Prior art

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 11653182, a search of the USPTO database for the patent and its citations is necessary. The USPTO's Patent Public Search tool can be used for this purpose.

Given the limitations of this current environment (no direct access to USPTO's Patent Public Search and its citation details), I will refer to the patent text itself for the list of "Cited By" and "Applications Claiming Priority" which often include relevant prior art or related applications. The patent's abstract and claims define its scope, and prior art typically anticipates (35 U.S.C. § 102) an invention if it discloses every limitation of the claimed invention.

Based on the provided full patent text for US11653182B2, the "Description" section lists a long chain of continuation applications, all stemming from PCT Patent Application No. PCT/AU2008/001043, filed Jul. 18, 2008, which claims priority to Australian Patent Application No. 2007903979, filed Jul. 24, 2007, and Australian Patent Application No. 2007906230, filed Nov. 13, 2007. These earlier applications are essentially earlier versions of the same inventive concept, and thus would be considered foundational.

In a typical patent examination, the examiner would cite references that predate the priority date (July 24, 2007, for US11653182B2) to assess novelty and non-obviousness. The Google Patents page for US11653182B2 also lists "Prior art keywords" such as "mobile phone," "message," "receiving mobile," "psms," and "sending."

Without direct access to the "Cited Patents" section from an official USPTO record for US11653182B2, a definitive list of examiner-cited prior art cannot be provided. However, the continuation chain itself indicates the evolution of the claimed invention.

To accurately identify and describe the most relevant prior art, I would need to perform a comprehensive search within the USPTO database for US11653182 and analyze the "References Cited" section of the patent's official record. This section typically includes patents and publications identified by the applicant and the patent examiner as relevant prior art during prosecution.

Regarding Litigation:

The litigation summary provided previously is consistent with the information found through general web searches. The patent family is indeed involved in litigation in the Texas Western District Court (Case 1:24-cv-01199), and an IPR (IPR2025-01488) was filed with the PTAB but was "Not Instituted - Procedural." Unified Patents and Darts-ip are recognized sources for such litigation information. As stated previously, direct access to CAFC 2026 dockets is not available, nor are the specific filing dates for the district court case or the IPR.