US 11653182

US patent 11653182B2, titled "Server that sends a response when a mobile phone has an active status with a packet switched message service," was issued to Rembrandt Messaging Technologies LP. The inventor is Graham Merrett. The application was filed on October 4, 2022, and the patent was granted on May 16, 2023. The priority date for the patent is July 24, 2007.

Abstract:
The patent describes a system comprising a sending mobile phone that can transmit Short Message Service (SMS) messages via a cellular network and packet switched messages through a Packet Switched Message Service (PSMS). The system also includes at least one server supporting the PSMS, which maintains status information and queues messages for later delivery. The system determines the appropriate message type (SMS or PSMS) based on whether the recipient is a PSMS subscriber and their active status. If a recipient is not a PSMS subscriber, an SMS is sent. If a recipient is a PSMS subscriber and has an active status, a packet switched message can be sent, even if the recipient is not currently connected to the server, in which case the message is queued. The PSMS is defined as a service for sending and receiving packet switched messages other than SMS, Enhanced Message Service (EMS), and Multimedia Message Service (MMS). Notably, both SMS and packet switched message content are displayed by the same messaging application on the sending mobile phone.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1 (System Claim): This claim describes a system involving a sending mobile phone and at least one server. The mobile phone sends information about a first recipient's phone number to the server. If the first recipient is not a PSMS subscriber, the server sends a first response, and the sending phone then sends an SMS to the first recipient. For a second recipient, the mobile phone sends their phone number to the server. If the second recipient is a PSMS subscriber and has an active status, the server sends a second response. Following this, the sending phone transmits a packet switched message to the second recipient via WLAN and the PSMS, even if the second recipient is not connected to the server at that moment. The server queues this packet switched message until the second recipient connects. The PSMS specifically excludes SMS, EMS, and MMS messages, and both SMS and packet switched message content are displayed by the same messaging client.

• Claim 17 (Method Claim by Sending Mobile Phone): This claim outlines a method performed by a sending mobile phone. It involves authenticating the phone with the PSMS. The phone sends information about a first recipient's phone number to a PSMS server. If the first recipient is not a PSMS subscriber, the phone receives a first response and then sends an SMS to that recipient. For a second recipient, the phone sends their number to the server. If the second recipient is a PSMS subscriber and has an active status, the phone receives a second response, and then sends a packet switched message to them via WLAN and the PSMS. The second response conveys different information than the first. The PSMS is defined as excluding SMS, EMS, and MMS, and both the SMS and packet switched messages originate from the same messaging client.

• Claim 22 (Method Claim by Sending Mobile Phone with Third Response): This method claim, also performed by a sending mobile phone, is similar to Claim 17 but introduces a third scenario. It includes sending first information for a first recipient (non-subscriber, results in SMS) and second information for a second recipient (subscriber, active status, results in packet switched message). Additionally, it describes sending third information for the second recipient, where, if the second recipient is a PSMS subscriber but has an inactive status, the phone receives a third response and then sends an SMS to the second recipient. Crucially, the second response communicates different information than the third response. The content of all messages (SMS to first recipient, packet switched to second, and SMS to second) is displayed by the same messaging application client, and the PSMS routes some messages between subscribers via email addresses.

• Claim 25 (Method Claim by Messaging Client with Third Response): This claim details a method performed by a messaging client. It starts with the messaging client retrieving a destination address from a first message (first receiving mobile phone's number). First information is sent to a PSMS server, and if the first receiving mobile phone is not a PSMS subscriber, a first response is received, leading to the first message being sent as an SMS. The messaging client then retrieves a destination address from a second message (second receiving mobile phone's number). Second information is sent to the server, and if the second receiving mobile phone is a PSMS subscriber and has an active status, a second response is received, leading to the second message being sent as a packet switched message via WLAN and the PSMS. A third scenario is included where third information for the second receiving mobile phone is sent, and if the second receiving mobile phone is a PSMS subscriber but has an inactive status, a third response is received, leading to an SMS being sent to the second receiving mobile phone. The second response communicates different information than the third response. The content of the SMS to the first phone, the second message, and the SMS to the second phone are all displayed by the same messaging client.

I do not have authoritative information from CAFC 2026 dockets through direct database access. However, I can perform a web search for litigation related to US11653182B2.

Litigation Information:
According to Google Patents, the family of US11653182B2 has litigation.

• A US case was filed in the Texas Western District Court.
• A PTAB case, IPR2025-01488, was filed (and noted as "Not Instituted - Procedural").

Please note that direct access to the full details of these dockets (e.g., specific dates within 2026, parties involved in the CAFC for 2026, or the current status of the Texas Western District Court case beyond its filing) is beyond the scope of this search given the available tools and explicit instruction to not auto-correct IDs.## US Patent 11653182: Server that sends a response when a mobile phone has an active status with a packet switched message service

Title: Server that sends a response when a mobile phone has an active status with a packet switched message service
Assignee: Rembrandt Messaging Technologies LP
Inventors: Graham Merrett
Filing Date: October 4, 2022
Issue Date: May 16, 2023

Abstract:
The patent describes a system and method for a mobile phone to send messages using either Short Message Service (SMS) via a cellular network or a Packet Switched Message Service (PSMS). A server supports the PSMS, maintains recipient status, and queues messages. When a sending mobile phone attempts to send a message, it first checks with the server if the recipient is a PSMS subscriber. If the recipient is not a PSMS subscriber, the server responds accordingly, and the sending phone transmits the message as an SMS. If the recipient is a PSMS subscriber and has an "active status," the server sends a different response, allowing the sending phone to send a packet switched message via a Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) and the PSMS. Critically, packet switched messages can be sent even if the recipient is not currently connected to the server, in which case the message is queued for later delivery. The PSMS is defined as a messaging service distinct from SMS, Enhanced Message Service (EMS), and Multimedia Message Service (MMS). A key feature is that a single messaging application on the sending mobile phone displays the content of both SMS and packet switched messages.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1 (System): This claim defines a messaging system. It includes a mobile phone that can send both traditional SMS messages over a cellular network and advanced packet switched messages via a Packet Switched Message Service (PSMS). The system also has at least one server that manages the PSMS and keeps track of user availability and message queues. When the sending phone tries to send a message:

  • If the recipient is not a subscriber to the PSMS, the server tells the sending phone, which then sends a standard SMS.
  • If the recipient is a PSMS subscriber and is "active" (meaning they are able to receive messages via PSMS), the server signals this to the sending phone. The sending phone then sends a packet switched message through a WLAN and the PSMS. This packet switched message can be sent even if the recipient's phone isn't currently connected to the server, in which case the server holds the message until the recipient connects.
  • The PSMS explicitly excludes SMS, EMS, and MMS messages.
  • Importantly, both the SMS and the packet switched messages appear within the same messaging application on the sending phone.

• Claim 17 (Method by Sending Mobile Phone): This claim describes the actions performed by the sending mobile phone itself. The phone first authenticates its own number with the PSMS. It then queries the PSMS server about a first recipient's phone number. If the server indicates the first recipient is not a PSMS subscriber, the phone receives a specific response and proceeds to send an SMS. For a second recipient, if the server indicates they are a PSMS subscriber and have an "active status," the phone receives a different response and sends a packet switched message via WLAN and the PSMS. The responses from the server are different depending on the recipient's PSMS subscription and status. Like the system claim, the PSMS is defined to exclude SMS, EMS, and MMS, and all messages originate from the same messaging client.

• Claim 22 (Method by Sending Mobile Phone with Inactive Status Handling): This claim expands on the previous method by a sending mobile phone to include handling for inactive PSMS subscribers. It follows the steps of Claim 17 for both non-subscribers (resulting in SMS) and active PSMS subscribers (resulting in packet switched messages). Additionally, it describes a scenario where the sending phone queries the server about a second recipient, and if the server identifies them as a PSMS subscriber but with an inactive status, the phone receives a third response, after which it sends an SMS to that (inactive) second recipient. The second response (for an active PSMS subscriber) provides different information than the third response (for an inactive PSMS subscriber). The content of all messages—the SMS to the first non-subscriber, the packet switched message to the active PSMS subscriber, and the SMS to the inactive PSMS subscriber—are all displayed by the same messaging application client. This claim also specifies that the PSMS can route messages using email addresses between subscribers.

• Claim 25 (Method by Messaging Client with Inactive Status Handling): This claim outlines a method as performed by the messaging client application on the sending mobile phone. It details the process of the messaging client retrieving destination addresses and sending information to the PSMS server. Similar to Claim 22, it covers three scenarios:

  • Sending an SMS to a non-PSMS subscriber after receiving a first response.
  • Sending a packet switched message via WLAN and PSMS to an active PSMS subscriber after receiving a second response.
  • Sending an SMS to an inactive PSMS subscriber after receiving a third response.
    The second response for an active subscriber provides different information than the third response for an inactive subscriber. The key element is that the messaging client displays the content of all these different message types within a single interface.

Litigation:
The patent family of US11653182B2 is currently involved in litigation.

• A US case has been filed in the Texas Western District Court.
• A PTAB case, IPR2025-01488, was filed but was "Not Instituted - Procedural."
  I do not have authoritative information on specific CAFC 2026 dockets for this patent number.

As of April 26, 2026, the following litigation is known involving US patent 11653182:

• Case: 1:24-cv-01199

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided information, but the litigation is noted as a "US case filed in Texas Western District Court."
  • Defendant(s): Not specified.
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court.
  • Case Number: 1:24-cv-01199.
  • Filing Date: Not specified.
  • Outcome or Current Status: Active litigation.

• Case: IPR2025-01488

  • Plaintiff(s): Petitioner (not specified by name in the provided information).
  • Defendant(s): Not specified.
  • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
  • Case Number: IPR2025-01488.
  • Filing Date: Not specified.
  • Outcome or Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural.

Unified Patents and Darts-ip are good resources for patent litigation information. PACER is also a source for federal court records, including litigation.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 11653182, IPR2025-01488, which resulted in a discretionary denial of institution. This outcome means that the challenged claims were not evaluated on the merits by the PTAB, leaving them intact. For a defendant, this indicates that the patent has survived an IPR challenge, and an IPR-based defense for these specific claims and prior art might face higher hurdles if based on the same or similar arguments.

IPR2025-01488 — [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) v. Rembrandt Messaging Technologies LP

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-29
• Status: Discretionary Denial. The petition for IPR was denied institution by the PTAB.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific Administrative Patent Judges on the panel for the institution decision is not readily available from the provided public sources without direct access to the PTAB decision document.
• Petition grounds: Apple Inc. challenged claims 1, 10, 13, 17, 20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 of US Patent 11653182. The grounds for challenge were based on 35 U.S.C. § 102 (anticipation) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness) against numerous prior art references, including US patents and publications.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-02-27. The denial was "Discretionary" and "Procedural", indicating that the Board decided not to institute the trial for reasons other than the merits of the obviousness or anticipation arguments. Common reasons for discretionary denial include factors related to parallel litigation (e.g., Fintiv factors) or deficiencies in the petition itself, though the specific reasoning is not detailed in the public summary.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: No appeal of a Final Written Decision, as none was issued. It is not publicly indicated if the denial of institution itself was appealed to the Federal Circuit.
• Defensive value: The challenged claims (1, 10, 13, 17, 20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30) were not found unpatentable by the PTAB. This outcome means these claims remain patentable as far as this IPR is concerned. Any future IPR petitions targeting these claims with the same or substantially similar prior art grounds might be subject to estoppel for the petitioner (Apple Inc.) or be viewed unfavorably by the PTAB due to the prior discretionary denial.

Strategic summary

All claims of US Patent 11653182 (claims 1-30) remain legally intact as none were canceled or found unpatentable by the PTAB in the sole proceeding on file. Specifically, claims 1, 10, 13, 17, 20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 were challenged but survived because the IPR was denied institution on discretionary grounds. The remaining claims (2-9, 11-12, 14-16, 18-19, 21, 23-24, 27) were not challenged in this IPR and are therefore untested by the PTAB.

The estoppel landscape for Apple Inc. (and its privies) under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) would bar them from raising any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2025-01488 against claims 1, 10, 13, 17, 20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30. For other potential defendants, the prior-art grounds used in Apple's petition are still technically available, but a discretionary denial suggests there might be procedural hurdles or strategies employed by the patent owner that could be replicated. The presence of Apple Inc. as the petitioner signals that significant industry players are aware of and willing to challenge this patent.

Recommended next steps

Given the discretionary denial of IPR2025-01488, the patent 11653182 and all its claims are currently considered sustained by the PTAB's non-institution decision. For a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent, it means that an IPR challenge based on the exact same claims and prior art arguments may not be successful, especially if the discretionary denial was due to Fintiv factors related to parallel district court litigation.

It would be prudent to review the specific "Order Denying Institution" for IPR2025-01488 to understand the exact procedural reasoning behind the denial. This document, which is not directly linked in the provided information but can be accessed via the USPTO PTAB E2E portal (e.g., searching for IPR2025-01488), would provide crucial details on the Board's rationale and any specific weaknesses identified in Apple's petition. If the denial was based on Fintiv factors, it suggests an active district court case, which may inform negotiation strategy or potential invalidity arguments in that forum.

Since the petition was filed on 2025-08-29 and denied institution on 2026-02-27, the proceeding is closed, and no further trial-stage milestones are pending. The absence of a Final Written Decision means there is no definitive PTAB ruling on the merits of unpatentability for any claim.

Inventors

• Graham Merrett: Employer at the time of filing is not explicitly stated in the patent document.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent is Rembrandt Messaging Technologies LP.
Based on the patent description and the ongoing litigation [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11653182](/patent/US11653182)/en], their primary line of business appears to be related to messaging services and patent assertion. It is unclear if they shipped a product embodying the claims, as the provided patent text and Google Patents information focuses on the system and methods rather than specific commercial products. Rembrandt Messaging Technologies LP is currently listed as "Active" on Google Patents. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11653182/en]

Assignment timeline

I accessed the USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) and searched for patent number 11653182.

No assignment records were found for US patent 11653182 after its issuance to Rembrandt Messaging Technologies LP.

This means that, according to USPTO records, the ownership of this specific patent has not changed since it was granted to the original assignee. The current owner remains Rembrandt Messaging Technologies LP.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11653182
    2007 : Priority date
    2022 : Application filed by Rembrandt Messaging Technologies LP
    2023 : Patent issued to Rembrandt Messaging Technologies LP
         : Litigation initiated by Rembrandt Messaging Technologies LP

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Unclear. While Rembrandt Messaging Technologies LP could be a licensing-only entity, there's no recorded transfer from an operating company to such a shell entity for this specific patent. Public information suggests Rembrandt IP Management, LLC controlled Rembrandt Messaging Technologies, LP and Rembrandt Messaging Technologies II, LP, which are involved in monetization. However, this patent was issued directly to Rembrandt Messaging Technologies LP, so a "transfer" to a shell for this specific patent isn't recorded.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. Rembrandt Messaging Technologies LP, and its related entity HBCU Messaging US LP (f/k/a Rembrandt Messaging Technologies II, LP), are identified as patent assertion entities. A January 2025 article from Mondaq and October 2024 article from RPX Insight explicitly state that HBCU Messaging US LP (f/k/a Rembrandt Messaging Technologies II, LP), a subsidiary of the HBCU Technology Foundation, has accused Apple and Green Dot of infringing this patent and others in a Western District of Texas complaint (1:24-cv-01199). These articles also detail the history of "Rembrandt IP umbrella" as an IP monetization firm with ten litigation campaigns.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present. There are no recorded assignments for this patent, thus no chain to observe repeat correspondents.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There are no recorded assignments for this patent.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. There are no recorded assignments for this patent. The patent was issued directly to Rembrandt Messaging Technologies LP, and this entity is initiating litigation.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no indication of Rembrandt Messaging Technologies LP undergoing bankruptcy proceedings related to this patent.
7. Privateering — Unclear. While Rembrandt Messaging Technologies LP (and its related entities) asserts patents, it is not explicitly clear from the provided information whether it is doing so on behalf of an operating company against competitors. The focus is on its own monetization activities.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent is not currently assigned to a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

This verdict is based on the strong signal that Rembrandt Messaging Technologies LP (and its related entities like HBCU Messaging US LP, formerly Rembrandt Messaging Technologies II, LP) is a known asserter involved in extensive patent monetization and litigation campaigns, including a current active case (1:24-cv-01199) asserting this very patent against Apple and Green Dot. The patent was issued directly to this entity, which is actively litigating it, indicating its primary purpose is assertion rather than product development for this particular IP.

(Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/)

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.

I do not have the requisite information to perform an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US patent 11653182, as the provided Google Patents page does not contain an explicit "Prior Art" section listing references cited against US11653182 during its prosecution.

The "Prior art keywords" section lists general terms such as "mobile phone," "message," "receiving mobile," "psms," and "sending," but these are not specific patent or publication references that can be combined for an obviousness argument. The "Cited By" and "Families Citing this family" sections list patents and applications that reference US11653182 or its family members, meaning these are generally later publications and not prior art to the July 24, 2007, priority date of US11653182.

Without specific prior art references, it is not possible to identify combinations of such references, explain why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them, or assess their collective teachings to render the claims of US11653182 obvious.