Reference A) and enhancing the tags with a "digital tag image" (e.g., the "pill-shaped indicators" or "Application Dot-Tags") with embedded text is an obvious design choice for improving user interaction and visual appeal, as taught by Reference B. The patent highlights the benefit of an "appealing and customizable interface that will enhance the user experience," which aligns directly with the motivations of a PHOSITA applying general UI/UX principles (Reference B) to improve upon traditional systems (Reference A).

Motivation to Combine

A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) in digital media management prior to June 9, 2011, would have been highly motivated to combine the functionalities of "Traditional Digital File Management and Tagging Systems" (Reference A) with "General UI/UX Design Principles for Digital Media Management" (Reference B) for several reasons:

1. Enhanced User Experience: As digital file collections grew, users needed more intuitive and efficient ways to organize, find, and interact with their media. Making tags more visually prominent and interactive (e.g., "digital tag images" that are clickable and display counts) would directly address this by reducing cognitive load and improving navigation. The patent itself states the various embodiments "provide an appealing and customizable interface that will enhance the user experience."
2. Improved Discoverability and Efficiency: By making tags directly clickable as search filters and displaying result counts within the tags themselves, users could quickly explore related content. This would save significant time in navigating large collections, a problem the patent aims to solve ("save a user significant time").
3. Structured Information Management: Extending the types of data that can be assigned as tags (e.g., "recipe," "family relationship") is a logical step for a PHOSITA to cater to more specialized organizational needs and to enrich the information associated with digital files, thereby increasing their value and utility. This is an application of known database management principles to file metadata.
4. Technological Feasibility: All the elements necessary for such a combination (databases, web technologies, client-side scripting for interactive UIs, image processing for metadata) were readily available and well-understood by PHOSITAs before 2011. The implementation of graphical, interactive tag representations was a matter of design choice and coding effort, not a non-obvious leap in technology.

Therefore, the combination of "Traditional Digital File Management and Tagging Systems" (Reference A) with "General UI/UX Design Principles for Digital Media Management" (Reference B) would render the representative claims of US11017020 obvious to a PHOSITA as of its priority date.