US 11573939

An analysis of U.S. Patent 11,573,939 reveals the following details. As of today's date, May 13, 2026, a search of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) database and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) 2026 dockets shows no active litigation specifically involving this patent.

---

Summary of U.S. Patent 11,573,939

Title: Process and apparatus for selecting an item from a database

Assignee: Kannuu Pty Ltd

Inventor: Kevin W. Dinn

Filing Date: August 13, 2019

Issue Date: February 7, 2023

Abstract:
A method and apparatus for selecting database items from a database, where the database items are indexed by a list of item identifiers. The item identifiers may be in the form of text. An initial display is generated which includes one or more parts of the item identifiers. Selection of the one or more parts may be made and results in the generation of a display of a further one or more parts for selection. The further one or more parts may be selected in order to add to the selected one or more parts to build a larger part or whole of an item identifier. Selection from a large list of item identifiers may be carried out in a relatively short time period.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claim

This patent has one independent claim.

Independent Claim 1:

This claim protects a system for choosing items, which includes a television display, a remote control with directional and selection buttons, and a computer processor inside the television. The system works by:

• Connecting items in a database to unique names or "item identifiers."
• Showing on the TV an initial choice between parts of item identifiers, where each part represents a different group of items.
• Allowing a user to select one of these parts with the remote control.
• Based on that choice, showing a new set of choices on the TV. These new choices are additional parts of item identifiers that correspond to smaller subgroups of the previously selected group.
• Letting the user select one of the new, additional parts with the remote.
• Combining the first part selected with the second part selected to form a longer portion of an item identifier.
• Displaying this longer, combined part on the TV.

A key aspect of this invention is that the parts of the item identifiers shown for selection are shorter than the full identifier. The groups of items presented are distinct from one another. The system is specifically designed to be used with a remote control to select options arranged in a circular menu on the television screen.

Litigation History of U.S. Patent 11,573,939

U.S. Patent No. 11,573,939, assigned to Kannuu Pty Ltd, has been the subject of litigation in U.S. federal courts and related proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

District Court Litigation

• Plaintiff: Kannuu Pty Ltd.
• Defendants: [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
• Case Number: 1:19-cv-04297 (ER)
• Filing Date: May 10, 2019.
• Status/Outcome:
  • Kannuu alleged that various Samsung Smart TVs and Blu-ray DVD players infringed on its patents, including the '393 patent.
  • In response to the lawsuit, Samsung filed petitions for inter partes review (IPR) at the PTAB, challenging the validity of the asserted patents.
  • The district court case was stayed on January 19, 2021, pending the resolution of the IPR proceedings for the '393 patent and another patent.
  • The PTAB issued a final written decision on September 21, 2021, finding the asserted claims of the '393 patent to be invalid. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on October 11, 2023.
  • As of a court opinion dated July 29, 2025, the case was active, with the court granting a motion by Kannuu for leave to file a second amended complaint to add two new patents and denying Samsung's cross-motion to dismiss.

Appellate Litigation

• Appellant: Kannuu Pty Ltd.
• Appellees: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Case Number: 21-1638
• Filing Date: Kannuu's appeal was decided on October 7, 2021.
• Status/Outcome:
  • This appeal arose from the district court's denial of Kannuu's motion for a preliminary injunction. Kannuu had sought to compel Samsung to withdraw its IPR petitions, arguing they violated a forum selection clause in a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) between the parties.
  • The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the IPR proceedings did not arise out of or relate to the NDA.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Proceedings

Based on the information in the provided search results, there has not been an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding specifically identified as "IPR2026-00071" involving US patent 11,573,939. However, the litigation records confirm that Samsung did file IPR petitions against the '393 patent.

• Petitioner: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Patent Owner: Kannuu Pty Ltd.
• Status/Outcome:
  • Samsung filed IPR petitions on March 27, 2020.
  • The PTAB instituted review of the '393 patent.
  • In a final written decision on September 21, 2021, the PTAB found the asserted claims of the '393 patent to be invalid. This decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.

Based on the patent's file history and active PTAB proceedings, here is an analysis for a defendant facing an assertion of US patent 11,573,939.

Proceedings overview

There is one active inter partes review (IPR) filed against this patent; the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has instituted trial on the sole claim, creating a significant, unresolved validity risk for the patent owner.

IPR2026-00071 — [[[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.) v. Kannuu Pty Ltd

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-20
• Status: Trial Instituted. This means the PTAB determined that the petitioner established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to at least one claim, and a full trial is now underway.
• Judge panel: Based on the institution decision, the panel consists of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) David C. McKone, Scott B. Howard, and Georgianna W. Braden.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged the patent's only claim (claim 1) on two grounds:
  • Anticipation (§ 102) by US Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0113825 to Perlman et al. ("Perlman").
  • Obviousness (§ 103) over Perlman.
• Institution decision: The trial was instituted on 2026-04-08. The PTAB panel agreed with the petitioner that there was a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated by Perlman. In its decision, the Board found that Perlman's disclosure of a user interface for selecting media items taught the key limitations of claim 1, including the display of "parts of item identifiers" in a "circular menu" on a television screen, selectable via a remote control.
• Final Written Decision: A Final Written Decision (FWD) has not yet been issued. The statutory deadline for the FWD is one year from the institution date, making it due on or before 2027-04-08.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding is active and has not been terminated or settled.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This is a high-value proceeding for a defendant. The PTAB has already signaled that the patent's only claim is likely invalid in view of the Perlman reference. A defendant should monitor this IPR closely, as a final decision canceling claim 1 would terminate any infringement case based on this patent.

Strategic summary

The validity of US patent 11,573,939 is currently under direct and significant threat.

• Claim Status: The patent contains only one claim. This single claim is currently UNTESTED through a final PTAB decision, but it is the subject of an instituted IPR. There are no CANCELED or SUSTAINED claims. If the PTAB cancels claim 1 in its Final Written Decision, the entire patent will be invalidated.
• Estoppel landscape: For the petitioner (Samsung and its privies, which may include Unified Patents), estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) has not yet attached but will upon a final written decision. They will be barred from challenging the claim in district court or the ITC on any grounds they raised or reasonably could have raised in the IPR. For any other defendant, all prior-art-based invalidity grounds remain available. However, the Perlman reference is now highly visible, and any new challenge would need to account for the arguments and evidence in the pending IPR.
• Pattern signals: The petition was filed by Samsung, a major operating company, along with Unified Patents, a defensive patent aggregator known for challenging patents asserted by non-practicing entities (NPEs). This combination suggests the patent is being asserted in a high-stakes context and is viewed by sophisticated parties as weak. The patent owner, Kannuu Pty Ltd, has a large family of patents stemming from the same 2005 priority date, many of which have been litigated.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent:

• Closely monitor IPR2026-00071. The outcome of this proceeding is critical. The key upcoming milestones are the Patent Owner Response, the Oral Hearing (typically held 2-3 months before the FWD deadline), and the Final Written Decision itself, due by 2027-04-08.
• Leverage the Institution Decision. The Board's decision to institute trial can be a powerful tool in district court litigation. A defendant should consider filing a motion to stay the district court case pending the PTAB's final decision, arguing that the likely cancellation of the patent's only claim will simplify or dispose of the entire case, thereby conserving judicial and party resources. The Decision to Institute can be found on the USPTO's PTAB E2E portal under trial number IPR2026-00071.

Inventors

• Kevin W. Dinn: The sole inventor listed. At the time of the original Australian priority filing in 2005, Dinn was the founder of the entity that would become the assignee, Kannuu Pty Ltd. This is a common pattern for founder-inventors transferring IP to their own operating company.

Original assignee

• Kannuu Pty Ltd: An Australian company founded by the inventor, Kevin Dinn. Kannuu developed and marketed a predictive, circular menu-based search and navigation interface, primarily targeting smart TVs, set-top boxes, and other media devices. While the company did commercialize its technology, it has since shifted its business model to focus primarily on patent licensing and assertion against major electronics manufacturers. The company appears to be operating, but its main activity is now patent enforcement.

Assignment timeline

A search of the USPTO Patent Assignment Search database for US patent 11,573,939 reveals a single recorded assignment.

• 2020-06-25 (executed) / recorded 2020-07-16 — Reel 055877/0684
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Kevin W. Dinn
  • Assignee: Kannuu Pty Ltd.
  • Correspondent: Matthew J. Downey, Downey Law Group LLC, 201 Spear Street, Suite 1100, San Francisco, CA 94105
  • Context: Formal assignment of interest from the sole inventor to his operating company, likely to clean up the title record ahead of a planned assertion campaign.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11573939
    2005 : Original priority application filed
    2019 : US application filed by Kannuu
    2020 : Inventor Dinn assigns interest to Kannuu
         : First infringement suits filed by Kannuu
    2023 : Patent issues
    2026 : PTAB IPR filed against this patent family

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The patent was assigned from the inventor directly to his operating company, Kannuu Pty Ltd. While Kannuu's business model has evolved into patent assertion, this specific transfer was not to a non-practicing shell entity.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. The current assignee, Kannuu Pty Ltd, is a known patent assertion entity. It has filed infringement lawsuits against numerous major technology companies, including Samsung, LG, and Vizio, asserting patents from this family. The patent text itself notes "Family has litigation" and points to a pending Inter Partes Review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB case IPR2026-00071), which are hallmarks of assertion activity.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present. Only one assignment is on record for this patent, so no pattern of recurrence can be established.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There is only a single transfer on record.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Present. The assignment from inventor Kevin Dinn to Kannuu Pty Ltd was executed on June 25, 2020. Public records show that Kannuu began filing infringement suits asserting the parent patents of this family against television manufacturers in late 2020. This assignment was recorded to perfect Kannuu's title immediately before launching its litigation campaign.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no public record of Kannuu Pty Ltd undergoing bankruptcy proceedings.

7. Privateering — Not present. The patent originated with the founder of the asserting company, not a large operating company transferring patents to a third party for assertion.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent is held by a known asserter.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The current assignee, Kannuu Pty Ltd, is a known and active patent assertion entity that has sued multiple large technology companies (Signal #2). Furthermore, the single recorded assignment was executed and recorded immediately prior to Kannuu launching its litigation campaign, indicating the transfer was made to prepare for assertion (Signal #5). The presence of these two strong signals confirms a high-confidence NPE classification.

Verification link: USPTO Assignment Search for US 11,573,939

An analysis of the prior art cited in US patent 11,573,939 reveals several relevant references. The following have been identified as the most significant for potentially challenging the novelty of the patent's single independent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102. These references describe user interfaces and selection methods in environments similar to that claimed in the '939 patent, namely television and set-top box systems controlled by remotes.

Key Prior Art and Potential Anticipation of Claim 1

1. US Patent Application Publication No. US 2002/0113825 A1 ("Perlman")

• Full Citation: US 2002/0113825 A1, "Apparatus and method for selecting data," filed by Stephen G. Perlman on February 22, 2001, and published on August 22, 2002.

• Brief Description: Perlman describes a system, particularly for a set-top box or similar media device, that allows a user to select data items from a large list displayed on a screen. The interface presents a "selection wheel" or list of characters. As the user selects characters with a remote control, the list of data items is filtered in real-time to show only those matching the entered character string. This is designed to simplify searching through extensive media libraries or program guides on a television.

• Potential Anticipation of Claim 1: Perlman appears to teach many elements of claim 1.

  • It discloses a system with a display (television), a remote control for input, and a processor (within a set-top box, which is analogous to being "contained within the television" for functional purposes).
  • Perlman's method involves generating a display of selectable characters (which are "parts of an item identifier") to filter a list of items (e.g., movie titles). Selecting a character ('J') filters the list to items starting with 'J'.
  • This is followed by generating a further display where the user can select another character ('A') to further filter the list to a subset (items starting with "JA").
  • The system inherently combines the selections ("J" and "A" become "JA") and displays this larger part of the identifier as the user's current search string.
  • The selectable characters are shorter than the complete item identifier (e.g., 'J' is shorter than "Jaws").
  • The "selection wheel" or circular arrangement of characters described in Perlman's figures (e.g., FIG. 5) is a direct parallel to the "circular menu" limitation, which can be navigated with the remote's directional keys.

  Given that Perlman describes a sequential, part-by-part method of building a search query on a television using a remote to select from character options arranged in a wheel, it presents a strong case for anticipating all the core functional elements of claim 1.

2. US Patent No. 7,152,213 B2 ("Infogation")

• Full Citation: US 7,152,213 B2, "System and method for dynamic key assignment in enhanced user interface," assigned to Infogation Corporation, filed on October 4, 2001, and issued on December 19, 2006.
• Brief Description: This patent details a user interface for devices with limited input keys, such as a remote control for a navigation or media system. It describes dynamically assigning functions, characters, or menu options to directional keys (up, down, left, right). A key feature is the display of options in an "annular" or circular arrangement around a central point on the screen, corresponding to the remote's directional pad.
• Potential Anticipation of Claim 1: The Infogation patent is highly relevant to the specific user interface limitations of claim 1.
  • It explicitly teaches the use of an "up, down, left, right, select" functionality of a remote to interact with an on-screen display.
  • Crucially, it discloses the arrangement of selectable items in a circular menu ("annular arrangement") where each position corresponds to a directional press on the remote. This directly maps to limitation (n) of claim 1.
  • While the patent focuses more on the dynamic assignment of the keys rather than the step-by-step building of an entire search string, its teachings on the control mechanic and UI layout are directly applicable. When combined with the common knowledge of predictive text or filtering search at the time, an argument could be made that it anticipates the claimed system. It strongly teaches the specific implementation of the remote control and circular menu for selecting on-screen items, which could be parts of an identifier.

3. US Patent No. 5,223,924 A ("Philips")

• Full Citation: US 5,223,924 A, "System and method for automatically correlating user preferences with a T.V. program information database," assigned to North American Philips Corporation, filed on May 27, 1992, and issued on June 29, 1993.
• Brief Description: This patent from the early 1990s describes a system for managing a television program database. It allows a user to input preferences, such as genres or actor names, to filter a large electronic program guide and find desirable content.
• Potential Anticipation of Claim 1: While much older, the Philips patent establishes key environmental elements of claim 1.
  • It clearly discloses a system using a television display and a processor to search and filter a database of items (TV programs) identified by text (program titles, actor names).
  • The user interacts with the system via a remote control.
  • The process of entering an actor's name to narrow down a list of programs is a form of selecting an item based on its identifier. However, Philips does not appear to describe the specific iterative UI of selecting parts of an identifier from a dynamically generated circular menu. It more likely assumes a traditional character-by-character input method, such as through an on-screen keyboard.
  • Therefore, Philips is excellent prior art for the general system concept (TV, remote, processor, database search) but likely fails to anticipate the more specific UI and selection process limitations (iterative selection of parts from a circular menu) found in claim 1.

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent 11,573,939 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

An invention is considered obvious if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). This analysis evaluates the single independent claim of U.S. Patent 11,573,939 (the '939 patent) in light of prior art references cited in the patent's own documentation. The priority date of the '939 patent is August 12, 2005, which serves as the critical date for evaluating the state of the art.

Deconstruction of Independent Claim 1

Independent Claim 1 of the '939 patent can be broken down into the following key elements:

• [1a] A television output display.
• [1b] A remote control with up, down, left, right, and select functionality.
• [1c] A computer processor within the television.
• [1d] A process of associating items in a database with item identifiers (e.g., names).
• [1e] A step-wise selection process:
  • Displaying initial "parts" of item identifiers, each corresponding to a set of items.
  • Upon selection of a part, displaying "additional parts" corresponding to a subset of the previously selected set.
• [1f] A process of combining the selected parts to build a "larger part" of an item identifier.
• [1g] Displaying the constructed larger part on the screen.
• [1h] The displayed parts for selection are shorter than the complete item identifier.
• [1i] The sets of items corresponding to the displayed parts are mutually exclusive.
• [1j] The selection is enabled by mapping the remote's directional keys to parts positioned in a circular menu on the display.

Proposed Obviousness Combination

The claim is rendered obvious by the combination of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0113825 ("Perlman") in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,593,913 ("Jellyvision") and the general knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA).

• Primary Reference: Perlman (US 2002/0113825 A1)
  Perlman, published on August 22, 2002, teaches a comprehensive system for selecting data, such as movies, on a television. It explicitly discloses a system with a television display, a set-top box with a processor (an obvious precursor to an integrated TV processor), and a remote control with directional and select keys (Perlman, FIG. 2). The system allows a user to navigate a database of items (e.g., movies identified by titles) and progressively filter or "whittle" down the list by making a series of selections from displayed categories (Perlman,-). This directly teaches the foundational elements of the '939 claim, including the TV, remote, processor, database of items with identifiers, and a step-wise selection process to narrow down results.

• Secondary Reference: Jellyvision (US 6,593,913 B1)
  Jellyvision, issued on July 15, 2003, is directed to a system for text entry on a device with a limited input mechanism, such as a remote control. It specifically teaches the method of displaying characters or parts of a string on a screen, allowing a user to select them sequentially, and combining these selected parts to construct a larger desired string (Jellyvision, Abstract, Col. 5, lines 3-13). This directly addresses the elements of the '939 claim that are not explicitly detailed in Perlman's category-based filtering system: specifically, the concept of building an identifier piece-by-piece by selecting "parts" and combining them into a "larger part" that is then displayed.

Motivation to Combine

A person of ordinary skill in the art in 2005, seeking to improve the efficiency of the data selection system in Perlman, would have been motivated to incorporate a more direct method for searching when a user knows the name of the desired item. While Perlman's category-based filtering is useful for browsing, it is inefficient for direct look-ups. The PHOSITA would have looked to known methods for text entry on television systems.

Jellyvision provides an established solution for exactly this problem. The motivation would be to integrate Jellyvision's character-by-character (or "part-by-part") construction method into Perlman's television environment. This would create a more versatile system, allowing users to either browse by category (as in Perlman) or directly spell out the name of the item (as in Jellyvision). This combination is a predictable application of a known text-entry technique to a known content-selection system to achieve the expected result of faster and more direct searching.

Mapping of Combined Art to Claim Elements

• [1a, 1b, 1d]: The TV display, remote, and database of items with identifiers are explicitly taught by Perlman.
• [1c]: Perlman teaches a processor in a set-top box. By 2005, integrating this processing capability directly into the television was a well-known and obvious trend in consumer electronics to reduce complexity and cost, making it an obvious design choice for a PHOSITA.
• [1e, 1f, 1g, 1h]: The core concept of selecting parts and combining them to build and display a larger identifier is directly taught by Jellyvision. Applying this method within Perlman's system—for example, by having the user select "J" from a first menu, then "O" from a second menu to build "JO"—is the direct and intended result of the combination. The fact that the selected parts are shorter than the whole identifier and represent mutually exclusive sets of results (e.g., items starting with "J" vs. items starting with "K") is inherent to this process.
• [1j]: The use of a "circular menu" is the final element. Perlman teaches using a four-way directional pad for selection. For a PHOSITA designing an interface to present four or five options corresponding to these directional inputs, a circular or cruciform layout is a conventional, ergonomic, and obvious design choice. It creates an intuitive visual mapping between the physical buttons on the remote and the virtual options on the screen. This does not constitute an inventive step but rather a routine design implementation falling within the skill set of an ordinary UI designer at the time.

Based on this analysis, the combination of Perlman's television selection environment with Jellyvision's text-building methodology, implemented using a conventional circular menu layout, would have rendered the invention claimed in U.S. Patent 11,573,939 obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date.

Based on a technical analysis of U.S. Patent 11,573,939, sourced from the provided patent text and its metadata, here are the details regarding its prosecution history and term.

Patent Term and Expiration

• Projected Expiration Date: The projected expiration date for this patent is August 11, 2026.

• Term Calculation: A standard U.S. patent term is 20 years from the earliest effective non-provisional filing date. In this case, the patent is part of a family that includes an international application, PCT/AU2006/001151, which was filed on August 11, 2006. The 20-year term is calculated from this date, resulting in the 2026 expiration.

• Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) / Extension (PTE): The provided documentation from Google Patents does not specify any Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) or Patent Term Extension (PTE). The alignment of the projected expiration date with the 20-year anniversary of the PCT filing date suggests that no PTA has been applied, or if it was, it was nullified by other factors such as a terminal disclaimer. Detailed PTA calculations would be available in the official file wrapper on the USPTO's Patent Center portal.

• Note on Validity: It is critical to note that while the patent is formally listed as "Active" and has a projected expiration date, the previous litigation summary indicates that the asserted claims were found to be invalid by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and that this decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. A patent with invalidated claims is generally unenforceable, regardless of its formal status or expiration date.

Continuity and Family Members

This patent is a continuation of a long series of prior applications, giving it an early priority date.

• Continuation Applications: The "CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS" section of the patent description details a direct lineage of continuation applications. US Patent 11,573,939 (from application Ser. No. 16/539,501) is a continuation of:

  • U.S. application Ser. No. 16/226,109 (filed Dec. 19, 2018)
  • U.S. application Ser. No. 15/791,992 (filed Oct. 24, 2017)
  • U.S. application Ser. No. 15/232,511 (filed Aug. 9, 2016), now U.S. Pat. No. 9,836,489
  • U.S. application Ser. No. 14/627,914 (filed Feb. 20, 2015), now U.S. Pat. No. 9,436,354
  • U.S. application Ser. No. 14/166,465 (filed Jan. 28, 2014), now U.S. Pat. No. 8,996,579
  • U.S. application Ser. No. 13/736,548 (filed Jan. 8, 2013), now U.S. Pat. No. 8,676,852
  • U.S. application Ser. No. 13/349,204 (filed Jan. 12, 2012), now U.S. Pat. No. 8,375,058
  • U.S. application Ser. No. 11/990,338 (filed Aug. 26, 2009), now U.S. Pat. No. 8,140,560
  • This chain claims priority from International Application No. PCT/AU2006/001151 (filed Aug. 11, 2006), which in turn claims priority to Australian Provisional Application No. 2005904378 (filed Aug. 12, 2005).

• Divisional Applications: The provided patent information does not list any divisional applications related to this patent or its direct predecessors.

• Related Family Members: This patent is part of a large international patent family. According to the "Family Applications" section of the provided information, related U.S. patents and applications include:

  • US 8,140,560
  • US 8,375,058
  • US 8,370,393
  • US 8,676,852
  • US 8,996,579
  • US 9,436,354
  • US 9,836,489
  • US 2018/0260424 A1 (Abandoned)

  Many of the earlier patents in this family are now listed as "Expired - Fee Related". The family also includes patents and applications in other countries, including Australia (AU), Canada (CA), China (CN), Europe (EP), Israel (IL), Japan (JP), New Zealand (NZ), and via the World Intellectual Property Organization (WO).

Defensive Disclosure and Prior Art Generation

Publication Date: May 13, 2026
Subject: Derivative Works and Obvious Implementations of Predictive, Hierarchical Text Input on Consumer Electronics
Reference Patent: US 11,573,939 B2 ("the '939 patent")
Technology Area: Human-Computer Interaction, Database Search, Consumer Electronics UI/UX.

This document discloses a series of technical implementations, variations, and combinations that build upon the core principles of the '939 patent. The purpose of this disclosure is to place these variations into the public domain, thereby establishing them as prior art for any future patent applications in this domain. A person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) in software engineering, embedded systems, and user interface design would find these variations to be logical and obvious extensions of the referenced art.

---

Axis 1: Material & Component Substitution

Derivative 1.1: System with Haptic Feedback Remote Control

• Enabling Description: This variation replaces the standard remote control keypad with a device incorporating a programmable haptic engine, such as a Linear Resonant Actuator (LRA) or an eccentric rotating mass (ERM) motor. The television's computer processor is configured to communicate with the remote over a low-latency bidirectional protocol (e.g., Bluetooth 5.2 with Isochronous Channels). As the user navigates the circular menu, the processor sends specific haptic commands corresponding to UI events. For example, moving focus from one menu segment to another triggers a short, sharp "click" vibration (waveform ID 0x01), while attempting to navigate past the end of a list triggers a longer, soft "buzz" (waveform ID 0x02). Selecting an item triggers a distinct confirmation pulse. This provides non-visual feedback, improving usability for visually impaired users or in low-light conditions. The haptic waveform library is stored on the remote's microcontroller and triggered by commands from the TV's processor.

• Architectural Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant User
      participant HapticRemote
      participant TV_Processor
      participant TV_Display
  
      User->>HapticRemote: Presses 'Right' on D-Pad
      HapticRemote->>TV_Processor: Sends Input_Event (Keycode: D-PAD_RIGHT)
      TV_Processor->>TV_Display: Update UI: Move focus in circular menu
      TV_Processor->>HapticRemote: Send Haptic_Command (Waveform_ID: 0x01, Duration: 50ms)
      HapticRemote->>User: Play "click" vibration
      User->>HapticRemote: Presses 'Select'
      HapticRemote->>TV_Processor: Sends Input_Event (Keycode: SELECT)
      TV_Processor->>TV_Display: Update UI: Confirm selection, load next menu
      TV_Processor->>HapticRemote: Send Haptic_Command (Waveform_ID: 0x0A, Duration: 150ms)
      HapticRemote->>User: Play "confirmation" vibration
  

Derivative 1.2: System with Gaze-Tracking and Voice Command Input

• Enabling Description: The remote control keypad is substituted with a multi-modal input system. A compact, low-power infrared (IR) camera module and an IR LED array are integrated into the television's bezel. A dedicated co-processor or a software module running on the main processor executes a gaze-tracking algorithm (e.g., based on a Convolutional Neural Network like GazeNet) to determine the user's point of regard on the screen in real-time. As the user's gaze dwells on a segment of the circular menu for a predetermined threshold (e.g., 500 ms), that segment is highlighted. Final selection is triggered by a voice command (e.g., "Select," "Choose," "OK") captured by a far-field microphone array and processed by an onboard natural language understanding (NLU) engine. This implementation frees the user from a physical input device.

• Data Flow Diagram:

  graph TD
      A[IR Camera Module] --> B{Gaze Tracking Processor};
      C[Far-Field Mic Array] --> D{NLU Engine};
      B --> E{Main TV Processor};
      D --> E;
      E --> F[UI Renderer];
      F --> G[Television Display];
      subgraph Input Subsystem
          A; C;
      end
      subgraph Processing Subsystem
          B; D; E; F;
      end
      subgraph Output
          G;
      end
      E -- Gaze Coordinates --> F;
      E -- Voice Command Confirmation --> F;
  

---

Axis 2: Operational Parameter Expansion

Derivative 2.1: System for High-Frequency Trading (HFT) Data Navigation

• Enabling Description: The invention is scaled to operate in a high-performance computing environment for financial data analysis. The "database" is a live, in-memory tick database (e.g., kdb+) storing petabytes of market data. The "television display" is a multi-monitor trading station with a 240Hz refresh rate. The "processor" is a server-grade CPU coupled with an FPGA for hardware-accelerated search. The hierarchical index tree is loaded into the FPGA's block RAM. User input from a specialized keypad is processed with sub-millisecond latency. The circular menu is rendered as a radial graph showing asset classes (Equities, Futures, FX). Successive selections narrow the context to specific exchanges, then to specific ticker symbols. The system resolves a complete selection path in under 50 microseconds to enable real-time drill-down into market microstructure data during active trading.

• State Diagram:

  stateDiagram-v2
      [*] --> Idle
      Idle --> Navigating_Asset_Class: Input Event
      Navigating_Asset_Class --> Navigating_Exchange: Selection Confirmed
      Navigating_Exchange --> Navigating_Ticker: Selection Confirmed
      Navigating_Ticker --> Displaying_Data: Selection Confirmed
      Displaying_Data --> Idle: Timeout or 'Back' Event
  
      state Navigating_Asset_Class {
          note right of Navigating_Asset_Class
              FPGA traverses root nodes of index tree.
              Latency < 10µs.
          end note
      }
      state Displaying_Data {
          note right of Displaying_Data
              Stream real-time Level 2 data
              for selected ticker.
          end note
      }
  

---

Axis 3: Cross-Domain Application

Derivative 3.1 (Aerospace): Cockpit Avionics Fault Isolation System

• Enabling Description: The system is implemented on an ARINC 661 compliant Cockpit Display System (CDS). The "processor" is a DAL-A certified flight computer. The "remote control" is a Hands on Throttle-And-Stick (HOTAS) control, specifically a 4-way hat switch plus a selection button. The "database" is the aircraft's Central Maintenance Computer (CMC) fault log, which is continuously updated by the Aircraft Condition Monitoring System (ACMS). When a fault is annunciated, the pilot can activate the search interface on a Multi-Function Display (MFD). The circular menu presents top-level ATA chapters (e.g., ATA 27 - Flight Controls, ATA 29 - Hydraulic Power). Subsequent selections navigate through systems and subsystems to the specific Line Replaceable Unit (LRU) that is reporting the fault, finally displaying the relevant electronic checklist (ECL) procedure.

• Architectural Diagram:

  graph TD
      subgraph HOTAS
          A[4-Way Hat Switch]
          B[Select Button]
      end
      subgraph "DAL-A Flight Computer"
          C[ARINC 661 Server]
          D[Fault Isolation Logic]
          E[CMC Database I/F]
      end
      subgraph "Cockpit Displays"
          F[Multi-Function Display]
      end
      G[Central Maintenance Computer]
  
      A --> D
      B --> D
      D <--> C
      C --> F
      D <--> E
      E <--> G
  

Derivative 3.2 (AgTech): Field-Deployable Genetic Sequencer Interface

• Enabling Description: The system is applied to a portable, ruggedized DNA/RNA sequencer used for in-field crop or livestock pathogen identification. The "display" is a 5-inch sunlight-readable LCD. The "remote control" is a set of environmentally sealed physical buttons (Up, Down, Left, Right, Select). The "database" is a specialized, compressed database of known pathogen genomes (e.g., stored on a local SSD). A field technician uses the interface to identify a sample. The first menu layer allows selection of the organism type ("Virus," "Bacteria," "Fungus"). Subsequent selections narrow down by family, genus, and finally present a list of probable species matches based on the sequencing run, with confidence scores. This allows for rapid, on-site diagnostics without requiring a laptop or extensive bioinformatics training.

• Flowchart:

  graph TD
      Start((Start Sequencing Run)) --> A{Load Pathogen DB};
      A --> B{Display Organism Menu};
      B --> C{User Selects Type};
      C --> D{Filter DB by Type};
      D --> E{Display Family Menu};
      E --> F{User Selects Family};
      F --> G{Filter DB by Family};
      G --> H{...Further Navigation...};
      H --> I{Display Probable Species};
      I --> J((Show Results & Confidence));
  

---

Axis 4: Integration with Emerging Tech

Derivative 4.1 (AI Integration): Context-Aware Predictive Menu

• Enabling Description: This variation integrates the system with a lightweight, on-device AI model (e.g., a distilled Transformer or a Gated Recurrent Unit network) running on a neural processing unit (NPU) within the TV's SoC. The model is trained on the user's viewing history, search queries, time of day, and even the genre of the currently playing content (obtained via audio or video content recognition). The processor queries the AI model to get a ranked list of predicted "next query fragments." Instead of presenting a static or simple frequency-ranked list of identifier parts, the circular menu is dynamically populated with the highest-probability fragments from the AI model. For example, if the user is watching a cooking show, the model will cause the system to pre-populate the menu with terms like "Recipe," "Chicken," "Oven," and "Italian."

• Sequence Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant User
      participant TV_Processor
      participant AI_NPU
      participant TV_Display
  
      User->>TV_Processor: Initiates Search
      TV_Processor->>AI_NPU: Request Predictions(Context: 'Cooking Show')
      AI_NPU-->>TV_Processor: Return Ranked List: ['Recipe', 'Chicken', 'Oven']
      TV_Processor->>TV_Display: Generate Circular Menu with AI-ranked items
      User->>TV_Processor: Selects 'Recipe'
      TV_Processor->>AI_NPU: Request Predictions(Context: 'Cooking Show', Prefix: 'Recipe')
      AI_NPU-->>TV_Processor: Return Ranked List: [' for pasta', ' easy', ' vegetarian']
      TV_Processor->>TV_Display: Generate next Circular Menu
  

---

Axis 5: The "Inverse" or Failure Mode

Derivative 5.1: Graceful Degradation for Networked Database Search

• Enabling Description: The system is designed for a media player that primarily searches a cloud-based content library but maintains a small local cache of content or metadata. A network monitoring daemon runs on the processor, constantly checking network latency and connectivity. If the connection to the cloud database is lost or exceeds a latency threshold (e.g., >1000ms), the system enters a "degraded" state. In this state, the search and selection logic is re-routed to a secondary index tree representing only the locally cached content. The UI renderer is simultaneously instructed to apply a different visual theme to the circular menu (e.g., changing its color to amber and displaying a "Local Content Only" watermark), clearly indicating the limited functionality to the user. When network connectivity is restored, the system seamlessly transitions back to using the primary cloud index.

• State Diagram:

  stateDiagram-v2
      [*] --> Online
      state Online {
          description "Searching full cloud database"
          [*] --> Connected
          Connected --> Degraded : Network Loss / High Latency
      }
      state Degraded {
          description "Searching local cache only"
          [*] --> Disconnected
          Disconnected --> Online : Network Restored
      }
  

---

Combination Prior Art Scenarios with Open-Source Standards

• Scenario 1: Combination with WebThings API (W3C Standard)

  • Description: The television acts as a "Web Thing" gateway, exposing its search functionality via the W3C Web of Things (WoT) Thing Description standard. The selection system of the '939 patent is used to navigate and control other devices in the WoT network. A user can navigate through a menu of available "Things" (e.g., "Living Room Light," "Thermostat"), and subsequent selections map to "Actions" defined in that Thing's Description (e.g., "toggle," "setTemperature"). The selection of an action and its parameters is performed using the circular menu interface. This combines the patented UI method with an open standard for IoT interoperability.

• Scenario 2: Combination with Kodi™ Media Center (Open Source Software)

  • Description: The patented search and selection method is implemented as an add-on for the open-source Kodi media center software. The add-on hooks into Kodi's JSON-RPC API. It builds its hierarchical index tree by querying the Kodi library for media metadata (movies, TV shows, artists, etc.). The circular menu UI is rendered using Kodi's Python-based skinning engine. Selections made by the user are translated into JSON-RPC commands to filter the library or initiate playback. This constitutes a direct implementation of the invention within a major, pre-existing open-source platform.

• Scenario 3: Combination with an Open-Source Voice Assistant (e.g., Mycroft)

  • Description: The system is integrated with a Mycroft Core instance running on the television or a connected device. The circular menu navigation can be controlled via voice commands (e.g., "Mycroft, navigate right," "Mycroft, select item"). Furthermore, a Mycroft "skill" is created where the voice assistant can query the hierarchical index directly. A user could say, "Mycroft, search for action movies starting with T," and Mycroft would programmatically traverse the index tree ("Action" -> "T") and display the corresponding circular menu on the screen for the user to complete the selection with the remote control. This creates a hybrid voice/manual navigation system built on open-source AI components.