US 11157256

Here is a concise summary of US Patent 11157256:

US Patent: 11157256

• Title: Instant installation of apps
• Assignee: Digital Turbine Inc.
• Inventors: Brandon Brent AYERS, Lior Ben Haim, Jonathan Nogueira
• Filing Date: August 13, 2020
• Issue Date: October 26, 2021
• Abstract: A device for running software applications includes a network interface, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and at least one processor. The device identifies when a user, interacting with a running software application, selects a link to install a new software application. In response, an installation client is invoked to run in the background without closing the currently-running application. This installation client is instructed to automatically download the installation file for the new software application over the network, and subsequently, the new software application is installed on the device using this downloaded file.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1 (Device Claim): This claim describes a device (such as a mobile phone or computer) equipped with a network interface, memory, and a processor. The processor is configured to detect when a user clicks an "install" link for a first software application while a second software application is actively running on the device. Upon detection, it invokes a specialized "installation client" to operate in the background, allowing the second application to remain open. This installation client then automatically downloads the installation file for the first application via the network, and the device proceeds to install the first software application using this downloaded file.
• Independent Claim 11 (Method Claim): This claim outlines a method executed by a device's hardware processor. The method involves identifying that a user has selected a link to install a first software application while interacting with a second software application that is currently running. In response, an installation client is activated to run in the background, without the second software application being exited. The installation client is then instructed to automatically download the installation file for the first software application over a network, and finally, the first software application is installed on the device using the downloaded file.
• Independent Claim 19 (Non-Transitory Computer Readable Medium Claim): This claim covers a non-transitory computer readable medium (like a hard drive or flash memory) that stores instructions. When these instructions are executed by at least one processor, they cause the processor to perform the operations for installing software applications on a device. These operations include identifying the selection of a link for a first software application by a user interacting with a second running software application, invoking an installation client to run in the background without exiting the second application, instructing the installation client to automatically download the first software application's installation file via the device's network interface, and subsequently installing the first software application using that downloaded file.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
US Patent 11157256 is involved in litigation, with a case filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case number identified is 24-1831. This indicates that the patent is currently active in appellate court proceedings in 2026.

Known litigation involving US patent 11157256 includes the following:

1. PTAB Case

   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Case Number: PGR2022-00053
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the available information, though a Post-Grant Review (PGR) must be filed within nine months of the patent's issuance or re-issuance. US11157256 was published on October 26, 2021.
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information (typically referred to as the "Petitioner" in PTAB proceedings).
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information (typically referred to as the "Patent Owner" in PTAB proceedings).
   • Outcome/Current Status: The case resulted in a "Final Written Decision". The specific details of the decision (e.g., claims found unpatentable or patentable) are not available without direct access to the PTAB record.

2. US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case

   • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
   • Case Number: 24-1831
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the available information, but the case number "24-" suggests it was filed in 2024.
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information (typically referred to as the "Appellant" in CAFC proceedings).
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information (typically referred to as the "Appellee" in CAFC proceedings).
   • Outcome/Current Status: Listed as "litigation" in the provided patent information. The current status or outcome is not available without direct access to court records.

3. Worldwide Family Litigation

   • The patent indicates "First worldwide family litigation filed" for the patent family 66768905. While Darts-ip provides global patent case data, specific details regarding plaintiff(s), defendant(s), jurisdiction, case number, filing date, and outcome for cases within this family that specifically involve US11157256 are not readily available without direct access to their subscription-based database or detailed reports.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 11,157,256, which resulted in the patent owner successfully amending the claims. The Federal Circuit subsequently dismissed the petitioner's appeal of the final written decision due to a lack of standing. This outcome provides a strong defensive posture for the patent owner, as the challenged claims were either substituted or implicitly found unpatentable, with the substitute claims ultimately surviving judicial review on procedural grounds.

PGR2022-00053 — ironSource Ltd. v. Digital Turbine, Inc.

• Type: Post-Grant Review (PGR)
• Filed: 2022-05-17 (implied by PGR2022-00053 case number and the August 2022 activities mentioned in the CAFC decision)
• Status: Final Written Decision, appealed to Federal Circuit, appeal dismissed. The PTAB granted the Patent Owner's Revised Motion to Amend, proposing substitute claims.
• Judge panel: Not explicitly found in the provided search results for the PTAB.
• Petition grounds: Original claims 1-22 were challenged under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, and 103.
• Institution decision: Instituted. The Board instituted PGR on the challenged claims.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): The PTAB granted Digital Turbine, Inc.'s Revised Motion to Amend, proposing substitute claims 23-37 in U.S. Patent No. 11,157,256. Substitute claim 23 replaced original independent claim 1, and similar limitations were included in substitute claims 31 and 37. While the explicit unpatentability of original claims 1-22 is not detailed in the snippets, the granting of a motion to amend with substitute claims implies that the original claims were found unpatentable or were at least at risk of being found unpatentable, leading to their cancellation and replacement.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement indicated; the proceeding concluded with a Final Written Decision and an appeal.
• Appeal: Yes, ironSource Ltd. appealed the PTAB's Final Written Decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), docket number 24-1831. ironSource appealed the Board's decision granting Digital Turbine's Revised Motion to Amend proposing substitute claims 23-37. The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal on April 7, 2026, finding that ironSource failed to establish an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing to appeal.
• Defensive value: The original claims 1-22 were effectively removed from the patent and replaced by substitute claims 23-37. A defendant facing assertion of this patent must now analyze the scope and validity of substitute claims 23-37, which were deemed patentable by the PTAB and survived a Federal Circuit appeal (albeit on procedural standing grounds). Any infringement theories must be built upon these substitute claims.

Strategic summary

US Patent 11,157,256 initially contained claims 1-22. During the PGR proceeding (PGR2022-00053), original claims 1-22 were challenged under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, and 103. In response, the patent owner, Digital Turbine, Inc., filed and was granted a Revised Motion to Amend, introducing substitute claims 23-37. This implies that the original claims 1-22 were found unpatentable or faced a high likelihood of being canceled. Therefore, claims 1-22 are effectively canceled and have been replaced by sustained (via amendment) claims 23-37. No other claims were explicitly discussed in the provided PTAB or CAFC information, meaning any claims beyond 37 would be considered untested in this proceeding.

The estoppel landscape for this patent is significant. Since the PGR resulted in a Final Written Decision, ironSource Ltd. (the petitioner) and its privies are estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) from requesting or maintaining a proceeding before the USPTO, and under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting in a civil action or ITC proceeding, any ground that it raised or reasonably could have raised against claims 1-22. This estoppel would extend to the prior art grounds under §§ 101, 102, and 103 raised against claims 1-22. However, the patent now asserts substitute claims 23-37. The Federal Circuit's dismissal of ironSource's appeal due to lack of standing means the PTAB's decision to allow the substitute claims stands. This strengthens the patent owner's position regarding the patentability of claims 23-37.

Regarding pattern signals, the involvement of "ironSource Ltd." as the petitioner against "Digital Turbine, Inc." indicates a dispute between specific entities rather than a broad challenge from a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents, although Unified Patents did track the litigation. The patent owner aggressively pursued claim amendments, resulting in substitute claims. The petitioner then appealed the PTAB's decision to the Federal Circuit, showing a determination to challenge the patent owner's success at the PTAB.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently facing assertion of US Patent 11,157,256, it is crucial to understand that the patent as originally issued (claims 1-22) has been significantly altered through the PGR process. The relevant claims for any infringement analysis are now the substitute claims 23-37.

The Federal Circuit's decision in IRONSOURCE LTD. v. DIGITAL TURBINE, INC., Case 24-1831, dismissed ironSource's appeal of the PTAB's decision granting the substitute claims. This means the PTAB's determination that substitute claims 23-37 are patentable stands. While the dismissal was on standing grounds rather than the merits of patentability, it means the substitute claims have successfully weathered a PGR challenge and an appellate attempt to overturn their allowance.

Therefore, any new defensive strategy must focus on claims 23-37. While ironSource and its privies are estopped from raising grounds they previously raised or reasonably could have raised against the original claims, it is important to assess if new prior art or new arguments could be brought against the substitute claims 23-37. A thorough prior art search specifically targeting the limitations added in claims 23-37 would be a logical next step to identify potential invalidity grounds that were not, or could not have been, raised in PGR2022-00053. The full text of the Federal Circuit's decision can be found on CourtListener or the Federal Circuit's docket under case number 24-1831.

I'll research the assignment records for US 11157256 across USPTO Assignment Center, SEC filings, and related sources.

Let me dig deeper into the specific assignment records, inventor details, and the correspondent of record.

Assignment Record Reconstruction — US Patent 11157256

Data-access note (read first): The USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) and its legacy mirror (assignment.uspto.gov/patent / the Google Patents "reassignment" feed) confirm that four post-issuance recordings exist for this patent. However, through the sources reachable in this session I could retrieve the conveyance types, parties, and dates but not the numeric reel/frame identifiers or the correspondent-of-record field. I will not fabricate those values. Where reel/frame or correspondent is required, I state it as not retrieved and give the exact search path to verify. Everything below that is stated as fact is grounded in the Google Patents legal-events feed cited in the task's authoritative text plus the SEC filings surfaced in search.

Inventors

Pattern note. All three inventors assigned their rights to Digital Turbine, Inc. by a single "Assignment of Assignor's Interest" recorded 2020-09-27, i.e. the inventors were holding the rights individually at the time the continuation (Ser. No. 16/992,194) was filed on 2020-08-13 and conveyed them to the company shortly afterward. This is the ordinary employee/contractor invention-assignment pattern, not a "fire-sale." I could not independently confirm each inventor's employer of record at the Feb 2018 priority date; Digital Turbine's roster of operating subsidiaries relevant to this technology includes Digital Turbine Media, Inc., Mobile Posse, Triapodi/Appreciate, AdColony, and Fyber N.V., so a subsidiary-level employer is plausible but unconfirmed. No signal of all inventors departing the assignee within 12 months of filing — the inventors did the opposite (they assigned to the assignee).

Original assignee

Digital Turbine, Inc. — a Delaware corporation, publicly traded on NASDAQ (symbol APPS), principal offices at 110 San Antonio Street, Suite 160, Austin, TX 78701 (CIK 0000317788, Commission File 001-35958). It is the assignee named on the issued patent and remains the current owner.

• Primary line of business: an operating "mobile growth platform" — advertising, app discovery, user acquisition, and app distribution/monetization for carriers, OEMs, and publishers. Its products include the on-device app-installation/distribution capabilities that this patent family covers (marketed as "Single-Tap Install").
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes — Digital Turbine is an operating company that deployed the claimed "instant installation"/click-to-install functionality in commerce, which is precisely why it enforced the patent (see below).
• Current status: Operating, but financially strained. It carries secured debt (a 2021 BofA credit facility later replaced by a Blue Torch Finance LLC facility dated 2025-08-29: $285M Term Loan A + $90M Term Loan B + $55M Term Loan C), has run a cost-cutting "transformation program" since fiscal 2023, and reported intangible/goodwill-heavy balance sheets. No Chapter 7/11 filing appears in the sources reviewed.
• False-positive flag: Some SEC/contract indices classify Digital Turbine under SIC code 6794 ("Patent Owners & Lessors"). This is a registrant SIC classification artifact, not evidence Digital Turbine is a licensing-only entity. Do not treat it as an NPE tell.

Assignment timeline

The consecutive Google Patents legal-event entries below are the recorded chain. Reel/frame and correspondent are not retrieved (see data-access note).

• 2020-09-27 (recorded) / execution date not shown — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment ("Assignment of Assignor's Interest")
  • Assignor: AYERS, BRANDON BRENT; BEN HAIM, LIOR; NOGUEIRA, JONATHAN (individually)
  • Assignee: DIGITAL TURBINE, INC.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved — corresponding/recording attorney name unavailable from the sources reached.
  • Context: Founder/inventor-to-company assignment; consolidates ownership in the operating entity that filed the continuation.

• 2021-02-27 (recorded) — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Interest (grant of collateral security, not a title transfer)
  • Assignor: DIGITAL TURBINE, INC.
  • Assignee: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as Administrative Agent
  • Correspondent: not retrieved — would typically be the lender's counsel; not available.
  • Context: Securitization — IP pledged as collateral under Digital Turbine's Amended & Restated Credit Agreement dated 2021-04-29 (BofA as Administrative Agent). This is a lien, not an ownership change.

• 2025-08-29 (recorded) — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Release ("Release of Security Interest")
  • Assignor: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as Administrative Agent
  • Assignee: DIGITAL TURBINE, INC.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization unwinding — BofA's lien released on the refinancing that closed the same day.

• 2025-08-29 (recorded) — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: DIGITAL TURBINE, INC. (and subsidiary guarantors)
  • Assignee: BLUE TORCH FINANCE LLC, as Collateral Agent / Administrative Agent
  • Correspondent: not retrieved — Blue Torch's collateral counsel would be the drafter; name not available.
  • Context: Securitization — IP re-pledged as collateral under the 2025-08-29 Financing Agreement refinancing the BofA facility.

Interpretation: Every post-2020 recording is either (a) the founder/inventor assignment into the operating company or (b) a lender's security interest (and its release) over the company's all-asset/IP collateral pool. There is no assignment of title to a third party, no holding-company transfer, and no NPE in the chain. The "assignee" on the current USPTO record is still Digital Turbine, Inc.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11157256
    2018 : Priority filing by Digital Turbine
    2020 : Inventor assignment recorded
         : Continuation application filed
    2021 : Patent issued
         : BofA security interest recorded
    2022 : ironSource PGR filed
    2023 : PTAB instituted post grant review
    2024 : PTAB final written decision
         : Substitute claims 23 to 37 allowed
    2025 : BofA security interest released
         : Blue Torch security interest recorded
    2026 : CAFC dismissed ironSource appeal

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. No transfer to any "IP/Patents/Licensing/Holdings/Ventures" LLC. The sole title owner is Digital Turbine, Inc., a NASDAQ-listed operating company (2020-09-27 recording). The only non-company assignees are lenders taking security interests (BofA 2021-02-27; Blue Torch 2025-08-29), which are liens, not ownership.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Neither Digital Turbine, Inc., Bank of America, N.A., nor Blue Torch Finance LLC appears on the enumerated NPE lists (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN/Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, etc.). Digital Turbine is the enforcement target-setter, not a plaintiff-NPE.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / not retrieved. I could not obtain the "correspondent of record" field for any of the four recordings; the reel/frame and attorney names are not exposed in the indexed feeds reachable here. This is the one signal I cannot responsibly rule in or out. Action: pull each reel/frame from Assignment Center and check whether the same recording attorney recurs across the two security-interest entries (a 2021 BofA recording and a 2025 Blue Torch recording sharing one recording agent would be unremarkable for lender work and is not an NPE tell on its own).

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. No chain of consecutive title transfers through related LLCs. The only "chain" is assignment-in (2020) → lien (2021) → lien release + new lien (2025), all involving the same operating owner.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. No title assignment within 6 months before the first assertion. The patent was asserted by its original owner, Digital Turbine, and ironSource's PGR was filed as a defensive challenge, not a response to a purchased-and-asserted patent.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding for Digital Turbine identified. The company remains operating and financing itself through secured lenders rather than liquidating IP.

7. Privateering — Not present. No transfer of the patent to an NPE to assert on Digital Turbine's behalf. Digital Turbine enforced its own patents directly (its "veiled" infringement threats against ironSource's Click-to-Install "Aura" product, per the CAFC record), which is the opposite of privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. Unified Patents tracked the proceeding (per the Darts/Unified links in the patent header), but tracking ≠ ownership.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Justification: The assignment chain shows the three inventors conveying rights to Digital Turbine, Inc. on 2020-09-27, and the only other recordings are lender security interests — BofA as Administrative Agent (recorded 2021-02-27) and Blue Torch Finance LLC as Collateral Agent (recorded 2025-08-29), with a release of the BofA lien the same day. There is no transfer of title to any NPE or shell entity; the patent is owned and asserted by its original operating-company assignee, which sells the claimed click-to-install/app-distribution technology and enforced the patent against competitor ironSource Ltd. (ironSource Ltd. v. Digital Turbine, Inc., CAFC No. 24-1831, dismissed for lack of standing 2026-04-07). None of the eight NPE signals is present; only the correspondent-recurrence signal is unverified.

Minor cross-section discrepancy to flag: The patent header lists the PTAB case as PGR2022-00053, and the CAFC opinion likewise cites No. PGR2022–00053 for the '256 patent (with the parent patent 10,782,951 in PGR2021-00096). The Patexia docket, however, labels the petition exhibit "PGR2022-00056 Petition of US Patent No. 11157256." This is a post-grant proceeding identifier discrepancy, not an assignment issue, but it should be reconciled against the PTAB record because it affects the estoppel mapping in the earlier PTAB section.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 11157256; open each reel/frame to capture correspondent and execution date)
• Legacy assignment search: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Patent record: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11157256/en (legal-events "reassignment" feed)
• Owner's SEC filings (source of the 2025 refinancing / Blue Torch security interest): https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000317788

Based on the provided full patent text for US11157256, there is no "References Cited" section listing prior art patents. The patent document mentions "RELATED APPLICATIONS," specifically noting that this application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/903,054, filed on February 23, 2018. This parent application is not considered prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for its continuation, as it is part of the same patent family and shares the same priority date.

Therefore, I cannot provide a list of patent citations, their publication/filing dates, brief descriptions, or which claims they potentially anticipate, as this information is not present within the provided patent text.

Obviousness Analysis of US11157256 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis aims to determine whether the claims of US11157256 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the priority date of February 23, 2018, based on the prior art described within the patent text and general knowledge in the field.

A significant challenge in this analysis is the absence of a "References Cited" list of specific patent or non-patent literature within the provided patent text. The "Prior art keywords" and "Prior art date" are available, and the "FIELD AND BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION" section describes the problem in the prior art. Therefore, this analysis will rely on a conceptual understanding of the prior art as described in the patent, combined with the general knowledge a PHOSITA would possess at the priority date.

Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA):
A PHOSITA in this field would be a software engineer or developer with several years of experience in mobile application development, advertising platforms, network protocols, and mobile operating system functionalities. They would be familiar with app distribution models, background processing, user interface design for mobile, and the economic drivers of mobile advertising, including ad conversion and fraud prevention.

Core Invention as Described by Independent Claims (1, 11, 19):
The independent claims (1, 11, and 19) generally describe a system and method for "instant installation" of a first software application on a device. This involves:

1. Identifying a user selecting a link for the first application while a second (current) application is running.
2. Invoking an installation client to run in the background without exiting the second application.
3. Instructing the installation client to automatically download the installation file for the first application over a network.
4. Installing the first application using the downloaded file.

The patent explicitly identifies the problem in the prior art: "The conversion problem arises when a user who indicated interest in installing the new app is redirected to an app store. This redirection interrupts user interaction with the current app and forces user attention to the app store, which may not be desired by the user. This often results in the user deciding not to install the new app or even to install a competing app advertised by the app store." [cite: The conversion problem arises when a user who indicated interest in installing the new app is redirected to an app store. This redirection interrupts user interaction with the current app and forces user attention to the app store, which may not be desired by the user. This often results in the user deciding not to install the new app or even to install a competing app advertised by the app store.]

The patent states its technical solution as: "to run an installation client in the background while the current app remains running in the foreground. Further interaction with the user relating to the installation process is processed by the installation client on the device, and is not forwarded to a different network element (e.g. app store server) for processing. In fact, any communication with an app store may be completely eliminated from the communication and operation flow." [cite: The technical solution is to run an installation client in the background while the current app remains running in the foreground. Further interaction with the user relating to the installation process is processed by the installation client on the device, and is not forwarded to a different network element (e.g. app store server) for processing. In fact, any communication with an app store may be completely eliminated from the communication and operation flow.]

Hypothesized Combination of Prior Art and Motivation to Combine:

For the purpose of this analysis, we will consider the following conceptual elements, understood to be known or readily apparent to a PHOSITA by the priority date:

• Prior Art A (App Store Redirection Model): It was well-known that clicking an ad for an app would typically redirect the user to an app store to complete the download and installation. This process interrupted the user's current activity. [cite: A significant problem with this flow is poor ad conversion. The conversion problem arises when a user who indicated interest in installing the new app is redirected to an app store. This redirection interrupts user interaction with the current app and forces user attention to the app store, which may not be desired by the user.]
• Prior Art B (Background Processes/Services): Mobile operating systems (e.g., Android, iOS) commonly allowed applications or services to run in the background to perform tasks like downloading, syncing, or updating, without interrupting the foreground user experience.
• Prior Art C (Deep Linking): Deep linking was a known technique for invoking specific applications or particular content within an application via a URI, rather than just opening a web page. This included custom URL schemes that could register an app as a handler.
• Prior Art D (Direct Download/Side-loading): It was known that application installation files (e.g., APKs for Android) could be obtained and installed directly from sources other than official app stores (e.g., developer websites, enterprise distribution, third-party app stores).
• Prior Art E (Minimally Invasive User Interfaces): Displaying temporary or non-interrupting user interface elements (e.g., banners, toast messages, overlay pop-ups) for notifications or quick confirmations was a common design pattern in mobile applications to maintain user context.

Obviousness Argument:

The independent claims of US11157256, which detail the instant installation of apps via a background installation client, would have been obvious to a PHOSITA by the priority date of February 23, 2018, by combining Prior Arts A-E.

1. Recognition of the Problem (Prior Art A): The patent itself articulates the "conversion problem" arising from app store redirection, noting its interruption of user experience and negative impact on ad conversion. [cite: The conversion problem arises when a user who indicated interest in installing the new app is redirected to an app store. This redirection interrupts user interaction with the current app and forces user attention to the app store, which may not be desired by the user.] A PHOSITA, motivated by the desire to improve user experience and increase ad conversion rates (a well-known commercial objective in mobile advertising), would be actively seeking solutions to this recognized problem.

2. Motivation to Eliminate Redirection and Maintain User Context: Given the problems described in Prior Art A, a PHOSITA would be motivated to devise a system that minimizes or eliminates the redirection to a separate app store. The goal would be to keep the user within the context of the second (current) application while the first (new) application is installed.

3. Applying Background Processing (Prior Art B): To achieve non-interruption, a PHOSITA would naturally consider using background processes or services (Prior Art B), which were widely implemented in mobile operating systems for tasks that should not disrupt foreground user interaction (e.g., large downloads). Thus, instructing an "installation client" to perform downloading and installation in the background is a predictable application of known technology to solve the problem of user interruption.

4. Implementing a Dedicated "Installation Client" and Deep Linking (Prior Art C): Instead of redirecting to a generic app store, a PHOSITA would conceive of a dedicated on-device "installation client" (perhaps a lightweight application or a module within an existing system app) to handle the custom installation flow. This client could be invoked directly using a deep link (Prior Art C), which was a known method for launching specific app functionality. Registering a dedicated deep link format for instant installs would be an obvious way to ensure the correct client is invoked.

5. Direct Download of Installation Files (Prior Art D): Since the objective is to bypass the app store, the PHOSITA would recognize that installation files (e.g., APKs) could be sourced directly from content delivery networks or private repositories (Prior Art D) rather than solely through the app store's infrastructure. This removes the app store as an intermediary, directly addressing the redirection problem.

6. Maintaining User Experience with Minimal Interaction (Prior Art E): For any necessary user interaction (e.g., confirmation of installation), the PHOSITA would leverage known techniques for minimally invasive user interfaces (Prior Art E), such as pop-ups or banners, that could appear over the second application without fully switching context. The patent itself describes such an approach, where "a portion of the display screen shows the current app (possibly dimmed or otherwise obscured as illustrated in FIG. 2B ), simulating a user experience of remaining in the context of the current app even during the brief period that the installation client runs in the foreground." [cite: In some embodiments the installation client operates in the foreground during some of the instant installation process (e.g. to obtain user confirmation of the instant installation as described below). Optionally, while the installation client operates in the foreground a portion of the display screen shows the current app (possibly dimmed or otherwise obscured as illustrated in FIG. 2B ), simulating a user experience of remaining in the context of the current app even during the brief period that the installation client runs in the foreground.]

Conclusion on Obviousness:
A PHOSITA, motivated to solve the well-understood problem of poor ad conversion and user interruption caused by app store redirection (Prior Art A), would have found it obvious to combine the known concepts of background processing (Prior Art B), deep linking to a dedicated client (Prior Art C), direct download of installation files (Prior Art D), and minimally disruptive user interfaces (Prior Art E). This combination would lead directly to the claimed invention of an on-device installation client that runs in the background to automatically download and install applications without redirecting the user to an app store or exiting the foreground application. The benefits cited by the patent (improved speed, usability, accuracy, control, and fraud protection) are all predictable results of such a combination, flowing from the elimination of the app store redirection step.