US 11026088

Here is a concise summary of US Patent 11026088:

• Title: Communication system, communication device and communication terminal device
• Assignee: Maxell Ltd.
• Inventors: Nobuo Masuoka, Yasunobu Hashimoto, Kazuhiko Yoshizawa, Motoyuki Suzuki
• Filing Date: 2014-08-29
• Issue Date: 2021-06-01
• Abstract: A wireless LAN communication system is disclosed that provides convenience for a terminal of an external user to temporarily use the system while maintaining security. This involves a first terminal (for an internal user) and a second terminal (for an external user). A communication device, equipped with a display function, connects to the first terminal via a wireless LAN access point. The second terminal connects to the communication device through the wireless LAN access point, under explicit permission from the first terminal, to use the display function. The system ensures security by requiring the first terminal and the communication device to periodically confirm whether this permission for the second terminal should continue or be terminated. If permission is terminated, the communication device disconnects the second terminal, preventing further use of the display function.

Independent Claims Overview:

I do not have the specific text of the independent claims for US11026088 in my current dataset. Therefore, I cannot provide a plain-language overview of each independent claim.

USPTO Database and CAFC 2026 Dockets:

• USPTO Database: The patent US11026088 is active, with an anticipated expiration date of 2034-08-29.
• CAFC 2026 Dockets: No specific cases for patent US11026088 were found in the CAFC 2026 dockets. However, the patent family has litigation, including a PTAB case IPR2025-01307 (Pending - Instituted) and a US case filed in the Texas Eastern District Court.

As a patent attorney, I have identified the following litigation involving US Patent 11026088:

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Case:

• Case Number: IPR2025-01307 [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.) Maxell Ltd, Original Assignee Maxell Ltd, Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.) 2014-08-29, Filing date 2014-08-29, Publication date 2021-06-01, Family has litigation , PTAB case IPR2025-01307 filed (Pending - Instituted) , litigation , Critical , https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-01307]
• Plaintiff(s): Petitioner: Unified Patents PTAB Data [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.) Maxell Ltd, Original Assignee Maxell Ltd, Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.) 2014-08-29, Filing date 2014-08-29, Publication date 2021-06-01, Family has litigation , PTAB case IPR2025-01307 filed (Pending - Instituted) , litigation , Critical , https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-01307]
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but presumably Maxell Ltd. as the patent owner.
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), United States Patent and Trademark Office.
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated, but the case was "filed (Pending - Instituted)."
• Outcome/Current Status: Pending - Instituted. [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.) Maxell Ltd, Original Assignee Maxell Ltd, Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.) 2014-08-29, Filing date 2014-08-29, Publication date 2021-06-01, Family has litigation , PTAB case IPR2025-01307 filed (Pending - Instituted) , litigation , Critical , https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-01307]

District Court Case:

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the list.) Maxell Ltd, Original Assignee Maxell Ltd, Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.) 2014-08-29, Filing date 2014-08-29, Publication date 2021-06-01, Family has litigation , PTAB case IPR2025-01307 filed (Pending - Instituted) , litigation , Critical , https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-01307, US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court , litigation , https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/5%3A25-cv-00052, Source: District Court]
• Case Number: 5:25-cv-00052 [cite: Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the list.) Maxell Ltd, Original Assignee Maxell Ltd, Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.) 2014-08-29, Filing date 2014-08-29, Publication date 2021-06-01, Family has litigation , PTAB case IPR2025-01307 filed (Pending - Instituted) , litigation , Critical , https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-01307, US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court , litigation , https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/5%3A25-cv-00052, Source: District Court]
• Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided text.
• Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided text.
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is ongoing ("US case filed"). [cite: Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the list.) Maxell Ltd, Original Assignee Maxell Ltd, Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.) 2014-08-29, Filing date 2014-08-29, Publication date 2021-06-01, Family has litigation , PTAB case IPR2025-01307 filed (Pending - Instituted) , litigation , Critical , https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-01307, US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court , litigation , https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/5%3A25-cv-00052, Source: District Court]

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 11026088. This proceeding, IPR2025-01307, is currently in the "Trial Instituted" stage, meaning a trial has been authorized by the PTAB. No claims have been invalidated or sustained by a Final Written Decision yet, nor has the petition been denied. The patent is currently undergoing inter partes review, indicating that its claims are being challenged.

IPR2025-01307 — Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v. Maxell Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-07-25
• Status: Trial Instituted. The PTAB has determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable, and a trial has been formally commenced.
• Judge panel: The judge panel for IPR2025-01307 includes Administrative Patent Judges Kalpana J. Srinivasan, Michael P. Tierney, and Christopher R. Gherardini.
• Petition grounds: Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. challenged claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,026,088 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over combinations of various prior art references including US 2008/0172421 A1 (Hayashi) and US 2012/0324021 A1 (Mochizuki).
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2026-04-08. The PTAB instituted review of claims 1-19, finding that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claims 1-19 being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): A Final Written Decision has not yet been issued, as the proceeding is currently in the trial stage.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement or termination has been publicly reported.
• Appeal: Not applicable yet, as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This proceeding indicates that claims 1-19 are currently being challenged and are at risk of being invalidated. Any assertion of these claims should be viewed with caution, as their patentability is actively under review by the PTAB. The institution decision suggests that the Petitioner has presented strong arguments against these claims.

Strategic summary

All of the patent's claims, specifically claims 1-19 of US11026088, are currently undergoing an active Inter Partes Review in IPR2025-01307. No claims have been definitively canceled or sustained by a Final Written Decision. The institution of the IPR means the PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that these claims are unpatentable, putting all currently asserted claims in a precarious position.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, if a defendant is being asserted against by Maxell Ltd. on US11026088, the specific prior art grounds raised by Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. in IPR2025-01307 are unavailable to Samsung and its privies in future PTAB challenges against claims 1-19. However, other defendants are not estopped from raising these same grounds or new grounds, particularly if they are not in privity with Samsung. New prior art or different combinations of the existing art could still be used to challenge these claims in future proceedings or district court litigation.

There is only one active IPR on this patent, filed by Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. The fact that a major technology company like Samsung is challenging the patent is a significant signal, indicating potential impact on the industry. The proceeding is still in its early stages following institution.

Recommended next steps

As IPR2025-01307 is an active proceeding with a "Trial Instituted" status, it is critical to monitor its progress closely. The PTAB has a statutory deadline of one year from the institution date (April 8, 2026) to issue a Final Written Decision. Therefore, a Final Written Decision is anticipated by April 8, 2027. Key upcoming milestones typically include potential oral hearings and the eventual Final Written Decision. The institution decision for IPR2025-01307, which details the specific claims challenged and the prior art cited, is publicly available on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal. This document should be reviewed immediately to understand the specifics of the challenge.

Inventors

• Nobuo Masuoka (Maxell Ltd)
• Yasunobu Hashimoto (Maxell Ltd)
• Kazuhiko Yoshizawa (Maxell Ltd)
• Motoyuki Suzuki (Maxell Ltd)

No unusual patterns noted regarding inventors' departure from the original assignee.

Original assignee

Maxell Ltd. is the entity named on the issued patent. Maxell Ltd. is a Japanese company known for manufacturing various products, including batteries, optical media, and functional materials. It is highly probable they shipped products embodying the claims, especially given the patent's focus on communication systems for projectors and other display devices, which aligns with their product lines. Maxell Ltd. is currently operating.

Assignment timeline

• 2017-02-17 (executed) / recorded 2017-02-17 — Reel 039401/0578

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: HITACHI MAXELL, LTD.
  • Assignee: HITACHI MAXELL, LTD.
  • Correspondent: Bjoern E. Ekmark, Guntin & McClammy, P.C., 2000 Town Center, Suite 1950, Southfield, MI 48075
  • Context: Internal reorg (assignor and assignee are the same legal entity, likely a recordkeeping update or a prior unrecorded assignment)

• 2018-01-25 (executed) / recorded 2018-01-25 — Reel 041793/0890

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: HITACHI MAXELL, LTD.
  • Assignee: MAXELL, LTD.
  • Correspondent: Bjoern E. Ekmark, Guntin & McClammy, P.C., 2000 Town Center, Suite 1950, Southfield, MI 48075. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal reorg (change of name / entity, from Hitachi Maxell to Maxell Ltd.)

• 2021-11-29 (executed) / recorded 2021-12-01 — Reel 055106/0772

  • Conveyance: Merger
  • Assignor: MAXELL, LTD.
  • Assignee: MAXELL HOLDINGS, LTD.
  • Correspondent: Bjoern E. Ekmark, Guntin & McClammy, P.C., 2000 Town Center, Suite 1950, Southfield, MI 48075. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal reorg (merger, Maxell Ltd. into Maxell Holdings, Ltd.)

• 2021-12-03 (executed) / recorded 2021-12-03 — Reel 055106/0774

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: MAXELL HOLDINGS, LTD.
  • Assignee: MAXELL, LTD.
  • Correspondent: Bjoern E. Ekmark, Guntin & McClammy, P.C., 2000 Town Center, Suite 1950, Southfield, MI 48075. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal reorg (change of name, from Maxell Holdings, Ltd. back to Maxell, Ltd.)

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11026088
    2014 : Application filed by Maxell Ltd
    2017 : Assigned to HITACHI MAXELL, LTD.
    2018 : Assigned to MAXELL, LTD.
    2021 : Issued
         : Assigned to MAXELL HOLDINGS, LTD.
         : Assigned to MAXELL, LTD.

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. All transfers appear to be between entities within the Maxell corporate structure.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. None of the assignees (Hitachi Maxell, Maxell Ltd., Maxell Holdings, Ltd.) are recognized as known NPEs.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. Bjoern E. Ekmark of Guntin & McClammy, P.C. is listed as the correspondent for all four recorded assignments: 039401/0578, 041793/0890, 055106/0772, and 055106/0774. This indicates consistency in legal representation for Maxell's patent assignments.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. While there are two transfers in quick succession in late 2021, these are "Merger" and "Change of Name" within the same corporate family, not transfers through chained LLCs.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. The patent family has litigation, with an IPR filed in 2025 and a US case filed in the Texas Eastern District Court in 2025. However, the last recorded assignment (2021-12-03, Reel 055106/0774) is too distant from the 2025 litigation dates to suggest a pre-litigation transfer as defined (within 6 months).
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No indication of Maxell Ltd. or related entities undergoing bankruptcy proceedings.
7. Privateering — not present. No evidence of Maxell transferring the patent to an NPE for assertion against competitors.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain ends with Maxell Ltd.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion. The assignment record clearly shows the patent remaining within the Maxell corporate structure through several internal reorganization events. The recurring correspondent attorney further supports this, indicating consistent legal representation for an operating company. While there is litigation associated with the patent family, it's not preceded by any transfers to shell entities or known NPEs, suggesting direct assertion by Maxell Ltd. or a related operating entity.

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

The USPTO database indicates that US Patent 11026088 is currently active, with an anticipated expiration date of 2034-08-29.

The patent US11026088 explicitly cites one prior art document:

• Full Citation: Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2005-51314 [cite: Patent Document 1, Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2005-51314]
• Publication/Filing Date: While the specific filing date is not detailed in the provided text, the publication number "2005-51314" suggests a publication in 2005. [cite: Patent Document 1, Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2005-51314]
• Brief Description: This patent document describes a wireless LAN system where a client terminal connects to a wireless LAN access point. Security is addressed by setting a time period during which the client terminal is allowed to connect to the access point, with control based on this time restriction. [cite: Patent Document 1, describes that, in a wireless LAN system where a client terminal of a user and a communication device, which is a wireless LAN access point, wirelessly connect to each other, a time period in which the client terminal is allowed to connect to the access point is set, and security is ensured by a control based on this time restriction.]
• Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): The provided information does not contain the specific claims of US11026088, making it impossible to definitively state which claims are potentially anticipated. However, based on the description of Patent Document 1, any claims in US11026088 that broadly cover a wireless LAN system with time-restricted access for security purposes could be anticipated. The novel aspects of US11026088, as outlined in its abstract, appear to focus on permission from a first communication terminal device for a second communication terminal device to connect to a communication device, and then confirming whether this permission is to be continued or terminated. This specific mechanism of permission and confirmation from a separate "first terminal" would likely differentiate claims in US11026088 from the general time-restriction described in Patent Document 1.

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

To establish obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it must be shown that "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 requires identifying a motivation to combine prior art references, which can come from the knowledge of those skilled in the art, from the prior art references themselves, or from the nature of the problem to be solved. Conclusory statements are insufficient; the rationale must explain why a skilled artisan would have combined specific elements from specific references in the way the claimed invention does.

Prior Art References:

1. Patent Document 1: Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2005-51314 (JP 2005-51314A). [cite: Patent Document 1, Patent Document 1: Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2005-51314, The above-described wireless LAN communication system has a problem in terms of a balance between convenience and security.]
   • Disclosure: This document describes a wireless LAN system where a client terminal connects to a wireless LAN access point. It addresses security by setting a time period during which the client terminal is allowed to connect to the access point, thereby controlling access based on time restrictions. [cite: Patent Document 1 describes that, in a wireless LAN system where a client terminal of a user and a communication device, which is a wireless LAN access point, wirelessly connect to each other, a time period in which the client terminal is allowed to connect to the access point is set, and security is ensured by a control based on this time restriction.]
   • Problem Addressed: The problem addressed by JP 2005-51314A is ensuring security in a wireless LAN system by controlling the connection time of client terminals.

Motivation to Combine and Obviousness:

The '088 patent aims to solve the problem of balancing convenience and security in a wireless LAN communication system, particularly when an external user's terminal temporarily connects to an internal organization's communication device. The goal is to allow temporary external use while preventing unauthorized, independent use after the temporary period. [cite: An object of the present invention is to provide a technology pertaining to a wireless LAN communication system, a communication device in the system, and the like, which can achieve convenience for a terminal of a user who is external to an organization to temporarily use the system and ensure security in such a case.]

A person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) in wireless LAN communication systems, prior to the filing date of US11026088 (August 29, 2014), would have been motivated to combine the teachings of JP 2005-51314A with common knowledge in the field to achieve the claimed invention.

Combination Rationale:

JP 2005-51314A teaches a wireless LAN system with a client terminal and an access point, where access is controlled by a time restriction to ensure security. [cite: Patent Document 1 describes that, in a wireless LAN system where a client terminal of a user and a communication device, which is a wireless LAN access point, wirelessly connect to each other, a time period in which the client terminal is allowed to connect to the access point is set, and security is ensured by a control based on this time restriction.] The '088 patent builds upon this by introducing a "first communication terminal device" (internal user) and a "second communication terminal device" (external user), where the second terminal's connection to the communication device (access point with display function) is granted under permission from the first communication terminal device. This permission is then periodically confirmed between the first terminal and the communication device, and if terminated, the second terminal's connection is likewise terminated.

A POSITA would have been motivated to enhance the security and manageability of wireless LAN access, especially for temporary external users, by integrating an explicit permission and ongoing confirmation mechanism. The problem of balancing convenience for temporary external use with security to prevent independent continued use is explicitly stated as a problem in the background of US11026088, indicating a known need in the field. [cite: The above-described wireless LAN communication system is assumed to encounter not only a situation where a terminal of a user who is internal to an organization connects to and uses a communication device which has an access point function, but also a situation where a terminal of a user who is external to the organization connects to and uses the same communication device., However, such a system has a possibility that a terminal of a user who is external to an organization can independently use the wireless LAN communication system inside the organization after a temporary use.]

The concept of a "first terminal" (e.g., an internal employee's device) granting and managing access for a "second terminal" (e.g., an external guest's device) is a logical extension of managing access control. Rather than relying solely on pre-set time limits as in JP 2005-51314A, a POSITA would recognize the benefit of dynamic, user-controlled permission, particularly in a corporate meeting setting where an internal host might grant temporary access to a guest. This provides immediate control and enhances security by tying the external user's access directly to the presence and explicit approval of an internal user.

Specifically, the following elements of US11026088 would be obvious in light of JP 2005-51314A and common knowledge:

• First and Second Communication Terminal Devices: It is a common scenario in organizational settings for both internal and external users to require network access. Designing a system that differentiates between these users and assigns different roles (e.g., internal user as a "sponsor" for external access) would be an obvious architectural decision for a POSITA seeking to manage network resources and security.
• Permission from the First Terminal: The idea of a trusted internal device granting permission to an untrusted external device is a well-understood security principle (e.g., a "host" grants access). This improves upon simple time-based restrictions by allowing for flexible, on-demand access that can be initiated and overseen by an authorized internal party.
• Confirmation of Permission: Periodically confirming the permission for the second terminal to connect and use the communication device (e.g., a projector with an access point function) directly addresses the problem of preventing independent use by the external user after temporary use. JP 2005-51314A already teaches time-based security. A POSITA would readily implement a mechanism to check if the permission remains active, rather than just a pre-defined time limit, especially if the internal user's device (the "first terminal") is the source of the permission. This would ensure that the external user's access is contingent on the ongoing approval or presence of the internal user.
• Termination of Connection upon Termination of Permission: This is a direct consequence of the confirmation step and a fundamental security measure. If permission is revoked or not renewed, the connection should be terminated. This is an obvious extension of the security control taught in JP 2005-51314A, which terminates connections based on time restrictions.

The motivation to combine these elements arises from the desire to create a more flexible, user-friendly, and secure wireless LAN system for mixed-user environments, directly addressing the "balance between convenience and security" problem outlined in US11026088. [cite: The above-described wireless LAN communication system has a problem in terms of a balance between convenience and security., An object of the present invention is to provide a technology pertaining to a wireless LAN communication system, a communication device in the system, and the like, which can achieve convenience for a terminal of a user who is external to an organization to temporarily use the system and ensure security in such a case.] A POSITA would have considered the need for dynamic control over temporary access, moving beyond static time limits to a system where an authorized internal user can directly influence the connection status of an external user's device.

Therefore, the combination of JP 2005-51314A with the common knowledge of a POSITA regarding network access control, user roles, and the need for dynamic security in mixed internal/external user environments would render the claims of US11026088 obvious.