US 11086361

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 11086361:

US Patent 11086361 Summary

• Title: Flexible and rigid touch screen display computing devices
• Assignee: Lepton Computing LLC
• Inventors: Stephen E. Delaporte
• Filing Date: 2021-02-09
• Issue Date: 2021-08-10
• Abstract: The patent describes reconfigurable touch screen computing devices with folding configurations that include flexible and rigid displays made up of segments. These devices can be reconfigured from a compact state, roughly the size of a handheld phone with an integrated speaker and microphone, to an expanded state, which is approximately the size of a tablet computer and may offer the mechanical functionality of a laptop. Both states feature a touch screen display on the front and a protective housing on the back. The computing devices also incorporate sensors to indicate the configuration state and mechanisms for alignment, locking, and structural support. A module within at least one segment contains core processing, memory, and a communications system, usable in both states.

Litigation Status:
The patent family is involved in litigation. A US case has been filed in the Texas Eastern District Court (Case: 2:26-cv-00338). [cite: "US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court litigation https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A26-cv-00338"]

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
A review of the scheduled cases for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) for June 2026 did not explicitly list patent number 11086361.

Independent Claims Overview:
The full text of the claims for US Patent 11086361 is not available in the provided document. Therefore, a plain-language overview of each independent claim cannot be provided at this time.

As of April 26, 2026, the patent family for US Patent 11086361 is involved in litigation. A US case has been filed in the Texas Eastern District Court, with case number 2:26-cv-00338. [cite: "US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court litigation https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A26-cv-00338"]

However, the provided information from the search results does not contain details regarding the plaintiff(s), defendant(s), filing date, or the current status/outcome for this specific case beyond its existence and jurisdiction.

A review of the scheduled cases for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) for June 2026 did not explicitly list patent number 11086361. General searches for CAFC dockets for April and May 2026 also did not return results specifically mentioning patent 11086361.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 11086361 as of the most recent ingest. Therefore, a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent will find no PTAB-hardened claims, but also no PTAB-invalidated claims to leverage for defense.

Strategic summary

As there are no AIA trial proceedings on file, all claims of US Patent 11086361 are currently untested by the PTAB. This means that no claims have been canceled or sustained through IPR, PGR, or CBM.

The absence of PTAB activity also means there is no estoppel landscape established under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). All prior art grounds are theoretically available for a potential petitioner to raise in a future AIA trial proceeding. There are no patterns of filings by the same petitioner, aggressive appeals by the patent owner, or involvement by defensive aggregators like Unified Patents to report.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of US Patent 11086361, it is important to note that the patent has not been subjected to PTAB review. This means that while no claims have been invalidated, they also haven't been affirmed through the PTAB process. The absence of PTAB activity can be a signal in itself, as well-asserted patents often become targets for IPRs. Given this, a thorough prior art search would be crucial to evaluate the patent's validity and inform a defensive strategy.

Inventors

• Stephen E. Delaporte: No employer information is provided in the patent document at the time of filing.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent is Lepton Computing LLC. It is unclear from the provided information whether Lepton Computing LLC shipped a product embodying the claims or what their primary line of business is. The current status of Lepton Computing LLC is "Active" according to the Google Patents legal status, but this does not provide information about their operational status or whether they are shipping products. [cite: "Legal status (The legal status 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 status listed.) Active , expires 2031-08-09"]

Assignment timeline

• 2021-02-09 (executed) / recorded 2021-03-18 — Reel 056477/0687
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: DELAPORTE, STEPHEN E.
  • Assignee: LEPTON COMPUTING LLC
  • Correspondent: DELAPORTE, STEPHEN E., 2307 LYONS AVE, VALENCIA, CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES, 91355
  • Context: Original assignment from inventor to assignee.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11086361
    2021 : Filed by Lepton Computing LLC
         : Assigned from inventor to Lepton Computing LLC
    2021 : Issued to Lepton Computing LLC
    2026 : US case filed Texas Eastern District Court

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The initial assignment is from the inventor to Lepton Computing LLC, which is also the original assignee. There is no evidence of a transfer from an operating company to a shell entity.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Lepton Computing LLC is not explicitly listed as a known NPE on common public lists based on the provided information.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. Only one assignment is recorded, and thus there is no recurrence to observe. The correspondent is Stephen E. Delaporte, the inventor.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only one assignment is recorded.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While there is litigation, the provided information does not contain enough detail about the specific timing of the litigation relative to any assignments beyond the initial one. The current litigation case was filed in 2026, and the only assignment record is from 2021. [cite: "US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court litigation https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A26-cv-00338"]
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication of bankruptcy in the assignment records or legal status.
7. Privateering — not present. There is no information to suggest this.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The patent is not currently assigned to a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Insufficient data. The only recorded assignment is from the inventor, Stephen E. Delaporte, to the original assignee, Lepton Computing LLC, recorded on 2021-03-18 (Reel 056477/0687). There are no subsequent assignments recorded that would indicate a transfer to a known NPE or other patterns. While litigation is ongoing, without a chain of assignments, it's not possible to determine if the assertion is by an NPE based solely on the provided assignment records.

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

I am unable to provide the most relevant prior art for US patent 11086361, including full citations, publication/filing dates, brief descriptions, or which claim(s) it potentially anticipates.

The provided authoritative full patent text for US11086361 does not contain a "References Cited" section listing prior art documents. While it mentions "Prior art keywords" and a "Prior art date" (2010-08-10), these are not specific patent or non-patent literature citations. Additionally, attempts to programmatically extract a "References Cited" section from the Google Patents or USPTO database through direct search queries were unsuccessful.

Furthermore, as noted in the "Independent Claims Overview" of the previously generated summary, the full text of the claims for US Patent 11086361 is not available. Without the claim language, it is not possible to analyze and determine which specific claims, if any, could be anticipated by any prior art, even if it were available.

The following analysis of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is based on the "Prior art keywords" provided in the Google Patents section for US Patent 11086361. It is important to note that specific claims of US11086361 are not available in the provided document, nor are specific prior art documents. Therefore, this analysis will proceed by interpreting the "Prior art keywords" as representing known concepts or technologies in the field as of the priority date (2010-08-10) and applying them to the features described in the patent's abstract and summary. A definitive legal obviousness analysis requires explicit claim language and detailed comparison with specific prior art disclosures.

Obviousness Analysis of US11086361 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) in the field of portable computing devices (e.g., mobile phones, tablets, laptops) around the priority date of 2010-08-10 would have possessed knowledge of various display technologies, device form factors, and common engineering principles for creating functional and durable electronic devices.

Identified Prior Art Concepts (from keywords):

The "Prior art keywords" for US11086361 indicate common knowledge or existing technologies related to:

• OLED display: Organic Light Emitting Diode displays, known for their thinness, flexibility, and power efficiency.
• Flexible touch / sensitive OLED / sensitive: Touch-sensitive display technology, particularly as applied to flexible OLED screens, implying the ability to detect user input on a flexible surface.
• Structural support: The provision of underlying frameworks or materials to give strength and stability to components, especially displays or reconfigurable device elements.

Combination of Prior Art Concepts to Render Claims Obvious:

The claimed invention, as described in the abstract, focuses on a reconfigurable touch screen computing device with folding configurations, transitioning between a compact (phone-sized) state and an expanded (tablet/laptop-sized) state, using segmented displays (flexible and/or rigid), and incorporating features like integrated processing, sensors, and structural support mechanisms.

A PHOSITA, aiming to develop such a reconfigurable device to overcome the limitations of small-scale touch screens while maintaining portability, would be motivated to combine the following conceptual elements from the prior art:

1. Flexible, Touch-Sensitive OLED Displays:

   • Prior Art Concept: The keywords "oled display," "flexible touch," and "sensitive oled" indicate that flexible, touch-sensitive OLED technology was known or at least actively explored.
   • Motivation for Combination: A PHOSITA would be motivated to use such displays in a portable device to achieve several advantages:
     • Increased Screen Real Estate in a Compact Form: Flexible displays inherently allow for novel form factors, including folding, which enables a larger screen area to be contained within a smaller, pocketable device.
     • Enhanced User Interaction: Touch sensitivity is a fundamental requirement for modern handheld computing devices, and integrating it directly into a flexible display provides an intuitive interface.
     • Thinness and Aesthetics: OLEDs offer superior thinness compared to other display technologies, which is crucial for multi-segment folding devices to avoid excessive bulk in the compact state.
     • Power Efficiency: OLEDs are generally more power-efficient than LCDs, which is a significant advantage for battery-powered portable devices.

2. Structural Support for Reconfigurable Devices:

   • Prior Art Concept: The keyword "structural support" implies the general engineering principle of providing rigidity and protection to components, particularly in dynamic or multi-part assemblies.
   • Motivation for Combination: When designing a multi-segment, folding device with flexible displays, a PHOSITA would recognize the critical need for robust structural support to:
     • Protect the Display: Flexible displays, while bendable, are still susceptible to damage. Structural elements are needed to shield them from external forces, especially when folded.
     • Ensure Alignment and Stability: For a multi-segment display to function cohesively as a single, larger screen in an expanded state, the segments must be precisely aligned and held securely. Without "structural support," the device would feel flimsy and be impractical for touch input.
     • Facilitate Folding/Unfolding: Hinges, latches, and other mechanical features (described in the patent as alignment/locking mechanisms) are essential for controlled reconfiguration and to maintain the desired form factor in both compact and expanded states. These all rely on robust structural support.
     • Integrate Components: Housing a computing module (processor, memory, communications) within one segment, as described, requires a rigid structure to protect these components and provide interfaces for ports.

Specific Obviousness Arguments (based on abstract's features):

• Segmented Displays and Folding Configurations: The idea of using multiple display segments that fold to achieve a compact form and unfold for an expanded view would be obvious to a PHOSITA seeking to maximize screen size while maintaining portability. Early dual-screen devices and conceptual drawings of folding phones predated the priority date. The choice between flexible and rigid segments would be an engineering decision based on desired durability, cost, and specific folding mechanics.
• Compact Phone State / Expanded Tablet/Laptop State: The goal of achieving a phone-sized compact state and a tablet/laptop-sized expanded state directly addresses the user desire for versatility and would be an obvious design objective for a PHOSITA.
• Integrated Speaker and Microphone: Integrating basic phone functionalities like a speaker and microphone into the compact (phone-like) state would be a routine design choice to ensure the device serves as a primary communication tool.
• Sensors for Configuration State: Incorporating sensors to detect the device's configuration (folded or unfolded) for automatic content rescaling or power management is a common practice in convertible or folding devices and would be obvious for intelligent device operation.
• Alignment and Locking Mechanisms: The need for mechanisms to align and lock segments together, especially in a touch-sensitive display that requires a stable surface, would be an obvious engineering challenge with readily available solutions (e.g., magnets, latches, interlocking plates) from other mechanical design contexts.

Conclusion:

A PHOSITA in 2010 would have understood the advantages of flexible, touch-sensitive OLED displays ("oled display," "flexible touch," "sensitive oled") for creating larger, more versatile screens in portable devices. They would also understand the fundamental engineering need for "structural support" to make such reconfigurable, multi-segment devices practical, durable, and user-friendly. Combining these known concepts and applying standard mechanical design principles (like hinges, latches, sensors for state detection) to create a device that transforms between a phone-sized compact state and a tablet/laptop-sized expanded state, as broadly described in US11086361's abstract, would have been obvious to a PHOSITA seeking to meet the known demands for larger, yet portable, computing device displays.