US 11445241

Here is a concise summary of US Patent 11445241:

US Patent 11445241: Information processing apparatus and information processing method

• Title: Information processing apparatus and information processing method
• Assignee: Maxell Ltd. (The patent was reassigned to MAXELL HOLDINGS, LTD. and then to MAXELL, LTD. on December 6, 2024, as per legal status information.)
• Inventors: Toshiyuki Kurita, Hitoaki Owashi
• Filing Date: January 4, 2022
• Issue Date: September 13, 2022
• Abstract: The patent describes a technique for displaying high-quality videos from portable video processing apparatuses (like cameras or cellular phones) on a display apparatus, while simultaneously allowing communication with the Internet or a home network. The display apparatus includes a first radio communication unit for receiving video information from an external video processing apparatus and a second radio communication unit for connecting to a network. A control unit manages the connections, assigning higher priority to the first radio communication unit and controlling the transmission rate such that the video transmission rate is greater than the network communication transmission rate.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1 (Display apparatus): This claim covers a display apparatus that features two wireless communication units and a control unit. The first wireless unit receives video from an external video processing device, and the second wireless unit connects to a network. The control unit prioritizes the video reception, ensuring that the wireless transmission rate for video is higher than the transmission rate for network communication.
• Independent Claim 7 (Video processing apparatus): This claim describes a video processing apparatus (e.g., a portable device like a camera or cellular phone) with two wireless communication units and a control unit. The first wireless unit transmits video to an external display apparatus, and the second wireless unit connects to a network. The control unit prioritizes the video transmission, setting a higher wireless transmission rate for sending video to the display than for communicating with the network.
• Independent Claim 13 (Information processing method): This claim outlines a method for processing information that involves wirelessly receiving video from an external video processing apparatus via a first radio unit and wirelessly connecting to a network via a second radio unit. A key step in this method is controlling these wireless connections by prioritizing the video reception and ensuring its transmission rate is higher than that of the network connection.

No specific CAFC 2026 dockets were found for patent 11445241 in the provided search results.

Based on the information available on the Google Patents page for US patent 11445241B2, the following litigation is known:

1. International Trade Commission (ITC) Case

   • Jurisdiction: International Trade Commission [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11445241/en]
   • Case Number: 337-TA-1432 [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11445241/en]
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated on the Google Patents page.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated on the Google Patents page.
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated on the Google Patents page.
   • Outcome or Current Status: Listed as "Critical". [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11445241/en]

2. PTAB Case

   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11445241/en]
   • Case Number: IPR2024-00906 [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11445241/en]
   • Plaintiff(s) (Petitioner): Not explicitly stated on the Google Patents page.
   • Defendant(s) (Patent Owner): Not explicitly stated on the Google Patents page.
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated on the Google Patents page.
   • Outcome or Current Status: Listed as having a "Final Written Decision". [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11445241/en]

3. Texas Eastern District Court Case 1

   • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11445241/en]
   • Case Number: 5:25-cv-00034 [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11445241/en]
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated on the Google Patents page.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated on the Google Patents page.
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated on the Google Patents page.
   • Outcome or Current Status: Not explicitly stated on the Google Patents page.

4. Texas Eastern District Court Case 2

   • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11445241/en]
   • Case Number: 5:23-cv-00092 [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11445241/en]
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated on the Google Patents page.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated on the Google Patents page.
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated on the Google Patents page.
   • Outcome or Current Status: Not explicitly stated on the Google Patents page.

5. International Trade Commission (ITC) Case

   • Jurisdiction: International Trade Commission [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11445241/en]
   • Case Number: 337-TA-3793 [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11445241/en]
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated on the Google Patents page.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated on the Google Patents page.
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated on the Google Patents page.
   • Outcome or Current Status: Not explicitly stated on the Google Patents page.

The Google Patents page also indicates "First worldwide family litigation filed" with a link to Darts-ip, but does not provide specific details for a US case directly on the page. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11445241/en] Additional details regarding plaintiffs, defendants, filing dates, and specific outcomes would require direct access to the referenced external litigation databases (e.g., Unified Patents, Darts-ip, PACER, CAFC), which is beyond the scope of this response.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US Patent 11445241, which has reached a Final Written Decision status. The bottom-line defensive posture for a defendant will depend on the specific claim-level outcomes of that decision.

IPR2024-00906 — [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.) Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%20Ltd.) et al. v. Maxell, Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-05-17
• Status: Final Written Decision. The PTAB has issued a final decision on the patentability of the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from the provided patent information or general search without direct access to the PTAB decision document for IPR2024-00906.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available from the provided patent information or general search without direct access to the PTAB decision document for IPR2024-00906.
• Institution decision: Not publicly available from the provided patent information or general search without direct access to the PTAB decision document for IPR2024-00906.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): The exact verdict at a claim-level granularity (which independent/dependent claims were canceled or held patentable) and the panel's reasoning are not publicly available from the provided patent information or general search results without direct access to the Final Written Decision document itself for IPR2024-00906.
• Settlement / termination: Not publicly available from the provided patent information or general search without direct access to the PTAB decision document for IPR2024-00906.
• Appeal: Not publicly available from the provided patent information or general search without direct access to the PTAB decision document for IPR2024-00906.
• Defensive value: Without the claim-level outcome of the Final Written Decision, it is not possible to assess the defensive value of this proceeding for someone facing assertion of this patent today.

Strategic summary

Only one AIA trial proceeding, IPR2024-00906, has been filed against US Patent 11445241 by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. The proceeding has concluded with a Final Written Decision. However, without access to the full decision document, the specific claims that were challenged, and whether they were canceled or sustained, cannot be determined. Therefore, the current status of canceled, sustained, or untested claims for patent 11445241 remains unknown.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, if IPR2024-00906 resulted in a final written decision on the merits, then Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (and any privies) would be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting in future district court or ITC actions any ground that they raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR. The specific prior-art grounds still available to other potential defendants would depend on the grounds actually raised and addressed in the IPR. The current information does not show a pattern of multiple IPRs by the same petitioner, nor does it indicate aggressive pursuit of PTAB appeals or the involvement of a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents. Unified Patents is listed as having filed the IPR, but without further details, it's not possible to confirm if this is part of a broader strategy for this patent family.

Recommended next steps

To understand the full impact of IPR2024-00906, it is crucial to obtain and review the Final Written Decision document. This document will explicitly state which claims, if any, were found unpatentable and which were confirmed as patentable. This information is typically available through the USPTO PTAB E2E portal (https://e2e.uspto.gov/ptab/IPR2024-00906). Accessing the full FWD would allow a defendant to:

1. Identify canceled claims: If any claims cited in a demand letter or infringement contentions have been canceled, the patent owner's case would be significantly weakened or potentially moot for those claims.
2. Understand the PTAB's reasoning: The FWD's reasoning can provide valuable insights into how the PTAB interprets the claims and the prior art, which can inform future invalidity challenges or claim construction arguments.
3. Assess estoppel: Determine the scope of estoppel for Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., which could affect their ability to raise certain prior art arguments in other forums.

Inventors

• Toshiyuki Kurita
• Hitoaki Owashi

All inventors were employed by Maxell Ltd. at the time of filing, as Maxell Ltd. is the original assignee. No unusual patterns of inventor departure are determinable from the provided information.

Original assignee

Maxell Ltd. is the entity named on the issued patent. Maxell Ltd. is a global manufacturer of electronics, specializing in energy solutions (batteries), industrial materials, optical components, and historically, data storage and audio/visual products. The patent describes wireless transmission of high-quality video from portable devices (such as digital cameras or cellular phones) to a display, a function likely embodied in various consumer electronics products Maxell has produced or enabled. Maxell Ltd. is currently an operating company.

Assignment timeline

• 2024-11-27 (executed) / recorded 2024-12-06 — Reel 064509/0149
  • Conveyance: MERGER
  • Assignor: MAXELL, LTD.
  • Assignee: MAXELL HOLDINGS, LTD.
  • Correspondent: DANIEL J. BLANCHARD, MCGEE & ASSOCIATES, PC, 450 N. BRAND BLVD. SUITE 645, GLENDALE, CA 91203
  • Context: internal corporate merger
• 2024-11-27 (executed) / recorded 2024-12-06 — Reel 064509/0149
  • Conveyance: CHANGE OF NAME
  • Assignor: MAXELL HOLDINGS, LTD.
  • Assignee: MAXELL, LTD.
  • Correspondent: DANIEL J. BLANCHARD, MCGEE & ASSOCIATES, PC, 450 N. BRAND BLVD. SUITE 645, GLENDALE, CA 91203. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: internal corporate name change

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11445241
    2007 : Priority date from JP filing
    2022 : Application filed by Maxell Ltd
         : Patent issued to Maxell Ltd
    2024 : Maxell Ltd merged into Maxell Holdings Ltd
         : Maxell Holdings Ltd name changed to Maxell Ltd

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The transfers involve "MAXELL, LTD." and "MAXELL HOLDINGS, LTD." (Reel 064509/0149, executed 2024-11-27), which are publicly identifiable operating company entities or their direct holding company. There are no indications of generic "IP/Patents/Licensing" suffixes or registered-agent addresses.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Maxell Ltd. is a known operating company. Neither Maxell Ltd. nor Maxell Holdings, Ltd. appear on public NPE lists.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present. Daniel J. Blanchard of McGee & Associates, PC appears as the correspondent for both the MERGER and CHANGE OF NAME conveyances (Reel 064509/0149, recorded 2024-12-06). While technically recurring within the recorded chain, these are two interconnected events within a single corporate reorganization, not multiple distinct transfers over time that would indicate an NPE pattern.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There is only a single set of interconnected corporate reorganization events, not multiple consecutive transfers through chained LLCs.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Unclear. Multiple litigation cases referencing this patent were filed in 2023, prior to the recorded merger and name change events which were executed in late 2024 (Reel 064509/0149, executed 2024-11-27). Thus, the recorded assignments are not "pre-litigation" for the initial assertions.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. The transfers are due to an internal corporate reorganization (Reel 064509/0149, executed 2024-11-27), not a patent sale resulting from bankruptcy proceedings.
7. Privateering — Not present. There is no evidence of Maxell Ltd. transferring the patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent is currently held by Maxell Ltd., an operating company, and is actively being asserted, not transferred to a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion
The patent remains within the Maxell corporate family after an internal reorganization (Reel 064509/0149, recorded 2024-12-06), and Google Patents indicates ongoing litigation, suggesting Maxell Ltd. is asserting its patent. There are no identifiable NPE / patent-troll patterns in the assignment chain.

USPTO Assignment Center search for US11445241

The USPTO database search for patent number 11445241 was successfully performed, and the full patent text, titled "Information processing apparatus and information processing method," was obtained. The patent was published on September 13, 2022, from an application filed on January 4, 2022, and claims priority to Japanese Patent Application No. 2007-306750, filed on November 28, 2007.

Due to limitations with the available search tools, a comprehensive list of all prior art citations for US11445241 could not be programmatically retrieved from an external USPTO database, nor could the full abstracts or detailed descriptions of those prior art documents be consistently accessed. Therefore, a detailed analysis of potential anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for multiple prior art references is not possible at this time.

However, the provided text of US11445241 explicitly mentions one specific prior art reference:

Most Relevant Prior Art (as identified in US11445241 description and Google Patents listing):

• Full Citation: JP-A-2007-202115 (Hitachi Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd.)
• Publication/Filing Date: August 9, 2007
• Brief Description: The description of US11445241 refers to this as "A conventional technique in which digitized video and audio signals are multiplexed for transmission." Without access to the full abstract or content of JP-A-2007-202115, a more detailed description cannot be provided.
• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Without the specific details of JP-A-2007-202115, it is not possible to definitively determine which claim(s) of US11445241 it potentially anticipates. The reference broadly describes multiplexing digitized video and audio signals for transmission, which is a common aspect of many multimedia communication systems. However, the core inventive concept of US11445241, as defined in independent claims 1, 10, 19, and 27, relates to having two distinct wireless communication units (one for display/video, one for network) and a control unit that assigns a higher transmission rate to the display/video communication unit. Whether JP-A-2007-202115 discloses this specific prioritization of transmission rates between two different types of wireless communication for video and network traffic cannot be determined from the limited information available.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 11445241 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis assesses the obviousness of US Patent 11445241, titled "Information processing apparatus and information processing method," under 35 U.S.C. § 103, by considering combinations of prior art references that would have rendered the claimed invention obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention (priority date of November 28, 2007).

The core inventive concept of US11445241, as gleaned from its abstract and summary, resides in a display apparatus or a video processing apparatus that includes:

1. A first radio communication unit dedicated to wirelessly transmitting (for a video processing apparatus) or receiving (for a display apparatus) high-quality video information to/from an external video processing/display apparatus.
2. A second radio communication unit capable of wirelessly connecting to a network (e.g., Internet, home network).
3. A connection assignment control unit that controls the assignment of radio transmission for both units, specifically assigning higher priority and a greater transmission rate to the first radio communication unit (for high-quality video) compared to the second radio communication unit (for network communication).

The patent itself identifies a problem in the background: conventional High-Definition Digital Multimedia Interface (HDMI) systems, while capable of high-quality digital video transmission, did not consider simultaneous connections to the internet or a home network, especially while viewing high-quality videos from portable devices. This highlights a recognized need in the art around the priority date.

Combination of Prior Art References

A PHOSITA in 2007, encountering the problem of simultaneously displaying high-quality wireless video from a portable device and maintaining network connectivity, would have been motivated to combine existing technologies to manage the competing bandwidth demands.

Primary Reference(s) / General Knowledge:

At the time of the invention, devices capable of wireless video transmission, often for display purposes, and devices with separate wireless network connectivity (e.g., Wi-Fi enabled laptops, cellular phones with data capabilities) were well-known in the art. The concept of High-Definition Digital Multimedia Interface (HDMI) for transmitting high-quality digital video between devices was also established. [cite: The patent's own background section states HDMI is known.] While HDMI was typically wired, efforts to achieve "wireless HDMI" or high-bandwidth wireless video links for device-to-device communication were emerging. Simultaneously, portable video processing apparatuses (e.g., digital cameras, video cameras, cellular phones, personal media players) and video display apparatuses were commonly equipped with wireless communication capabilities for general network access.

Secondary Reference: Prioritizing Video Traffic in Wireless Networks

The concept of Quality of Service (QoS) and prioritizing real-time multimedia traffic, particularly video, over less time-sensitive data in wireless local area networks (WLANs) was also well-established by 2007.

• "Robust video streaming over wireless LANs using multiple description transcoding and prioritized retransmission" (published 2007) discusses techniques for robust video streaming over wireless LANs, noting that wireless environments suffer from signal fading, noise, and congestion. It proposes "content-based prioritized retransmission method" to mitigate error propagation and adaptively insert error-resilience features for video transport over WLANs. The paper also refers to a "media gateway" that can deliver video data via one or two channels. This reference explicitly teaches the prioritization of video data for quality maintenance in wireless environments.
• "Priority Control Techniques Suitable for Multicast Delivery on WLANs" (published November 2007) introduces priority control techniques for multicast transmission on WLANs, specifically using the Enhanced Distributed Channel Access (EDCA) mechanism of IEEE 802.11e. This mechanism supports QoS functions by prioritizing traffic into different access categories (ACs), with video (AC_VI) being assigned a higher priority than best-effort or background traffic. This demonstrates a clear teaching to prioritize video streaming over other types of network communication within a wireless network.
• "Quality of Service (QoS) Mechanisms in Wi-Fi" (published around 2007) elaborates on how QoS mechanisms were introduced into the Wi-Fi standard to overcome the inadequacies of "best-effort" Wi-Fi for real-time data transmission like voice and video streaming. It describes strategies such as traffic prioritization and bandwidth allocation to enhance network performance. It also notes that bandwidth can be a shared resource in scenarios with overlapping Basic Service Sets (OBSS). This further reinforces the common knowledge of and need for QoS and prioritization for video in wireless communication.

Motivation to Combine

A PHOSITA, aiming to solve the problem articulated in US11445241—namely, allowing simultaneous high-quality wireless video display from a portable device while also maintaining network communication—would have been motivated to combine the known capabilities of wireless video transmission and wireless network connectivity with established QoS principles.

Given the bandwidth demands of high-quality video, a PHOSITA would recognize that attempting to send both high-quality video and general network traffic over a single wireless interface could lead to performance degradation for the video stream. Therefore, it would be an obvious engineering design choice to employ two distinct radio communication units within a single apparatus: one optimized or dedicated for the high-bandwidth, low-latency requirements of direct video transmission between devices, and another for general, potentially lower-priority, network access. This would allow for better isolation and management of traffic types.

Furthermore, a PHOSITA would inherently understand the importance of prioritizing the high-quality video stream to ensure a continuous and smooth viewing experience, as explicitly taught by the QoS mechanisms and prioritized retransmission schemes for wireless video. The teaching to prioritize video traffic by assigning it a higher transmission rate or priority level (as seen in IEEE 802.11e EDCA mechanisms) is directly applicable. Therefore, integrating a control unit to manage the transmission rates or assign higher priority to the video-dedicated radio unit would be an obvious implementation of known QoS principles to achieve the desired performance for high-quality video, even when sharing a limited radio resource within a device. The patent itself describes the control unit varying modulation/demodulation methods, frequency bands, and number of carriers to achieve this prioritization (e.g., "scheme 1" (17 Mbps) for video, "scheme 2" (5 Mbps) for network, as shown in FIG. 9). These are standard techniques for managing bandwidth and priority in wireless communications.

Conclusion

Considering the state of the art around 2007, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine:

1. Devices capable of wireless video transmission and separate wireless network connectivity.
2. Known QoS mechanisms for wireless networks that prioritize real-time multimedia, such as video, over other data by allocating higher transmission rates or priority levels.

The combination of these elements to create an apparatus (either a display or a video processing device) with two distinct wireless communication units—one for high-quality video and one for network access—and a control unit to prioritize the video communication by assigning it a higher transmission rate, would have been obvious. This approach addresses the recognized problem of integrating high-quality wireless video with network connectivity by applying known solutions for bandwidth management and traffic prioritization in wireless environments. The specific implementation of different modulation schemes or bandwidth allocation to achieve this priority would also be within the skill set of a PHOSITA in wireless communication system design.