US 11087307

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 11087307:

Patent Number: US11087307B2

Title: Kit, system and associated method and service for providing a platform to prevent fraudulent financial transactions

Assignee: Paygeo LLC

Inventors: Rabih S. Ballout

Filing Date: March 2, 2021

Issue Date: August 10, 2021

Abstract: A system and associated method and service are provided for a platform enabling members to transfer, receive, or exchange cash in various international denominations and commodities (e.g., precious metals like gold, silver) within a highly secured mobile telecommunications environment. The system facilitates instant cash delivery between users through secure transactions with cash dispensing machines (ATMs). Users can perform various financial actions like paying, receiving, exchanging, depositing, transferring cash, paying bills, exchanging currency, and creating accounts based on mobile phone numbers or system-generated codes.

Independent Claims Overview:

I do not have access to the full text of the claims within the provided authoritative patent text. Therefore, I cannot provide a plain-language overview of each independent claim at this time.

Litigation:
As of April 26, 2026, the patent 11087307 is active and has ongoing litigation. A PTAB case, IPR2025-01554, was filed but not instituted procedurally. Additionally, a case has been filed in the Texas Eastern District Court, and the first worldwide family litigation has also been initiated.

I found no authoritative results specifically indicating dockets for US11087307 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) for 2026 in the search results.

As of April 26, 2026, the following litigation involving US patent 11087307 is known:

• PTAB Case IPR2025-01554

  • Plaintiff(s): Unified Patents
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided snippet, but IPR cases typically involve a patent owner as the defendant.
  • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
  • Case Number: IPR2025-01554
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet, but the case number indicates it was filed in 2025.
  • Outcome or Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural

• US Case filed in Texas Eastern District Court

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided snippet.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided snippet.
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00334
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet, but the case number indicates it was filed in 2025.
  • Outcome or Current Status: Litigation

• First worldwide family litigation filed

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided snippet.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided snippet.
  • Jurisdiction: Global (first worldwide family litigation)
  • Case Number: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet, but a family ID is provided: 61191941.
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
  • Outcome or Current Status: Litigation

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 11087307. This proceeding resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, meaning no claims were formally challenged and invalidated through the IPR process. This gives a defendant a posture where the patent claims have not been subjected to a full PTAB validity challenge.

IPR2025-01554 — [[[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.) v. Rabih S. Ballout

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-01
• Status: Discretionary Denial — the petition was not instituted, procedurally dismissed.
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Trenton A. Ward, Karl F. Jorda, and Brian J. Leitten.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,087,307 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over various combinations of prior art, including US 2011/0185435 (Maloney), US 2008/0010191 (Rackley III), and US 2009/0068982 (Chen).
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-03-23. The panel exercised its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) based on its consideration of the Fintiv factors, due to the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation involving the same parties and patent.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not explicitly mentioned as a settlement in the denial decision, but rather a discretionary denial of institution.
• Appeal: The PTAB decision to deny institution was challenged by the Petitioner at the Federal Circuit, with an appeal filed on April 15, 2026 (Case 26-1707).
• Defensive value: The patent owner prevailed at the institution stage, meaning the claims of US11087307 have not been subjected to IPR validity scrutiny. Any future IPR petition by the same petitioner or privy on the same grounds would likely be estopped under Fintiv principles given the advanced parallel litigation.

Strategic summary

All twenty claims (1-20) of US11087307 remain UNTESTED in AIA trial proceedings, as the single filed IPR (IPR2025-01554) was denied institution. No claims have been canceled or sustained by the PTAB.

The estoppel landscape is primarily shaped by the discretionary denial of IPR2025-01554. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and its privies are likely estopped from bringing the same grounds that were raised in the denied petition in a subsequent IPR, especially if the district court litigation continues. However, other potential petitioners are not estopped and could still challenge the patent. The specific prior art cited in the petition (Maloney, Rackley III, Chen) remains available for use by other defendants or in different proceedings.

A pattern signal is the discretionary denial under Fintiv, indicating that the patent owner likely had ongoing district court litigation that influenced the PTAB's decision. This suggests the patent owner is actively asserting the patent in court. Furthermore, the petitioner appealed the denial of institution to the Federal Circuit, showing a continued effort to challenge the patent's validity.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of US11087307, be aware that the claims have not been substantively reviewed by the PTAB. The denial of institution in IPR2025-01554 was procedural (based on Fintiv factors) and not on the merits of the prior art. It would be advisable to:

• Review the Petition for IPR2025-01554 to understand the specific prior art and arguments raised against claims 1-20, as these grounds were deemed sufficient to warrant a full Fintiv analysis. The institution decision (dated 2026-03-23) can be found on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal.
• Monitor the Federal Circuit appeal (Case 26-1707) of the IPR2025-01554 institution denial, as the outcome could set precedent or reopen avenues for challenging this patent.
• If considering an IPR, analyze the current status of any parallel district court litigation to assess the applicability of Fintiv or other discretionary denial factors to a new petition.## Proceedings overview
  There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 11087307. This proceeding resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, meaning no claims were formally challenged and invalidated through the IPR process. This gives a defendant a posture where the patent claims have not been subjected to a full PTAB validity challenge through an IPR.

IPR2025-01554 — Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Rabih S. Ballout

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-01
• Status: Discretionary Denial — the petition was not instituted, procedurally dismissed by the Director.
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Trenton A. Ward, Karl F. Jorda, and Brian J. Leitten.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,087,307 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over various combinations of prior art, including US 2011/0185435 (Maloney), US 2008/0010191 (Rackley III), and US 2009/0068982 (Chen).
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-03-23. The Director exercised discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) based on considerations such as the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation involving the same parties and patent, consistent with the Fintiv factors.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated due to the discretionary denial of institution. There is no indication of a settlement between the parties within the denial decision.
• Appeal: The Petitioner, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., filed an appeal of the institution denial at the Federal Circuit on April 15, 2026 (Case 26-1707).
• Defensive value: The patent owner prevailed at the institution stage, meaning the claims of US11087307 have not been subjected to IPR validity scrutiny. Any future IPR petition by the same petitioner or privy on the same grounds would likely face estoppel under Fintiv principles given the advanced parallel litigation.

Strategic summary

All twenty claims (1-20) of US11087307 remain UNTESTED in AIA trial proceedings, as the single filed IPR (IPR2025-01554) was denied institution. No claims have been formally canceled or sustained by the PTAB.

The estoppel landscape is primarily shaped by the discretionary denial of IPR2025-01554. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and its privies are likely estopped from bringing the same grounds that were raised in the denied petition in a subsequent IPR, especially if the district court litigation continues. The PTAB has clarified its approach to discretionary institution, including factors related to parallel litigation and "settled expectations". However, other potential petitioners are not estopped and could still challenge the patent. The specific prior art cited in the petition (Maloney, Rackley III, Chen) remains available for use by other defendants or in different proceedings.

A pattern signal is the discretionary denial under Fintiv, indicating that the patent owner likely had ongoing district court litigation that influenced the PTAB's decision. This suggests the patent owner is actively asserting the patent in court. The Petitioner's appeal of the denial of institution to the Federal Circuit (Case 26-1707) further indicates a continued effort to challenge the patent's validity, despite the limited scope of judicial review over PTAB institution-related rulings.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of US11087307, be aware that the claims have not been substantively reviewed by the PTAB. The denial of institution in IPR2025-01554 was procedural (based on Fintiv factors related to parallel litigation) and not on the merits of the prior art.

• Review the Petition for IPR2025-01554 to understand the specific prior art and arguments raised against claims 1-20, as these grounds were deemed sufficient for the PTAB to consider discretionary denial. The institution decision (dated 2026-03-23) can be found on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal.
• Monitor the Federal Circuit appeal (Case 26-1707) of the IPR2025-01554 institution denial, as the outcome, while typically narrow for institution decisions, could still impact future strategies.
• If considering an IPR, it is crucial to carefully analyze the current status of any parallel district court litigation to assess the applicability of Fintiv or other discretionary denial factors to a new petition. The USPTO Director has emphasized personal control over institution decisions, often issuing summary notices with limited reasoning, which can complicate strategic calibration.

Inventors

• Rabih S. Ballout (Employer: Individual)

Original assignee

The original assignee is listed as "Individual" at the time of filing, as seen in the Google Patents information. The patent was later assigned to Paygeo LLC. There is no information within the provided text to determine if "Individual" or Paygeo LLC shipped a product embodying the claims at the time of original assignment. Paygeo LLC's primary line of business is understood to be related to financial transaction platforms, as described in the patent. As of the current date (May 24, 2026), Paygeo LLC is listed as the Current Assignee and the patent is active and involved in litigation, suggesting it is an operating entity, or at least active in asserting the patent.

Assignment timeline

• 2024-10-18 (executed) / recorded 2024-10-18 - Reel 063628/0091

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: BALLOUT, RABIH
  • Assignee: PAYGEO LLC
  • Correspondent: BRAM F. SCHWARTZ, GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, 3333 PIEDMONT ROAD NE, SUITE 2500, ATLANTA, GA 30305
  • Context: Transfer from individual inventor to LLC.

• 2025-03-25 (executed) / recorded 2025-03-25 - Reel 064619/0784

  • Conveyance: PATENT SECURITY AGREEMENT
  • Assignor: PAYGEO LLC
  • Assignee: PICCADILLY PATENT FUNDING LLC, AS SECURITY HOLDER
  • Correspondent: ANNE M. KABOUREK, 12222 MERIT DRIVE, SUITE 1650, DALLAS, TX 75251
  • Context: Securitization of the patent by Paygeo LLC to Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11087307
    2021 : Issued to Individual
    2024 : Assigned to PAYGEO LLC
    2025 : Security agreement with PICCADILLY PATENT FUNDING LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Unclear. The transfer from an "Individual" to "PAYGEO LLC" and then the security agreement with "PICCADILLY PATENT FUNDING LLC" raises questions, but there isn't enough information to definitively label either LLC as a shell entity solely for licensing or assertion without product information or details on their business operations. The provided text states Paygeo LLC is the "Current Assignee" and the patent is "Active" with "litigation," which could imply an operating company asserting its patent or an NPE.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Neither PAYGEO LLC nor PICCADILLY PATENT FUNDING LLC are explicitly listed as known high-frequency NPEs in the provided information or common public lists.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present. There are different correspondents listed for the two recorded transactions: BRAM F. SCHWARTZ of GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP for the assignment to Paygeo LLC, and ANNE M. KABOUREK for the security agreement.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There are two recorded transactions within about five months, but these are an assignment followed by a security agreement, not multiple consecutive assignments of ownership.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Present. The first worldwide family litigation was filed after the "Priority date" of 2011-07-18. However, the Google Patents "Family has litigation" section indicates a US case filed in the Texas Eastern District Court (2:25-cv-00334) and a PTAB case (IPR2025-01554) in 2025. The assignment to PAYGEO LLC was recorded on 2024-10-18 (Reel 063628/0091) and the security agreement on 2025-03-25 (Reel 064619/0784). The filing of these litigation events in 2025, within 6 months of the security agreement and within a year of the assignment, could indicate a pre-litigation transfer or preparation for assertion.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no indication of bankruptcy proceedings for the original assignee or any subsequent assignors.
7. Privateering — Unclear. There is no information available to determine if an operating company transferred the patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at any known defensive aggregators.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence. The presence of a pre-litigation transfer signal, with the assignment and security agreement occurring within months of the initial litigation filings in 2025, suggests the patent chain was arranged to facilitate assertion. While the names "PAYGEO LLC" and "PICCADILLY PATENT FUNDING LLC" alone are not definitive, the proximity of the transfers to litigation events indicates a strategic transfer.

Verification: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search for patent number 11087307).

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 11087307, I need to access the patent's full text, specifically the "References Cited" section, which is typically found within the patent document itself. The provided patent text from Google Patents is authoritative and should contain this information. I will look for the "U.S. Patent Documents" and "Other Publications" sections within the patent to extract the prior art.

Based on the provided full patent text for US11087307B2, here's the relevant prior art information:

The patent lists the following U.S. Patent Application Publications in its "Background of the Invention" section, indicating they are considered prior art. These are the only specific prior art references explicitly mentioned and described within the provided text.

1. U.S. patent application No. 20090068982 to Chen et al.

   • Full Citation: U.S. patent application No. 20090068982 to Chen et al.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication date is 20090068982. The filing date is not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Brief Description: Generally describes a system or method for facilitating the securing of a wireless digital transaction. It involves a terminal component receiving payment data, a mobile device with a mobile payment card (m-card) linked to an account, and the mobile device using public-key cryptography (PKC) to securely and wirelessly transmit payment to the terminal component.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): The patent itself uses this reference to highlight what existing solutions do not provide (e.g., dispensing with the use of cash). Therefore, it likely anticipates aspects of secure wireless digital transactions and mobile payment cards, but the '307 patent aims to differentiate itself by addressing the "use of cash" hurdle. Without the claims, it's difficult to pinpoint exact anticipation, but it serves as background for the broad concept of secure mobile financial transactions.

2. U.S. patent application No. 20080010191 to Rackley III et al.

   • Full Citation: U.S. patent application No. 20080010191 to Rackley III et al.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication date is 20080010191. The filing date is not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Brief Description: Generally describes methods and systems for providing a financial payment to a payee utilizing a mobile device or a wireless connected personal digital assistant (PDA). The user inputs payee, payment source, and payment method information into the mobile device, which then generates and wirelessly communicates a mobile payment instruction to a mobile financial transaction system (MFTS). The MFTS generates an MFTS payment instruction to a payment instruction recipient, who then effects payment to the identified payee without required action by the payee.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to the Chen et al. reference, this patent is used to contextualize the prior art related to electronic payments using mobile devices. It potentially anticipates systems and methods for initiating financial payments via mobile devices and instructing a financial system to effect a payment. The '307 patent aims to go beyond these electronic payments to address cash transactions and commodities. Without the claims, specific anticipation is hard to determine, but it covers the general area of mobile-initiated financial transactions.

The patent explicitly states, "While the solutions that are proposed in the foregoing two patent applications address electronic payments, they do not dispense with the use of cash." This statement is crucial as it highlights the claimed novelty of US11087307: providing a platform that handles cash and commodities, going beyond purely electronic transactions.

Therefore, while these two references are explicitly cited as prior art, the '307 patent attempts to distinguish itself by addressing the limitations they present regarding the full "electronic wallet" experience, particularly with cash and commodities.

A thorough obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires a comparison of the specific elements of the patent's claims against the disclosures of prior art references. As the independent claims for US11087307 are not accessible in the provided authoritative patent text, a definitive claim-by-claim obviousness analysis cannot be performed.

However, based on the descriptions of the cited prior art within US11087307 and the '307 patent's own description of its invention, a general discussion of potential motivations for combining the prior art can be provided.

Identified Prior Art References:

1. U.S. patent application No. 20090068982 to Chen et al. (hereinafter "Chen"): Describes a system for facilitating secure wireless digital transactions. It involves a mobile device with a mobile payment card (m-card) linked to an account, using public-key cryptography (PKC) to securely and wirelessly transmit payments to a terminal component.
2. U.S. patent application No. 20080010191 to Rackley III et al. (hereinafter "Rackley III"): Describes methods and systems for providing financial payments to a payee using a mobile device. The user inputs payee, payment source, and payment method information, generates a mobile payment instruction, and wirelessly communicates it to a mobile financial transaction system (MFTS) to effect payment without required payee action.

The Problem Addressed by US11087307:

The US11087307 patent explicitly states that while Chen and Rackley III "address electronic payments, they do not dispense with the use of cash." It highlights an unsatisfied need for a system that enables consumers to transfer, receive, or exchange cash amongst themselves and merchants, facilitate transactions using international denominations and commodities (e.g., precious metals), save coupons/receipts, track points, and enable ATMs to accept cash/check transactions from non-customers and non-bank account holders.

Motivation to Combine Chen and Rackley III:

A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) in the field of mobile financial transactions, at the time of the invention's priority date (July 18, 2011), would have been motivated to combine the features of Chen and Rackley III to create a more comprehensive and robust mobile payment system. The motivation would stem from the continuous drive for improved user convenience, security, and expanded functionality in mobile financial services.

• Complementary Functionality: Chen focuses on the secure wireless transmission of payment data via an m-card and PKC. Rackley III focuses on the initiation and processing of payments from a mobile device to a financial system, enabling payments without direct payee action. These are complementary aspects of a complete mobile payment solution. A PHOSITA would recognize the benefit of integrating Chen's secure data transmission methods (e.g., PKC) into Rackley III's broader payment initiation and processing framework to enhance the overall security of the payment instructions being sent from the mobile device to the financial transaction system.
• Industry Trends: The trend in mobile banking and payment applications has consistently been towards offering more secure and versatile ways to conduct financial transactions. Combining secure wireless digital transaction mechanisms with automated payment instruction generation and routing would represent a logical step in this evolution, aiming to provide users with a single, highly functional mobile financial tool.
• Enhancing User Experience: By combining the security features of Chen with the payment processing capabilities of Rackley III, a PHOSITA could design a system that not only securely transmits payment information but also streamlines the process of identifying payees, selecting payment sources, and generating instructions for execution. This integration would lead to a more efficient and trustworthy mobile payment experience.

Potential Obviousness in Light of the Combination (General Discussion without Claims):

Even with the combination of Chen and Rackley III, which primarily address electronic payments, the '307 patent purports to introduce several features specifically aimed at bridging the gap to physical cash and commodity transactions, along with other functionalities:

• Handling Physical Cash and Commodities: The '307 patent emphasizes the ability to exchange cash in various international denominations and commodities (e.g., gold, silver), and to retrieve/deposit cash at ATMs using generated codes or SMS. It also introduces "Good Money" as a digital currency backed by commodities. The explicit limitation of Chen and Rackley III to "electronic payments" suggests that the specific mechanisms for managing and exchanging physical cash and diverse commodities through a mobile platform, especially with features like ATM integration for non-customers, might represent non-obvious advancements over the combination of Chen and Rackley III alone.
• Enhanced Security (DNA verification): The '307 patent mentions a "highly secured telecommunications environment using DNA verification method." While Chen mentions public-key cryptography, DNA verification as a security layer, particularly with the described molecular switch, could be considered a distinct feature not obviously derivable from Chen or Rackley III.
• "Swipay" and "Swipmail" Functions: The patent describes users paying each other using NFC (Near Field Communication) type frequency by "simply swiping a finger pointed at the other instrument (Swipay or Swipmail function)." While NFC existed, the specific "swiping a finger pointed at the other instrument" mechanism for payment or data transfer, as described, might represent a particular implementation detail that is not explicitly present or rendered obvious by Chen or Rackley III.
• Point Accumulation and Consolidation: The '307 patent details usage-based credit point accumulation, transfer of points between users, and the ability to consolidate points from different sources (credit cards, mileage) into "PayGeo's Good Money points" for redemption. These point management features, particularly the consolidation across disparate external loyalty programs, may go beyond the typical scope of electronic payment systems in Chen and Rackley III.

Without the exact wording of the claims, it is impossible to determine if the specific claim language would encompass only the features described in Chen and Rackley III, or if it would include the specific implementations of cash/commodity exchange, advanced security, or point systems that US11087307 presents as its novel contributions. If the claims are broadly drawn to encompass general mobile financial transactions, then the combination of Chen and Rackley III would pose a significant obviousness challenge. However, if the claims specifically recite the unique methods and systems for handling physical cash, commodities, or the specific security/point mechanisms, then a more detailed analysis would be required to determine if those specific elements were rendered obvious by the prior art, either individually or in combination.

Here's a detailed breakdown of the patent term adjustments, extensions, family members, and projected expiration date for US Patent 11087307, based on the provided authoritative patent text and Google Patents information.

Patent Term Adjustments (PTA) and Patent Term Extensions (PTE):
Information regarding specific Patent Term Adjustments (PTA) or Patent Term Extensions (PTE) for US Patent 11087307 is not explicitly available in the provided patent text or the accompanying Google Patents data. A definitive determination of PTA or PTE typically requires detailed review of the patent's prosecution history in the USPTO's Patent Center or PAIR system, which is beyond the scope of this general public search.

Continuation and Divisional Applications (Family Members):
US Patent 11087307 is part of a complex patent family, explicitly described as having a lengthy lineage of continuation and continuation-in-part applications. The family members, as detailed in the "CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS" section of the patent, are as follows:

• US 11087307B2 (This patent) is a continuation of:
  • U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/009,551, filed Sep. 1, 2020 (now U.S. Pat. No. 10,937,018)
  • which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/882,006, filed May 22, 2020 (now U.S. Pat. No. 10,796,296)
  • which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/786,470, filed Oct. 17, 2017 (now U.S. Pat. No. 10,733,593)
  • which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/691,499, filed Apr. 20, 2015 (now abandoned)
  • which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/974,837, filed Aug. 23, 2013 (now abandoned)
  • which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/185,432, filed Jul. 18, 2011 (now U.S. Pat. No. 8,554,671).

The earliest effective filing date, or priority date, for this patent family is July 18, 2011, derived from U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/185,432.

Projected Expiration Date:
The projected expiration date for US Patent 11087307 is July 18, 2031. This is calculated as 20 years from the earliest effective filing date (priority date) of July 18, 2011, as per U.S. patent law (35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2)) for utility patents filed on or after June 8, 1995. Google Patents also lists an "Anticipated expiration" date of 2031-07-18.