US 11096056

I'll run targeted searches for this specific patent number against USPTO and CAFC sources, then build the summary from the authoritative patent text already in hand.

Let me search for CAFC appellate activity and the patent's claim text / abstract.

Let me check for any Flexiworld CAFC activity in 2026 and pull the claim text for this specific patent.

US 11,096,056 B2 — Patent Summary

Task result up front: I searched for this specific number against the sources available to me (Google Patents authoritative text supplied in this prompt, USPTO-derived records, Stanford NPE database, and a CAFC 2026 dispositions sweep). No CAFC 2026 docket, appeal, or opinion involving 11,096,056 was found. One CAFC 2026 result did surface and it is a false positive — flagged in §2 below. I also could not retrieve the full claim set or the verbatim abstract, and I say so explicitly rather than reconstructing them.

---

1. Bibliographic summary

---

2. USPTO and CAFC 2026 docket search

CAFC 2026: nothing found on 11,096,056.

• A CAFC dispositions search returned Inneos LLC v. Opticis Co., Ltd., 2025‑1487 (Fed. Cir. June 10, 2026, nonprecedential Rule 36 affirmance of IPR2023‑01256). This is not this patent, not this patent family, and does not involve Flexiworld. Reported here only to show the search was run and to pre-empt misattribution. (https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1487.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.6-10-2026_2707635.pdf)
• No Flexiworld Federal Circuit appeal was found. Note that a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal is not appealable, which is consistent with the absence of a CAFC record given how every district case on this patent resolved.
• Strictly interpreted number discipline: I saw no CAFC hit for 11096056, and I am not substituting any adjacent number (e.g., the 11,446,056 and 12,619,560 traps flagged in the prior-art section).

USPTO-side litigation records confirmed this session (consistent with the prior section):

Flag on the PatSnap record: PatSnap dates the N.D. Ga. Hisense action to November 2, 2022, whereas the prior section recorded the E.D. Tex. action as filed June 24, 2022. These are two different dockets (Texas and Georgia) for the same dispute group, which reinforces — but does not resolve — the open "one dispute, two case numbers" question carried forward from the earlier section.

---

3. Abstract

I do not have the verbatim abstract text and will not reconstruct it. The Google Patents result for this patent returned only CPC term-frequency tokens (e.g., "communication … claims abstract description 149"), not the abstract prose. Consistent with the strict-identifier rule, I am not substituting text from a sibling patent.

Functional characterization (from the title, the claim 1 preamble in the prior section, and an independent database summary): the disclosure is directed to output devices — televisions, output controllers, display devices, projectors, audio output devices, printing devices, and speakers — configured to wirelessly receive digital content either (a) from a digital content service over the internet, or (b) from a wireless information apparatus located on the same wireless network as the output device. PatSnap paraphrases it as covering "output devices … configured to wirelessly receive digital content from an internet-based service or from a wireless information apparatus on the same local network." Treat that as a secondary-source characterization, not the abstract of record.

---

4. Independent claims — plain-language overview

Critical limitation on this answer, stated plainly: I have only claim 1, and only partially (through element (vii), which the source truncated). I cannot state how many independent claims this patent contains, and I cannot overview the ones I have not read. The prior sections flagged this; it remains unresolved.

I also want to correct a likely trap explicitly: a PTAB petition document surfaced in my search that discusses claims "1–7," "8–14," and "15–20" and recites an "output system … wirelessly accesses a service … through the use of a job object." That document is directed to US 11,029,903 (the '903 patent), a sibling — not to 11,096,056. Do not import that claim structure into this patent. (Source: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1548112](/patent/1548112)/)

Claim 1 as retrieved — plain language

In plain terms, claim 1 (as retrieved) covers an output device that is at least one of: a television; an external output controller wire-connectable to a television; a display device; a projector; an audio output device; a printing device; or a speaker. The device includes:

1. An interface for user interaction and one or more processors running operating system software.
2. The operating system software facilitates downloading and installing application software/components onto the output device.
3. Wireless communication circuitry by which the device connects itself to a wireless local area network.
4. Over that WLAN, the device downloads application software/components from one or more servers, used to upgrade, update, add, or modify the device's features and capabilities, and installs them at the device under the OS's facilitation.
5. The device broadcasts/announces its availability over the WLAN so that a mobile information apparatus on the same WLAN can discover it, and then wirelessly transmits device-dependent attributes to that discovering apparatus.
6. It establishes a link over the WLAN that is compatible with a protocol within IEEE 802.11, and over that link wirelessly receives intermediate output data related to digital content. (This final element (vii) is where the retrieved text truncates — the full limitation is unverified.)

The narrowest, most contestable parts of claim 1 are the combination of (a) device-initiated WLAN association, (b) device-side availability advertisement/discovery by a co-located mobile apparatus, and (c) device-dependent attribute transmission — all under an 802.11-family protocol. That is the same conclusion reached in the prior prior-art and obviousness sections, and it is reinforced here: the claim, as retrieved, reads on device-side wireless discovery and driverless intermediate-output reception, not on "a smart TV streaming from the cloud" — even though the title and abstract characterization emphasize the internet-service path. That title/claim divergence is carried forward as an unresolved substantive point.

---

5. Uncertainty and conflicts (do not paper over)

1. Full claim set not obtained — I cannot enumerate the independent claims. Any statement that claim 1 is the only independent claim would be unsupported.
2. Abstract not obtained verbatim — characterization only.
3. Legal status conflict unresolved — "Expired – Fee Related" (authoritative text) vs. "Expired – Lifetime" (two Google-derived listings). Affects practical value of any invalidity or FTO opinion; confirm at USPTO Patent Center for application 16/557,593 before relying on either string.
4. No CAFC 2026 activity found — this is absence of evidence from indexed sources, not a PACER/CAFC docket query.
5. Date discrepancy carried forward — the task states April 26, 2026; my session context indicates 2026‑09‑28. Neither is reconciled.
6. E.D. Tex. 2:26‑cv‑00229 remains a raw Google Patents litigation-data record with unverified parties, year, and status. If it is a genuine 2026 filing, it is the only post-2025 assertion-timeline signal on this patent.
7. Hisense: E.D. Tex. 2:22‑cv‑00228 vs. N.D. Ga. 1:22‑cv‑04371 — likely the same dispute across two dockets, but the relationship/transfer is still unverified.

Bottom line: US 11,096,056 is a Flexiworld continuation patent (App. 16/557,593, filed 2019‑08‑30, issued 2021‑08‑17, 2000‑11‑01 priority) naming Chang and Liu, owned throughout by Flexiworld Technologies, Inc., directed to wirelessly-networked output devices. It has been asserted in several district court cases, has no PTAB record and no CAFC 2026 docket, and — as of the sources retrieved — no judicial construction of any claim.

I'll run targeted searches for litigation involving this specific patent number. Let me start with several parallel queries.

Let me dig into the specific cases and check for the most recent filings.

Let me verify which cases actually asserted this patent and check the recent dockets.

I ran out of search steps before I could finish verifying every docket line-by-line against PACER/Unified Patents directly. Here is what the searches returned, with confidence levels and conflicts flagged.

---

Litigation involving US 11,096,056

Bottom line: Yes — this patent has been asserted in multiple U.S. district court suits, all brought by Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. No case has produced a claim construction, validity ruling, or damages award; every case I could trace resolved by settlement or stipulated dismissal. No PTAB inter partes review of this patent and no Federal Circuit appeal were found.

---

A. Cases confirmed to assert US 11,096,056

---

B. Docket entries from the authoritative patent record that I could NOT tie to a specific case

The Google Patents litigation panel for US 11,096,056 itself lists these additional dockets. I could not retrieve party names, patent lists, or outcomes for them:

• E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00229 — a "26" filing series. If that maps to a 2026 filing this would be a currently pending case; I could not confirm the filing year, parties, or status. Treat as unverified.
• E.D. Ky. 5:22-cv-00107 — almost certainly Flexiworld v. Lexmark (the First Amended Complaint PDF at that case number is captioned "Flexiworld v. Lexmark"). The FAC excerpts I retrieved plead US 10,037,178 ('178), US 10,768,871 ('871), and US 10,841,798 ('798). I could not confirm whether 11096056 was also asserted in this case.
• E.D. Ky. 5:22-cv-00097 — companion E.D. Ky. action; parties and patent list not retrieved.
• Darts-ip "first worldwide family litigation filed" entry for family 22998933 (family-level, not patent-specific).

---

C. Related Flexiworld cases that do NOT appear to involve 11096056

Flagging these because they are frequently conflated with the above:

• Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. & LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. — E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00960, filed Sep 18, 2025, Judge Rodney Gilstrap, status Open. The complaint asserts six patents: US 9,042,811; 9,836,259; 9,965,233; 10,140,072; 10,162,596; and 10,037,178. US 11,096,056 is not among them per the complaint analysis I retrieved. Accused products: LG smart TVs, soundbars, TV remotes, and the LG ThinQ app. Claims asserted include claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 7–11 of the '178 patent, and claims 37–39 of the '233 patent.
• Roku, Inc. v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. (PTAB) — filed Apr 9, 2021, trial instituted; Law360 headline (Oct 24, 2022) reports the PTAB "largely invalidated claims in a wireless communications patent" that was at the center of the W.D. Tex. Roku/Amazon litigation. Because the petition was filed April 9, 2021 — before 11096056 issued on Aug 17, 2021 — this IPR cannot be against 11096056. It is almost certainly against a sibling patent. Do not attribute the PTAB outcome to this patent.

---

D. Conflicts and caveats you should know before relying on this

1. Case-count conflict. The Stanford NPE Litigation Database (npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/11096056) lists only two cases for this patent: Hisense (2:22-cv-00228, E.D. Tex.) and Brother (2:22-cv-02250, W.D. Tenn.). The Google Patents litigation panel and other litigation-intelligence sources show six-plus dockets. The NPE database appears incomplete/outdated rather than the others being wrong — but I cannot prove which set is exhaustive.
2. Hisense: two case numbers, one dispute? The patent record and the Stanford database put Hisense in E.D. Tex. 2:22-cv-00228 (filed Jun 24, 2022); PatSnap analyses the Hisense settlement under N.D. Ga. 1:22-cv-04371 (Judge Grimberg). These are likely the same dispute filed in Texas and litigated/transferred in Georgia, but I could not verify the transfer or the relationship. This is a genuine open question.
3. "Filed 2021" for Roku 6:21-cv-00882. The patent issued 2021-08-17, so the case must have been filed after that date despite the 2021 docket series; I could not retrieve the exact filing date.
4. Date discrepancy in the task framing. The task states "Current Date: April 26, 2026," while my session context says 2026-09-15. I did not find any 2026 docket activity on this patent other than the raw 2:26-cv-00229 entry, so this discrepancy does not change the substance above, but it affects how you should date-check the "current status" column.
5. No appellate activity found. I found no CAFC appeal involving US 11,096,056. This is absence of evidence: I could not query PACER's appellate docket or the CAFC docket directly within this session. Given the number of 2022–2024 district court dispositions, a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal would not itself be appealable, which is consistent with no CAFC record.
6. I did not successfully reach portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist or unifiedpatents.com/patents/11096056 directly — my searches were cut off by the step limit. The Google Patents litigation entries I quoted (including the Unified Patents-sourced links) are the closest proxy I obtained.
7. Enforceability timing. Consistent with the earlier section of this analysis, the patent's status is reported as "Expired – Fee Related" (Google Patents authoritative text) versus "Expired – Lifetime" (other Google-derived listing). Every assertion above occurred before that expiration; if the fee lapse is confirmed, none of these cases can be revived regardless of outcome.

---

E. Net assessment

US 11,096,056 was asserted by Flexiworld against Roku, Brother, Hisense (11 entities), Sony, and Xerox, in W.D. Tex., W.D. Tenn., E.D. Tex., N.D. Ga., and W.D.N.Y., plus at least two E.D. Ky. actions and one unresolved 2026-series E.D. Tex. docket. The consistent pattern is early settlement or stipulated dismissal before claim construction. There is no judicial construction of any claim of this patent, no validity holding, and no damages award. Its scope is judicially untested, its file history (including the partly-retrieved claim 1) is the only interpretive guidance available, and its fee/expiration status should be confirmed against USPTO Patent Center before treating it as a live assertion target.

I'll start from the canonical structured block (no AIA trials on file) and then stress-test that with targeted searches.

The search results show PTAB activity on Flexiworld sibling patents, but I need to confirm whether any proceeding targets 11,096,056 specifically. Let me check directly.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 11,096,056: 0. There is nothing to break down by status — no institution, no Final Written Decision, no settlement, no denial exists, because no petition has ever been filed against this patent at the PTAB. Bottom-line defensive posture: the patent is not "hardened," it is untested — and that cuts both ways. No claim of the '056 patent has ever been canceled, so a demand letter citing claims 1–14(ish) is not sanction-bait; but equally, no claim has ever been construed or invalidated in an AIA trial, so you get none of the benefit of § 315(e)(2) estoppel against a future petitioner and none of the free claim-construction record an FWD would have handed you.

Source basis for the zero count

Search caveat (stated plainly): I could not query PTAB E2E / PTAB API directly in this session; the zero count rests on the canonical ODP block plus corroborating secondary sources. If a petition were filed in the last ingest cycle it would not yet appear. Treat the count as authoritative-but-verify before relying on it in a filing.

---

No proceedings to enumerate for US 11,096,056

Per the required output format, the "most-impactful-first" ordering is vacuous here. I am not going to invent docket numbers or attribute sibling-patent outcomes to this patent.

Family-adjacent PTAB activity (⚠️ NOT proceedings on 11,096,056)

This is the material a defendant actually needs, because it is the closest thing to a validity test this patent family has ever received. None of the outcomes below cancel, narrow, or interpret any claim of US 11,096,056.

IPR2021-00714 — Roku, Inc. v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Patent: US 8,989,064 B2 — a sibling in the same Flexiworld wireless-output-controller family (output controller wire-connectable to output devices such as televisions)
• Filed: 2021-04-09 · Institution: 2021-10-22 (grant)
• FWD: 2022-10-21
• Judge panel: Terrence W. McMillin, Christopher L. Ogden, Brent M. Dougal (Dougal authored). Note: some aggregator records (Patexia) also list Bryan F. Moore; the FWD caption itself names the three-judge panel above.
• Verdict at claim level: claims 1–10, 12, and 14 unpatentable; claims 15–20 not shown unpatentable. Verbatim: "we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–10, 12, and 14 are unpatentable. We also determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 15–20 are unpatentable."
• Defensive value for you: this is the best free invalidity roadmap in the portfolio. The art and reasoning that killed 13 claims of the '064 patent are public and, because you were not a party, § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not reach you — you may raise the same or better grounds against '056.
• Source: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2021-00714/Roku_Inc._v._Flexiworld_Technologies_Inc/docs/10-21-2022-Board/Final_Written_Decision__original-35-Final_Written_Decision__original.pdf · https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Roku-Inc-v-Flexiworld-Technologies-Inc-id-[151681](/patent/151681)

IPR2022-00775 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Patent: US 9,836,257 B2 (claims 27 and 28 challenged) — sibling
• Filed: 2022-04-08 · Instituted: 2022-11-08 on all challenged claims
• FWD: 2023-11-01 (Paper 41) — "Final Written Decision Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable; Dismissing Patent Owner's Revised Motion to Amend" under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
• Judge panel: Terrence W. McMillin, Christopher L. Ogden, Brent M. Dougal
• Grounds: § 103(a) (pre-AIA), two grounds — Olgaard (US 7,849,198) + Moghadam (US 5,917,542); and Acharya (US 2002/0080091) + Griffiths (US 7,136,999). PTAB applied pre-AIA § 103(a) because effective priority pre-dates the 2013-03-16 AIA transition.
• Holding that matters: Unified lost on priority, not on merits of the art. The panel credited Flexiworld's sworn-behind showing — drafts of the provisional with file metadata last modified 2000-10-22, corroborating conception before Olgaard's 2000-10-24 § 102(e) date and Acharya's 2000-12-22 date. The panel called the metadata "the most reliable indicator of the latest date each draft was completed" and held metadata originating with the inventor can still corroborate.
• Appeal: no Federal Circuit appeal found by me in the sources searched.
• Defensive value for you: this is the single most important datum about the '056 patent's validity risk. US 11,096,056 carries the same 2000-11-01 family priority and therefore also lives under pre-AIA §§ 102/103. Any § 102(e)/§ 102(a) reference dated after roughly October 22, 2000 is exposed to a swear-behind attack on this family — and Flexiworld has demonstrated it will litigate that issue with inventor declarations and file metadata, and has won it once.
• Sources: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00775/Unified_Patents_LLC_v._Flexiworld_Technologies_Inc/ · https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2022-00775 · https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2022/11/10/flexiworld-wireless-communications-patent-likely-invalid · https://www.ptablitigationblog.com/conception-and-reduction-to-practice-dates-matter/

IPR2023-00846 — Lexmark International, Inc. v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review · Patent: US 9,965,233 (sibling)
• Filed: 2023-04-28 · Institution decision: 2023-11-14 · Terminated: 2024-01-26, status "Terminated-Settled"
• Defensive value: confirms Flexiworld's willingness to settle PTAB trials on the eve of trial rather than litigate to FWD. Settlement has no estoppel and no precedential effect for you.
• Source: https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2023-00846

Other PTAB references I could not fully verify

• IPR2021-00713 and IPR2021-00715 — listed as related Roku-filed IPRs in the '064 FWD's "Related Matters" section. Patent numbers, institution outcomes, and dispositions not confirmed by me.
• IPR2022-01267 — Roku, Inc. v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc., filed 2022-07-29; surfaced in a Docket Alarm index filtered to US 9,836,257. Whether it targets the '257 patent, and its outcome, is unconfirmed.

---

Strategic summary

Canceled vs. sustained vs. untested. For US 11,096,056: every claim is UNTESTED. Nothing is canceled; nothing is sustained. The only Flexiworld claims ever canceled at the PTAB were claims 1–10, 12, and 14 of US 8,989,064 (IPR2021-00714). The only Flexiworld claims ever affirmatively upheld were claims 27 and 28 of US 9,836,257 (IPR2022-00775) — and those survived on an antedating/priority technicality, not on the panel's assessment of the art. A defendant should read that win as narrow: it is a § 102(e) date problem, and it is curable by picking art with earlier effective dates or by attacking the conception/diligence record.

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches only to a petitioner, its real parties in interest, and privies, and only as to grounds raised or reasonably raisable in that proceeding. Because no IPR has ever been filed on '056, there is no estoppel bar of any kind on '056 grounds — you have the full pre-AIA § 102/§ 103 toolbox, plus § 112, available at the PTAB and in district court. The inverse is also true and is the trap: Unified Patents, Roku, and Lexmark are not your privies, so their proceedings do not bar you — but if you retain one of those petitioners or a defensive aggregator with overlapping membership interests, RPI/privy arguments (cf. Applications in Internet Time and General Plastic) become a live risk on your own petition. On the family members that were petitioned, Unified/Roku/Lexmark face § 315(e)(2) estoppel as to grounds they raised or reasonably could have raised — which is why the '056 patent is the more attractive target for a fresh petitioner.

Pattern signals. (1) Same petitioner repeated: Unified Patents filed on US 9,836,257; Roku filed at least three IPRs (IPR2021-00713/-00714/-00715, plus possibly IPR2022-01267) against Flexiworld; Lexmark filed on US 9,965,233. Defensive aggregators are in the chain — Unified is the notable one — but neither Unified nor Roku ever petitioned on '056, even though '056 was in suit against Hisense (N.D. Ga. 1:22-cv-04371, E.D. Tex. 2:22-cv-00228), Brother (W.D. Tenn. 2:22-cv-02250), Xerox (W.D.N.Y. 6:23-cv-06372), and Sony (E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00616). (2) Flexiworld defends aggressively at the PTAB with a stable counsel team (Nelson Bumgardner; Brent Bumgardner, Charles Ginnings, T. William Kennedy) and a demonstrated playbook: inventor conception declarations + contemporaneous file metadata + contingent motions to amend. (3) The '056 patent never reached a merits ruling anywhere — every assertion ended in settlement or stipulated dismissal (Hisense: settled pre-claim-construction; Xerox: dismissed with prejudice 2024-05-21; Sony: dismissed with prejudice 2025-05-29).

The institutional backdrop matters as much as the record. The zero-IPR history is not just an artifact of the art; it is also an artifact of timing. Per Unified's Q1 2026 dispute report, PTAB filings hit a historic low of 131 petitions in Q1 2026 (IPR down 66.3% YoY), pending petitions hit a 12-year low of 815 in March 2026, and the institution rate against NPEs was 24.6% versus 40.5% against operating companies. Filing an IPR against Flexiworld today is a materially worse bet than it was in 2022. (https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2026/4/14/patent-dispute-report-q1-2026)

---

Recommended next steps

1. Do not cite a PTAB record for US 11,096,056 — there isn't one. If you need it in writing, re-verify against PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and the PTAB API before filing, since my zero count rests on the ODP ingest plus secondary sources rather than a direct docket query.
2. Check the expiration/fee status first, before spending a dollar on an IPR. The authoritative patent text for this patent states legal status "Expired – Fee Related," while another Google-derived listing says "Expired – Lifetime" — an unresolved conflict carried forward from the bibliographic section of this analysis. If the patent has in fact lapsed for non-payment, an IPR is largely a waste of money; the better play is a Rule 12(b)(6)/summary-judgment preclusion argument that no post-lapse damages are recoverable, plus a check on whether Flexiworld has petitioned for revival or has live continuations (Google records a priority claim to US 17/171,687, pub. US 2021/0165632 A1). Confirm against USPTO Patent Center / Fee Record before relying on either status string.
3. Mine the IPR2021-00714 FWD as your invalidity blueprint. The grounds that canceled claims 1–10, 12, and 14 of US 8,989,064 target the same specification family and the same "discover an output controller over 802.11, send output data, controller processes it for the output device" architecture recited in '056 claim 1. Because you are not a privy of Roku, those grounds are available to you free of estoppel.
4. Audit your art dates against the 2000-10-22 conception line. Given IPR2022-00775, any reference whose § 102(e)/§ 102(a) date falls between 2000-10-22 and the '056 patent's own effective filing is contestable — Flexiworld has already won that fight once with metadata corroboration. Prefer art with a pre-2000-10-22 date, printed publications with independent provenance, or public-use/sale evidence that cannot be sworn behind. Caveat: the PTAB's swear-behind finding was claim-specific to claims 27–28 of the '257 patent; it does not bind a future panel and does not automatically transfer to '056's claims. Treat it as a risk factor, not a holding.
5. For a pending demand: the defensive posture is "untested but litigation-hardened." Flexiworld has never been forced to a claim-construction ruling or an FWD on '056. Your leverage is not an IPR — it is (a) the fee/expiration question, (b) the '064 invalidity record as a settlement forcing function, and (c) the fact that three prior defendants extracted walk-away dismissals without any merits ruling, which suggests Flexiworld prices settlement above trial risk on this family.
6. If you do file, know the clocks. PTAB has a statutory deadline of one year from institution to FWD (§ 316(a)(11)), extendable up to six months for good cause. The relevant near-term milestones for any new petition are the § 314(b) institution-decision deadline (six months from the petition's filing date absent joinder) and the § 315(b) one-year bar measured from service of an infringement complaint. If the E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00229 entry in the Google Patents litigation data is in fact a 2026 case against you or a co-defendant, the § 315(b) clock is already running and should be diarized — I could not confirm its parties, filing year, or status.
7. No CAFC exposure to monitor. Consistent with the earlier section of this analysis, I found no Federal Circuit appeal involving US 11,096,056, and correspondingly no FWD on '056 to appeal. There is nothing on the CAFC docket or CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/) for a client to keep watching on this patent.

---

Explicit uncertainties (do not paper over these)

• The zero count is sourced from ODP + secondary databases, not a direct PTAB E2E/PACER query. Ingest lag is the main failure mode.
• I could not independently confirm the patent numbers, panels, or outcomes for IPR2021-00713, IPR2021-00715, or IPR2022-01267; they are named only as "related matters" in Flexiworld family proceedings.
• The 2:26-cv-00229 E.D. Tex. entry remains a raw litigation-data record with unconfirmed parties/status.
• No contradiction between the canonical "no AIA proceedings" block and my searches — both say zero for '056. The only real trap is aggregation error: several databases return family results when you search this patent number, which is exactly how a sibling's IPR gets misattributed to '056.

I'll research the assignment record for this patent across the sources available to me.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 11,096,056 B2

Retrieval limitation, stated up front: the tools available to me in this session return indexed web pages, not live queries against the USPTO Assignment Center's search backend. I could not execute the patent-number query against https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ or https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html directly. Consequently I could not capture the reel/frame, execution date, or correspondent of record for US 11,096,056 itself. Everything below is drawn from the patent record's own legal-events table (as supplied to me), Flexiworld's own pleadings and answers in the litigations where reel/frame data is pleaded on the record, and secondary sources. Where I lack data I say so rather than filling the gap — no reel/frame below is attributed to the '056 patent on my authority.

---

Inventors

Prior employment context for Chang (relevant to conception, not ownership): Sharp Laboratories (Inventor of the Year, 1999); Amiable Technologies (chief architect, later NASDAQ-acquired); Intergraph Corp. (source: Flexiworld executive bio, https://www.flexiworld.com/about-us/executive-bio/).

Unusual-pattern check — no fire-sale tell: the classic precursor pattern (all inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing) is absent. Both inventors are the assignee's principals — Chang is the company's founder/president and remains so. There is no inventor-to-employer divergence, no orphaned inventorship, and no indication either inventor left before or after filing. The inventor→company transfer here is the ordinary founder-driven model, not an employee-assignment that could later be challenged for chain-of-title defects.

---

Original assignee

Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. — named as assignee on the face of US 11,096,056 (Vancouver, WA; the company was founded in Portland, OR in 2001 and later relocated to Vancouver, WA per Voicebot.ai's coverage of Flexiworld v. Amazon, https://voicebot.ai/2020/06/25/amazon-sued-for-patent-infringement-by-flexiworld-technologies-for-echo-smart-speakers-earbuds-and-more/).

• Primary line of business: software for wireless/mobile output — mobile device applications including remote and wireless printing, wireless display, and streaming. Flexiworld markets itself as a software engineering house that "negotiated and created new products for major mobile phone companies and wireless carriers worldwide" (executive bio).
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? No commercial product embodying the '056 claims could be identified. Flexiworld's own materials describe software offerings and partnerships rather than shipping consumer hardware or a shipping software product that practices the claimed wireless-output-device arrangement. Its principal activity since roughly 2020 has been patent assertion. Stanford's NPE Litigation Database classifies Flexiworld as asserter category "3 — Failed startup" (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/party/flexiworld-technologies-inc-0), and Unified Patents describes it flatly as "Flexiworld Technologies, Inc., an NPE" (https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2025/5/27/flexiworld-data-mining-patent-challenged).
• Current status: operating, but as an assertion/monetization vehicle rather than a product company — not dissolved, not acquired, and I found no bankruptcy filing or SEC registrant record (Flexiworld is private; no 10-K/8-K exists to cross-reference, so the task's SEC-filing cross-reference is not available for this entity).
• Name variance to flag: some records render the assignee as "Flexiworld Technology, Inc. (Portland, OR)" (e.g., the assignee profile at patents-review.com and the printed assignee on US 7,944,577). Whether this reflects a genuine change-of-name recordation or merely inconsistent USPTO data entry is something I could not verify. It is not in the Google Patents legal-events list for the '056 application. Treat as unclear.
• Partial divestiture of family members (not '056): a Samsung agreement conveyed a defined set of the family's assets — the '541 patent, the '958 application, and two continuation applications. In Flexiworld v. Roku the court rejected Roku's argument that this clause swept in additional patents, holding that "the '064 and '066 patents are not assigned to Samsung" (https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[10214095](/patent/10214095)/flexiworld-technologies-inc-v-roku-inc/). This is a chain-of-title diligence item for the family generally, and it is why Roku raised standing; it does not, on the record I retrieved, remove '056 from Flexiworld.

---

Assignment timeline

The Google Patents legal-events table for US 11,096,056 (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11096056B2](/patent/US11096056B2)/en) discloses exactly one recorded assignment touching this patent:

• Executed 2021-08-23 (recording date 2021-08-23; execution date not separately shown in my source) — Reel not retrievable in this session
  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: CHANG, WILLIAM HO; LIU, CHRISTINA YING
  • Assignee: FLEXIWORLD TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Vancouver, WA
  • Correspondent: not retrievable — the Google Patents event line does not expose correspondent-of-record, and I could not reach the Assignment Center record to read it. I am not substituting a name here.
  • Context: confirmatory inventor→company assignment, executed six days after grant (issue date 2021-08-17). This is the classic "stand-down / clean up the face of the record" recording that asserters file to establish standing before an assertion wave — here, ahead of the 2022 E.D. Tex. filings.

No post-issuance transfer out of Flexiworld is recorded. No security agreement, no merger, no license recordation, no release, no correction appears in the legal-events table. Flexiworld remained the owner of record as of its most recent assertions, and its complaints plead ownership by Flexiworld for the asserted family members (see the reels below).

Reel/frame data points from the Family (pleaded in litigation — NOT '056): Flexiworld's complaints and defendants' answers recite the Chang/Liu→Flexiworld reel/frame for sibling patents:

The family's inventor→company recordings therefore cluster in the 028xxx (2013) → 04xxxxx (2018–2019) reel series, with the later ones being confirmatory re-recordings of the same two assignors. US 11,096,056's own reel should fall in one of these or a later (05xxxx–06xxxx, 2021) series, but I did not confirm which — and I will not guess.

If the Assignment Center returns no additional records beyond the 2021-08-23 entry, that is itself the finding: this patent has never left Flexiworld's hands, so there is no shell-entity chain to reconstruct. That result is confirmed by the litigation record, where Flexiworld repeatedly pleads itself as "the owner and assignee of all rights, title, and interest" in the family.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11096056
    2000 : Conception and first priority
    2001 : Earliest family filing
    2010 : Partial family sale to Samsung
    2019 : Application 16557593 filed
         : Published as US 20190384547
    2021 : Patent granted 20210817
         : Inventors assign to Flexiworld 20210823
         : Suit against Roku filed 20210727
    2022 : Suits against Hisense Epson Brother
    2023 : Samsung scope dispute decided in Roku case
    2025 : Suits against Sony and LG Electronics

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. There is no licensing-only LLC anywhere in this chain. The 2021-08-23 recording runs inventor→operating company, and Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. is both the original assignee on the face of the patent and the current assignee of record. No "IP / Holdings / Ventures / Licensing" suffix entity, no registered-agent address, no single-member LLC. Caveat that matters analytically: the absence of a shell transfer means the usual anonymization tells are unavailable — Flexiworld asserts in its own name, which is why it is easy to identify and easy for Unified to challenge.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT (strong). Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. appears on two independent asserter trackers: Unified Patents' own reporting calls it "an NPE" (https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2025/5/27/flexiworld-data-mining-patent-challenged), and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists it as a patent asserter, including under category "3 — Failed startup" (E.D. Tex. 2:22-cv-00225 and 2:22-cv-00228; W.D. Tenn. 2:22-cv-02250) and category "1 — Acquired patents" (N.D. Ga. 1:22-cv-04338). Note it does not match Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi-LAN/Conversant, Round Rock, Pendrell, or any Spangenberg entity — it is a direct, single-portfolio asserter, not a patent-aggregator. Targeting set: Amazon, Roku, Epson, Hisense, Sony, Brother, LG Electronics — none of which is a competitor from whom Flexiworld ever sold a product.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / NOT ESTABLISHED. I could not retrieve the correspondent of record for the 2021-08-23 recordation, nor for any family reel, so the core signal cannot be tested. Explicitly separating two things that are easy to conflate: Flexiworld's litigation and PTAB counsel recurs — Nelson Bumgardner Albritton P.C. (Brent Bumgardner, Charles Ginnings, T. William Kennedy) per Patexia's reporting on IPR2022-00775 (https://patexia.com/feed/ptab-upholds-flexiworld-s-wireless-content-transfer-patent-after-challenge-by-unified-patents-20231103). But litigation counsel is not the assignment correspondent, and the prompt's signal is specifically about the attorney who records the assignments. Single-appearance and litigation-counsel appearances are not findings. Recommend the Assignment Center correspondent field be read directly before this signal is scored.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. Only one recorded event touches this patent, and there is no chain of successive LLCs, no shared-correspondent address pattern, and no <24-month cascade. The title history is a straight line from two founder-inventors to one company.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT (and the timing actually argues the other way). The single recorded assignment is dated 2021-08-23, which is after the Amazon suit (2020) and after the Roku suit (W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00767, filed 2021-07-27), so it is not a venue- or standing-engineering transfer timed ahead of a first suit. It does sit roughly five-to-six months before the 2022 E.D. Tex./W.D. Tenn. wave (2:22-cv-00228 etc.), which is consistent with routine standing cleanup preceding an assertion campaign, but that reading is inferential and I am not scoring it as present.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding involving Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. was identified. No Kodak/Nortel/Polaroid-style portfolio auction touches this chain. (Note the Stanford "Failed startup" tag is a classifier label, not evidence of a bankruptcy — I am not treating it as one.)

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. No operating company is using Flexiworld as an off-book assertion proxy. The transaction that does touch the family runs the opposite direction: Flexiworld sold specified assets to an operating company (Samsung), and then litigated the scope of that sale in Flexiworld v. Roku — a deal-scope dispute, not a privateering arrangement.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN. The inverse is in fact observed and is worth recording: Unified Patents is adverse to Flexiworld, not a successor to it — IPR2022-00775 against US 9,836,257 (claims 27–28 upheld, PTAB Paper 41, 2023-11-01) and an ex parte reexamination against RE48,066 filed 2025-05-23. The patent has not been neutralized.

---

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

US 11,096,056 has never been commercially practiced by anyone in its chain of title, yet it has been asserted against at least seven consumer-electronics defendants (Amazon, Roku, Epson, Hisense, Sony, Brother, LG Electronics) by Flexiworld Technologies, Inc., which Unified Patents identifies as "an NPE" and which the Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists as a "Failed startup" patent asserter. The assignment chain itself is clean and short — a single confirmatory inventor-to-company recording on 2021-08-23, six days after the 2021-08-17 grant, with Chang and Liu as assignors and no subsequent transfer — so the NPE conclusion rests on the asserter signal plus the absence of any product embodying the claims, not on a shell-entity transfer, which is affirmatively not present here.

Honest calibration, in the interest of not over-claiming: if the rubric is applied strictly to the enumerated assignment-chain signals only, this drops to NPE — moderate confidence, because only signal 2 is provably present (signals 1, 4, 6, 7, 8 are absent; 3 and 5 are unresolvable on the data I retrieved). The high-confidence call derives from the two independent external NPE classifications, which is evidence of a different kind than a reel/frame.

Recommended verification before relying on the reel/frame-sensitive findings (template, signals 3 and 5): query the patent number 11,096,056 and, for the family, the assignor names CHANG, WILLIAM HO and LIU, CHRISTINA YING, at the USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search also available via https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). Capture, for the 2021-08-23 recordation: reel/frame, execution date, and correspondent of record — the one field that would convert signal 3 from unclear to scored.

---

Uncertainties and conflicts carried forward

1. No reel/frame for '056. Not fabricated, not inferred from sibling patents. The sibling reels in §"Assignment timeline" are pleaded in litigation for other patents and must not be attributed to '056.
2. Correspondent of record unretrieved for every Flexiworld reel I saw. Signal 3 is therefore unscored, not negative.
3. Name variance "Flexiworld Technology, Inc. (Portland, OR)" vs. "Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. (Vancouver, WA)" — possible unrecognized change-of-name recordation. Unverified.
4. Consistent with the earlier summary's flag: the legal-status conflict ("Expired – Fee Related" per the authoritative text vs. "Expired – Lifetime" per another Google-derived listing) remains unresolved, and matters here because a fee-lapsed patent is a poor assertion target regardless of the chain — confirm against USPTO Patent Center / maintenance-fee records before treating '056 as live.
5. The E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00229 entry in the Google Patents litigation data remains an unverified raw record (parties, year, status unknown); if it is a 2026 filing, it post-dates my last confirmed ownership data point but does not change the assignee.
6. New data point since the prior section: a September 2025 E.D. Tex. action against LG Electronics and LG Electronics USA asserting six patents over wireless connection/streaming and naming LG smart TVs, soundbars, remotes and the ThinQ app (reported by Korea's IP-NAVI dispute tracker). I could not confirm whether '056 is among the six patents — do not assume it is.

I'll search for the citation records for this exact patent number.

Let me try to retrieve the specific citation lists from alternative sources.

The generic searches return only the patent's own page. Let me target citation databases directly.

Bottom line up front

I could not retrieve the actual "References Cited" list for US 11,096,056, and I will not invent one. My search budget was exhausted after five queries, and every query that targeted the patent's citation record returned only the patent's own Google Patents landing page (https://patents.google.com/patent/US11096056B2/en), whose returned snippet contained only CPC term-frequency metadata ("communication Effects 0.000 claims abstract description 149", "method — 0.000 claims description 201", etc.) — not the patent-document citation table.

Two searches did surface adjacent data that I want to be precise about rather than dress up as a citation list.

---

1. What the searches actually returned

Note that the third and fifth results confirm the risk the task warns about: adjacent numbers (11,446,056; US 12,619,560; US 2016/0252505) surface in the same result sets and are not this patent.

---

2. The one partial lead — and why it is not the references-cited list

The strongest hit was:

https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-6389010-B1#2

The snippet is headed with the text "US-11096056-B2" and then lists a block of documents, including:

• US 8,332,521 B2 — "Internet-pad specification… wireless communication unit for wireless connectivity… operating system supporting application programming interface (API)"
• US 7,219,843 B2 (2002-06-03) — "Optical reader having a plurality of imaging modules"
• US 9,729,251 B2 (2012-07-30) — "Cooling system control in distributed antenna systems"
• US 10,256,879 B2 (2014-07-29) — distributed antenna systems, MIMO
• US 8,521,142 B2 (2000-08-22), Novatel Wireless — "Method and apparatus for distributed data transfer over multiple independent wireless networks"
• US 9,813,127 B2 (2012-03-29); US 9,514,855 B2 (2014-09-24); US 9,653,861 B2 (2014-09-16); US 9,684,060 B2 (2012-05-28) — all distributed-antenna-system/Corning art
• US 8,517,269 B2 (2010-11-08) — "Using a user's application to configure user scanner"
• US 8,561,903 B2 (2011-01-30) — "System operative to adaptively select an image sensor for decodable indicia reading"
• US 7,543,747 B2 (2001-05-14) — "Image capture apparatus and method"
• US 7,463,507 B2; US 8,196,832 B2; US 8,238,264 B2; US 7,920,553 B2 — the Symbol Technologies "hierarchical data collection network" family
• US 2006/0007922 A1 (1998-10-28), Pineapple34 LLC — "Mobile wireless internet portable radio"
• EP 1,532,822 A1 (2002-08-27), Symbol Technologies LLC — "Personal area networks"
• US 10,359,957 B2 — "Integrated circuit device that includes a secure element and a wireless component…"
• US 10,951,742 B1 (2010-02-26), Boadin Tech LLC

Critical caveat — this is not US 11,096,056's "References Cited." The page is keyed to US 6,389,010 B1, not to US 11,096,056, and the block contains a large volume of art dated 2010–2014 — i.e., art that postdates US 11,096,056's 2000-11-01 priority by a decade. Art filed in 2012 or 2014 cannot be § 102 anticipation art against a November 2000 priority claim. The presence of those entries means this block is a citation graph / co-citation listing (forward citations and family-adjacent documents), not the examiner's backward "References Cited" section. I am reporting it as a lead on where US 11,096,056 sits in the citation network, not as its prior-art list.

I therefore have zero verified entries for the citation table requested.

---

3. One piece of confirmed litigation data (relevant to art-of-record questions)

A PatentPia litigation table independently confirms E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00616, Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Sony Corporation, filed 2023-12-19, with US 11,096,056 among 15 asserted patents (alongside 10,037,178 / 10,140,073 / 10,387,087 / 10,489,096 / 10,642,576 / 10,768,871 / 10,846,031 / 10,866,773 / 11,029,903 / 7,609,402 / 9,042,811 / 9,836,257 / 9,836,259 / 9,965,233). URL: goldencompass.patentpia.com/en/report/result/US/EN/EN/CRH-TECHCATE/...

This corroborates the prior section's litigation posture. It does not give me prior art.

---

4. What the case file does constrain, and the § 102 framework to apply

Even without the list, the operative facts for a § 102 analysis are fixed by what I already have:

Governing law is pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102. US 16/557,593 was filed 2019-08-30 but claims benefit back to 2000-11-01. Because the effective filing date precedes 2013-03-16, pre-AIA § 102 governs. This matters for every candidate reference:

• § 102(b)/(a) — a printed publication, patent, or public use before 2000-11-01 (and >1 year before the actual 2001-11-01-ish intervening filings) is the cleanest anticipation art.
• § 102(e) — a U.S. patent/publication is prior art as of its filing date, so post-2000-issued patents may still qualify if their effective U.S. filing predates 2000-11-01.
• Any 2010–2014-dated item (i.e., most of the Unified Patents block in §2) can be § 102(e) art only if its own filing date predates the critical date — which, for the Corning/DAS entries, it plainly does not.

Anticipation must be element-by-element against claim 1's chain. Recall from the prior section that claim 1 is an output-device-side apparatus claim covering at least one of: television; external output controller wire-connectable to a television; display device; projector; audio output device; printing device; speaker. A reference anticipates under § 102 only if it discloses all of:

The practical consequence: element (iv) + element (vi) + element (v) together are the narrowest part of claim 1. Any anticipation theory will hinge on whether a single reference discloses (1) device-initiated WLAN association, (2) device-side availability advertisement/discovery by a co-located mobile device, and (3) device-dependent attribute transmission, all under an 802.11-family protocol. Pre-2000 candidates in this space that a full citation pull should be checked against include the IEEE 802.11-1997 standard, the Bluetooth 1.0 specification (1999), HP JetSend (1997–1999), UPnP (1999), Jini (1998), and IETF IPP / RFC 2566 (1999) — these are the contemporaneous 1997–2000 disclosures that map onto limitations (ii), (iv), (v) and (vii). I am flagging these as candidates to evaluate against the art-of-record; I am not representing that any of them appears on the face of US 11,096,056.

---

5. How to obtain the authoritative list (the step I could not complete)

I have only a general web-search tool; I could not reach the USPTO full-text file wrapper, the Patent Center IFW, or Google Patents' Citations tab content in this session. The authoritative pull is:

1. USPTO Patent Center — https://patentcenter.uspto.gov → application 16/557,593 → Documents & Transactions → References Cited / PTO-892 (examiner-cited) and the IDS (PTO/SB/08) (applicant-cited). The PTO-892 is the § 102/§ 103 art of record.
2. Google Patents Citations tab — https://patents.google.com/patent/US11096056B2/en → Citations section (separates "Cited by" forward citations from the "Patent citations" backward list).
3. Espacenet — https://worldwide.espacenet.com → "Also published as / Cited documents / Citing documents."
4. USPTO Patent Public Search — https://ppubs.uspto.gov (or PatFT/AppFT legacy) → patent 11096056 → Referenced By and References Cited.
5. File-wrapper cross-check via family siblings — because US 11,096,056 is a continuation in the Flexiworld family (it claims priority to US 10/016,223 and US 09/992,413 per the record in my prior section), the same or substantially overlapping art-of-record typically appears in the earlier family members' PTO-892s. The siblings' lists are a reliable proxy and independently verifiable.

---

6. Contradictions and uncertainties to flag

1. No prior-art list obtained. This is the central failure of this task. § 2's Unified Patents block is a citation graph keyed to US 6,389,010 B1, not US 11,096,056's references-cited section, and it contains 2010–2014 art that cannot be § 102 art against a 2000-11-01 priority. Do not use it as an anticipation list.
2. Claim set still incomplete. Consistent with the prior section, claim 1 is available only through element (vii), truncated. I cannot state the number of independent claims, and therefore cannot map references to "claim(s)" beyond claim 1. Any claim-by-claim § 102 chart is blocked until the full claim set is pulled.
3. A number-adjacency trap already fired. The Justia hit for 11,446,056 is a different patent (Corbin Clinical Resources, prostate biopsy devices). Excluded. Consistent with the strict "interpret IDs literally" rule.
4. Date inconsistency in my inputs. The system instruction says today is 2026-09-15; this task states 2026-04-26. I did not resolve which is operative.
5. Status conflict carried forward, unresolved: "Expired – Fee Related" (authoritative text provided) vs. "Expired – Lifetime" (other Google-derived listing). If the patent is in fact lapsed for fee non-payment, prior-art analysis is academic as to enforcement — worth confirming at Patent Center before spending effort on a § 102 chart.
6. No CAFC 2026 activity on this number was found in the prior pass either; that remains absence of evidence, not verified absence.

I am not supplying a fabricated citation table. Please confirm whether you can provide the PTO-892 / IDS contents or grant access to PPUBS/Patent Center output, and I will build the full element-by-element § 102 anticipation chart against claim 1 (and the remaining independent claims once retrieved).

I'll ground this analysis in actual prior-art records. Let me pull the cited references and candidate art.

Let me pull the cited prior art list and the key candidate references.

Now let me identify the specific prior-art references cited in the patent and the well-known art in this space.

Obviousness Analysis — US 11,096,056 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Prepared: April 26, 2026
Patent: US 11,096,056 B2 (Chang et al., Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.), App. 16/557,593, filed 2019‑08‑30, issued 2021‑08‑17, earliest asserted priority 2000‑11‑01.

---

0. Threshold caveats and corrections to the prior sections

Before the analysis, three things must be stated plainly, because they bound how much weight this opinion can carry.

(a) I still do not have the complete claim set. The previously generated summary correctly flagged this, and the situation is unchanged. I have only claim 1, partially truncated. Everything below analyzes claim 1 as retrieved. If this patent has other independent claims (e.g., a method claim, a "digital content service" claim, or an output-controller claim), they are unanalyzed and may be narrower or broader. Any § 103 conclusion about "the claims" of this patent is therefore provisional.

(b) Correction/confirmation on legal status. The prior section flagged a conflict between "Expired – Fee Related" (authoritative patent page text) and "Expired – Lifetime" (another Google-derived listing). My searches this session surfaced another independent Google-derived listing identifying US 16/557,593 as "Expired - Lifetime" (via the US 2010/0227550 citation table). So the conflict is now two-versus-one against the "Fee Related" label that appears in the authoritative text I was given. I still cannot resolve it, and I will not pick a winner. It matters because "Expired – Lifetime" would mean the full 20-year term ran out (consistent with Google's stated "Anticipated expiration: 2021-11-01"), whereas "Fee Related" implies an earlier lapse for non-payment and possible restorability. Neither status affects § 103 validity analysis, but both affect whether an invalidity opinion has any practical use.

(c) A substantive contradiction inside the patent that bears directly on obviousness. The title and abstract of US 11,096,056 emphasize the output device receiving digital content from a digital content service over the internet. But claim 1's element (vii), as retrieved, recites the output device wirelessly receiving intermediate output data from the mobile information apparatus over the 802.11-compatible link. Claim 1 as retrieved does not appear to recite receiving content from an internet service. If that reading holds, the claim is narrower than (and different from) the commercial story the title tells — which matters, because it means the § 103 attack should be aimed at the device‑side wireless output architecture, not at "smart TV streaming from the cloud."

(d) Source discipline. The task directs me to use the "Prior Art" section of the patent page. That section supplies: prior-art keywords (output, wireless, output device, controller, output controller), prior-art date 2000-11-01, and a "References Cited" list. I retrieved that cited-reference list only partially — the numeric run from US 3,629,493 (12/1971) through US 5,519,641 (05/1996) — before the source truncated. I did not obtain the post-1996 citations, which are the ones most likely to matter. I have not fabricated entries to fill that gap. Where I lack a bibliographic record, I say so and name the art class rather than inventing a reference number.

---

1. Governing law and framework

• Pre-AIA § 103 applies. The earliest asserted priority date is 2000-11-01, before the AIA's 2013-03-16 change. Prior art therefore includes pre-AIA § 102(a) (known or used by others, or patented/published before the invention), § 102(b) (more than one year before filing — i.e., any printed publication before 1999-11-01 for art dating to the 2000-11-01 priority), § 102(e) (US patents and published applications with earlier effective filing dates), and § 102(f)/(g). Pre-AIA § 103(c) common-ownership/assignment rules can disqualify certain § 102(e)/(f)/(g) art from use in a § 103 combination.
• Graham v. John Deere factors: scope and content of the prior art; differences between the prior art and the claims; level of ordinary skill; secondary considerations.
• KSR Int'l v. Teleflex (2007): a claim is obvious if the improvement is the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions, if there was a known problem with an obvious solution, or if the combination is "obvious to try" over a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.
• Reasonable expectation of success and articulated motivation are required; mere hindsight recombination of references is not sufficient.
• The patent's own Background is an admission. Section 1 of the specification (the "RIP in the information apparatus" vs. "RIP in the output device" discussion, and the driver-installation discussion) describes conventional systems in the applicant's own words. That material is usable as Applicant-Admitted Prior Art for what was known.

---

2. Level of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA)

For a 2000 priority date, PHOSITA is a person with a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent) and two to three years of experience in one or more of: network printing / output architectures, short-range wireless data communication, or embedded systems for appliances. Working knowledge of the IEEE 802.11 standard, Bluetooth, service discovery protocols, page description languages, and raster image processing is attributed to this person. This is a relatively high-skill, cross-disciplinary PHOSITA, which cuts in favor of obviousness: such a person would routinely combine a data-transport standard with a device-capability-negotiation protocol and a rasterizer split across two devices.

---

3. Priority-date vulnerability: the threshold § 103 issue

Claim 1 as retrieved recites limitations that may not be supported by a 2000-11-01 disclosure, most notably:

• downloading application software/components over the wireless LAN, and
• installing at the output device software that upgrades, updates, adds, or modifies the output device's features and capabilities, facilitated by the device's operating system software; and
• an IEEE 802.11 protocol-compatible link.

The chain is: App. 16/557,593 (2019-08-30) is a continuation-in-part of App. 16/229,896 (2018-12-21, now US 10,642,576), which traces back to the 2000/2001 family. A CIP means new matter was added. If claim 1's "self-installing, self-upgrading over the WLAN" limitations are only supported in the 2018/2019 specification, then under § 112 ¶ 1 those claims are entitled only to the 2019-08-30 filing date, and the prior-art window expands to include everything published between 2000-11-01 and 2019-08-30 — a nineteen-year span covering essentially the entire smartphone, Wi-Fi, app-store, and connected-TV era.

This is the single most consequential § 103 lever on this patent, and it is prior to any reference-combination question. I flag it as the first thing to establish, because:

• If priority is 2000-11-01, the attacker is limited to genuinely pre-2000 art (e.g., HP JetSend).
• If priority is 2019-08-30, the claim is very likely invalid over the intervening art in the same field, and the and-install-software-over-Wi-Fi-to-upgrade-a-TV limitation becomes trivially anticipated.

I cannot resolve the priority question without the 2000-vs-2018 specification comparison, which I have not performed. Stated as unknown.

Note also that under pre-AIA § 103(c), Flexiworld's own earlier family publications (Chang/Liu, same inventive entity) are not "by another" for § 102(e) purposes and are commonly owned, so they are not usable as § 103 art against themselves — a trap for careless analysis. The prior art must come from outside the family.

---

4. The strongest available prior art: HP JetSend

The most directly on-point art I verified this session is the Hewlett-Packard JetSend family. These are real references with citable numbers, and their substance maps almost element-for-element onto the patent's stated problem.

Why JetSend is powerful art here: it discloses, in the same field, the same core insight the patent claims — that an output device can receive device-independent content over a bidirectional transport, negotiate capabilities with the sending device, and render it without a device-specific driver. JetSend's "e-material" is expressly (i) format-negotiated, (ii) device-independent, (iii) not a file format, and (iv) rendered differently by a printer than by a PC or TV. That is the functional equivalent of the patent's "intermediate output data" concept. JetSend was also licensed to Lexmark (announced June 1998) and was pursued through IEEE, the Printer Working Group, and the IETF — evidence of the field's focus and of the predictability of the approach.

---

5. Element-by-element § 103 mapping for claim 1

Claim 1 elements as retrieved, mapped to the art:

Result: Elements (a), (c)–(vii) are individually and largely collectively disclosed by the JetSend references alone or in trivial combination with the IEEE 802.11 standard, SLP/UPnP/Bluetooth discovery, and the patent's own cited wireless-LAN reference (US 5,487,069). Only elements (b), (ii), and (iii) — the OS-facilitated download-and-install-at-the-device limitations — require a second body of art.

---

6. Proposed combination #1 (primary) — JetSend + networked-appliance software distribution

References: US 6,202,096 (or WO 98/47076 A1 / EP 0 976 058 B1) as primary; US 6,947,994 and EP 1 087 569 B1 as secondary teachings on negotiated, distributed image processing and on an appliance communications manager that renders content without a driver; plus a networked-appliance software distribution reference for the download/install limitations.

Motivation to combine (articulated):

1. Same field, same problem. Both JetSend and the patent address the identical problem the patent's Background states in its own words — eliminating the need to install "a plurality of device-dependent dedicated drivers or applications" so that "a user can simply walk up to an output device… and easily output a digital document." JetSend's stated design goal is exactly this. When two references address the same problem in the same field, the motivation is inherent.
2. JetSend itself invites the combination. JetSend is expressly transport-agnostic — the specification states it "enables communication between a broad range of appliances and data formats across any reliable, bi-directional transport medium (Internet, intranet, phone lines, infrared, etc.)." A PHOSITA seeking to add a wireless LAN transport would be following the reference's own instruction, not departing from it. KSR: substitution of one known transport for another, yielding predictable results.
3. Predictable, finite solution set. By 2000, the candidate wireless LAN transports were essentially IEEE 802.11 / 802.11b and Bluetooth. KSR's "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" rationale applies squarely.
4. Known technique, established function. Distributing and installing software/firmware to a remote networked appliance over a network connection was a known technique with a known, predictable benefit (updating capability without a service visit or media). Applying it to a JetSend-enabled appliance to extend its capabilities is the predictable use of a known technique for its established function.
5. Design incentive / customer demand. JetSend was being licensed (Lexmark, June 1998) and pushed toward standardization through IEEE, the Printer Working Group, and the IETF. A PHOSITA would have every reason to extend it to wireless and to enable field upgrades.

Reasonable expectation of success: High. Each element (transport, discovery, capability negotiation, driverless content transfer, remote software update) had been separately demonstrated by 2000. Combining them carried no identified technical barrier.

---

7. Proposed combination #2 (alternative) — the "ubiquitous computing / internet appliance" line

References (art class; identities not all verified this session): the family of appliance/discovery references cited on the face of US 11,096,056 and its siblings — e.g., US 5,485,634 (Weiser et al., 01/1996), US 5,487,069 (O'Sullivan et al., 01/1996, wireless LAN), US 5,519,641 (Beers et al., 05/1996) — combined with a driverless-output reference such as US 6,421,748 (Lin et al., "System and method for a universal output driver," 2002-07-16) and US 6,449,052 (Sherer et al., "Multi-purpose image generator for driving multiple output devices," 2002-09-10).

I am hedging deliberately on the exact subject matter of the 1971–1996 citations: I retrieved the numeric/assignee list but not the abstracts, and US 5,485,634 and US 5,487,069 in particular are titles I believe I know but did not re-verify this session. Do not quote these without confirming the front pages. What I can say confidently is that the patent's own cited-art corpus is dominated by pre-1996 printing and image-processing references, which tells you that the output-side rasterization elements (intermediate output data, halftoning, color conversion) were old by 2000 — consistent with the patent's own admission that it shares RIP operations rather than inventing them.

Motivation to combine: the general-purpose driverless-output art solves the same stated problem (one application driving multiple output devices without model-specific drivers); the discovery/ubiquitous-computing art supplies device availability announcement; the wireless-LAN art supplies the transport. The gap-filling logic is the same as Combination #1.

---

8. Anticipated patentee rebuttals, and why they are weak

---

9. Additional § 103-adjacent grounds worth flagging

1. Obviousness-type double patenting (ODP). Because this patent shares a 2000/2001 priority chain with a very large set of Flexiworld/Samsung-family patents (the citation tables I retrieved list US 10,371,? , US 10,108,394, US 10,041,? , US 10,282,? , US 10,410,? , US 10,768,871, US 10,915,296, US 10,873,856, and many more, all sharing the 2000-11-01 priority date), any claim of US 11,096,056 that is not patentably distinct from a family member lacking a terminal disclaimer is invalid for ODP. Given that the issuing claims here appear to be device-side restatements of the same discovery/negotiation/intermediate-output concept claimed elsewhere in the family, ODP is a high-yield ground. (Note: the earlier section's caution about the priority chain applies — verify which family member actually carries each claim's effective priority.)
2. The termination-date anomaly. Google lists "Anticipated expiration: 2021-11-01," i.e., twenty years from 2001-11-01, not from the 2000-11-01 priority date. If a chain member's filing date is truly 2001-11-01, that is consistent; if the patent were entitled to 2000-11-01 as a § 120 benefit date, the twenty-year anniversary would be 2020-11-01. This inconsistency is worth reconciling against the USPTO file, because the same priority analysis drives the § 103 prior-art window in § 3 above.
3. § 112 ¶ 1 written-description mismatch. The abstract/title describe internet-service content reception, while claim 1 as retrieved describes reception from a mobile apparatus. That divergence is itself evidence relevant to whether the 2000 specification supports the issued claim scope — which loops back to § 3.

---

10. Conclusions

1. Claim 1 as retrieved is likely obvious over HP JetSend art (US 6,202,096 / WO 98/47076 A1 / EP 0 976 058 B1, with US 6,947,994, EP 1 087 569 B1, US 6,298,164, and US 6,799,297) in view of (i) IEEE 802.11 and pre-2000 service-discovery standards for the wireless-LAN and broadcast/discovery limitations, and (ii) a networked-appliance software-distribution reference for the download-and-install limitations. The motivation is strong and articulable: identical problem, identical field, transport-agnostic primary reference, finite predictable solution set, and a known technique applied for its known function.
2. The weakest link is the "OS-facilitated download-and-install of software at the output device over the WLAN" limitation. I could not verify a specific pre-2000 reference for it in this session, and I decline to name one I have not confirmed. But that limitation is also the one most likely to be unsupported by the 2000 priority application (this is a 2019 CIP), which would both move the prior-art window forward by nineteen years and independently expose the claim to intervening art.
3. Confidence: moderate-to-high that at least one claim of this patent is invalid under § 103; low that the full claim set is invalid, because I have not read it.
4. Open items I could not close: (i) the complete claim set; (ii) the post-1996 portion of the patent's own "References Cited" list; (iii) whether the download/install limitations have § 112 support in the 2000-11-01 application; (iv) whether the "2:26-cv-00229" E.D. Tex. entry is a live 2026 matter (still unverified, per the prior section); and (v) the correct legal-status label ("Fee Related" vs. "Lifetime"), now with two listings favoring "Lifetime" against the authoritative page text.