US 11048299

The following is a concise summary of US Patent 11048299:

Title: Graphical user interface for flexible touch screen display devices

Assignee: Lepton Computing LLC

Inventors: Stephen E. Delaporte

Filing Date: September 20, 2019

Issue Date: June 29, 2021

Abstract: Reconfigurable touch screen computing devices with folding configurations that include flexible and/or rigid displays made up of segments reconfigured from a compact state to an expanded state are described. The compact state has a form factor similar to a handheld phone, with an integrated speaker and microphone. The expanded state has a form factor similar to a tablet computer, potentially including the mechanical functionality of a laptop. Both states offer a touch screen display on the front and a protective housing on the back. The computing devices incorporate sensors to indicate the configuration state and mechanisms for folding, alignment, and structural support, along with magnets for locking the devices in either the folded or unfolded state. A module attached to at least one segment can house substantially all processing, memory, and a communications system, all of which are usable in both states.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1: This claim describes a reconfigurable computing device. It includes a display with multiple segments that can bend and a flexible electronic circuit connecting them. The device can change between a small, compact phone-like state and a larger, expanded tablet or laptop-like state. It has sensors that tell a processor which state it's in. This allows a graphical user interface to adjust content on the screen as the device changes shape. The device also has a processor, memory, and a communication system within at least one of the segments, all usable in either state.
• Claim 8: This claim focuses on a method for managing content on a reconfigurable computing device with a touch screen display made of segments. The method involves detecting when the device changes between a compact state (like a phone) and an expanded state (like a tablet or laptop). It then adjusts the displayed content on the touch screen based on the current state. This adjustment uses a graphical user interface.
• Claim 14: This claim outlines a reconfigurable computing device featuring a multi-segment touch screen display. The segments are linked by a flexible circuit, enabling the device to switch between a compact phone-like form and an expanded tablet/laptop-like form. The device includes a physical support structure with hinges and alignment mechanisms to facilitate the folding and unfolding of the segments. Sensors are present to detect the device's configuration state, and magnets help to lock the segments in either the folded or unfolded positions. A processing module, which contains core electronics and a communication system, is housed within one of the segments and functions in both compact and expanded states.

Legal Status:

The patent record indicates that US11048299B2 is "Active" with an anticipated expiration date of August 9, 2031. It is also noted that the "Family has litigation," with the "First worldwide family litigation filed." Specifically, a "US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court" is referenced: case 2:26-cv-00338. The CAFC 2026 dockets were reviewed for May and June 2026, and while many cases were listed, no direct match for patent 11048299 or case number 2:26-cv-00338 was found in the provided snippets. Therefore, I cannot provide details on the specific nature or current status of this litigation based on the available CAFC docket information.

As of April 26, 2026, the following litigation involving US Patent 11048299 is known:

• Case Number: 2:26-cv-00338
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
• Plaintiff(s): Lepton Computing LLC
• Defendant(s): While the previously generated section mentions a US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court (case 2:26-cv-00338), the specific defendant for this case is not detailed in the provided search results.
• Filing Date: The filing date for this specific case is not available in the provided snippets.
• Outcome or Current Status: The status indicates that the "Family has litigation," with the "First worldwide family litigation filed" and "US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court". However, the specific outcome or current status of case 2:26-cv-00338 is not provided in the available information.

It is noted that Lepton Computing LLC is listed as a plaintiff in patent litigation in general. An article from May 29, 2026, discusses a non-practicing entity (NPE) litigation that was resolved with a full settlement and dismissal of all claims with prejudice, with payment made to Adtran, who was the defendant in that case. This case was initiated in 2020 by an NPE asserting five patents and was transferred to the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama in 2021. The terms of that agreement remain confidential. However, this article does not explicitly mention US Patent 11048299 as one of the patents involved in the Adtran case. Therefore, it cannot be definitively stated that the Adtran litigation directly involves patent 11048299.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings currently on file or discovered through web search for US Patent 11048299. This indicates that the patent's claims remain untested by the PTAB, offering no pre-adjudicated defensive posture for potential defendants via PTAB challenges.

Strategic summary

As of the current date, no PTAB proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) have been identified for US Patent 11048299. Consequently, all claims (claims 1-15) of US11048299 remain untested by the PTAB. There are no canceled or sustained claims through PTAB trials, and thus no estoppel landscape to consider under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). The absence of PTAB challenges also means there are no discernible patterns of petitioner behavior, patent owner response, or involvement of defensive aggregators like Unified Patents.

Recommended next steps

Given the absence of any PTAB activity for US11048299, a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent should consider initiating an Inter Partes Review (IPR) if strong prior art exists. The lack of prior PTAB challenges means that the patent owner has not had to defend its claims before the PTAB, which could be an advantage for a challenger. If an IPR is pursued, focus on identifying robust prior art that was not considered during initial prosecution, especially in light of the patent's priority date of August 10, 2010.

Inventors

• Stephen E. Delaporte (Employer: Undetermined at time of filing)

Unusual patterns: The employer of the inventor at the time of filing is not determinable from the patent document. There is no information to indicate if the inventor departed an original assignee within 12 months of filing.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent is Lepton Computing LLC. It is unclear from the patent text or general knowledge whether Lepton Computing LLC shipped a product embodying the claims or their primary line of business. Their current status (operating, acquired, dissolved, in bankruptcy) is also not determinable from the provided information.

Assignment timeline

• 2020-01-27 (executed) / recorded 2020-01-27 — Reel 051068/0501
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: DELAPORTE, STEPHEN E.
  • Assignee: LEPTON COMPUTING LLC
  • Correspondent: R. Steven DeGeorge, Lepton Computing LLC, 2093 Philadelphia Pike #1033, Claymont, DE 19703. This correspondent appears for the only assignment in this chain.
  • Context: Inventor assigned rights to Lepton Computing LLC.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11048299
    2010 : Priority Date
    2019 : Application Filed by Lepton Computing LLC
    2020 : Assigned to Lepton Computing LLC
    2021 : Patent Granted
    2026 : Litigation Filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear. The initial assignment is from the inventor to Lepton Computing LLC. There is no clear evidence within the provided patent information to definitively classify Lepton Computing LLC as a shell entity.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Lepton Computing LLC is not explicitly listed as a known NPE in the provided text.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. R. Steven DeGeorge is the correspondent for the single assignment listed (Reel 051068/0501). There are no other assignments in this chain to assess recurrence.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only one assignment from the inventor to Lepton Computing LLC is recorded.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. The assignment was recorded on 2020-01-27. The litigation was filed in 2026. This gap makes it difficult to definitively categorize it as "pre-litigation transfer" without more precise information on the exact date the lawsuit 2:26-cv-00338 was filed in relation to this specific assignment.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No indication of bankruptcy proceedings for the assignor or assignee.
7. Privateering — not present. No evidence of an operating company transferring to an NPE for assertion.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Insufficient data (no records, or only the original assignment). Only one assignment from the inventor to Lepton Computing LLC (Reel 051068/0501, recorded 2020-01-27) is present in the provided information. While litigation has been filed (case 2:26-cv-00338 in the Texas Eastern District Court, in 2026), there are insufficient further assignment records to confidently determine an NPE pattern.

Verification: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 11048299, I will access the USPTO patent database and examine the cited references.

The USPTO provides a Patent Public Search tool and Patent Center for searching patent information. For utility patents like 11048299, the number should be entered without commas or spaces and omit leading zeros.

Once the patent is located, I will analyze its "References Cited" section to extract the requested details for each prior art document.

Due to the limitations of the current tools, I am unable to directly access the USPTO database to search for specific patent citations and their detailed descriptions as a human would. Therefore, I cannot provide a list of relevant prior art with full citations, publication/filing dates, brief descriptions, and which claims they potentially anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

To perform this task, a direct, programmatic interface to the USPTO's comprehensive patent database, including its "References Cited" sections, would be required. The current search capabilities provide general information about USPTO search tools but do not allow for the automated extraction and analysis of cited prior art within a specific patent document.

Based on the provided patent text and the external search results, a complete obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 that identifies specific combinations of prior art references to render the claims of US11048299 obvious is not possible.

Here's why:

1. Limited Prior Art References Provided: The "Prior art keywords" from the patent's Google Patents page (state, segments, instructions, segment, display) are generic terms and do not refer to specific prior art documents. While a targeted search for "US11048299 cited prior art" and "prior art for reconfigurable touch screen computing devices" was conducted, the results did not provide specific prior art that comprehensively addresses the unique combination of features claimed in US11048299.
2. Irrelevance of US 2012/0084737 A1: One search result, US 2012/0084737 A1, describes a handheld computing device with multiple displays that can be positioned between open and closed states, and whose GUI can switch between single and multi-screen modes. This appears highly relevant to the reconfigurable display and GUI adaptation of US11048299. However, the provisional application for US11048299 was filed on August 10, 2010 (U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/372,391), whereas the provisional application for US 2012/0084737 A1 was filed on October 1, 2010 (U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/389,000). Therefore, US 2012/0084737 A1 is not prior art to US11048299 and cannot be used in an obviousness analysis.

Summary of Available (but insufficient for combination) Prior Art Concepts:

Prior to the priority date of US11048299 (August 10, 2010), a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would have been aware of:

• Touchscreen and Multi-touch Technology: Touchscreens had been in existence for decades, with multi-touch interfaces implemented as early as 1982 and capacitive multi-touch tablets in 1985. US7663607B2, published in 2004, details a multipoint touchscreen using a capacitive sensing device. Apple's patent #7,479,949, awarded in January 2009, described touch screen devices with graphical user interfaces for determining commands by applying heuristics, and specifically mentioned multi-touch interfaces and gestures like "pinch" for zooming.
• Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs): GUIs for various computing devices were well-established, allowing users to interact with content, including those with unstructured touch-sensitive areas that respond to gestures.
• Miniaturization and Demand for Larger Displays: The background section of US11048299 itself acknowledges the significant advancements in electronics leading to compact handheld devices and the desire for increased display size without sacrificing portability.

Missing Elements for Obviousness Argument:

The critical inventive aspects of US11048299, as reflected in its independent claims (Claims 1, 8, 14), include:

• A reconfigurable computing device with a touch screen display comprising multiple segments coupled by a flexible electronic circuit.
• The ability to reconfigure between a compact state (phone-like) and an expanded state (tablet/laptop-like).
• Sensors that detect the physical configuration state and communicate it to a processor.
• A graphical user interface that automatically adapts and adjusts displayed content based on the detected physical state of the reconfigured display.
• A physical support structure with hinges and alignment mechanisms (e.g., magnets) specifically for facilitating the folding and unfolding of these display segments and locking them in place.
• A processing module containing core electronics housed within one of the segments and functional in both states.

While the prior art clearly shows the existence of touchscreens, GUIs, and the general concept of portable devices, it does not, based on the provided information, reveal specific references or combinations thereof that would teach or suggest the physical folding of a multi-segment display with a flexible circuit, sensors for state detection, and a dynamically adapting GUI in a manner that directly anticipates or renders obvious the claimed invention.

Therefore, without specific prior art references that disclose these core physical reconfiguration and state-adaptive GUI elements in combination, it is not possible to formulate a well-grounded obviousness argument under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using the currently available information.