US 11659381

US 11,659,381 B2 — Verification Summary

Sources used: the authoritative full text of US 11,659,381 B2 supplied in this matter (Google Patents, fetched 2026-10-01), plus live web results including Unified Patents, Docket Alarm/PACER-derived records, PTAB/PTActs filings (IPR2024-00767 exhibits, ex parte reexam 90/019,507 papers), USPTO Director Review orders, and Law360 reporting. I did not obtain a direct PACER/CM-ECF query of a 2026 CAFC docket for this number; see the caveat in §6.

1. Bibliographic data

Family / priority chain (continuations): 12/333,303 (US 8,392,591) → 13/740,214 (US 8,700,790) → 14/172,913 (US 8,798,539) → 14/273,546 (US 8,862,757) → 14/503,401 (aband.) → 14/576,202 (US 9,749,847) → 15/659,637 (US 10,425,806) → 16/532,507 (US 11,234,121) → 17/542,373 (the '381). Child continuation 18/193,686 issued as US 12,058,779 B2. Darts-ip family ID 40799912.

Post-grant correction: A Certificate of Correction under 35 U.S.C. § 255 was requested and paid for on May 29, 2023 (attorney docket "CellSpin_04Con18"), identifying clerical/typographical corrections to claims 1, 8, and 14 (the record also references a Claim 12/Col. 14 correction). The exact scope of the certificate as issued should be verified against the USPTO face record; I am not fully certain of every corrected line.

2. Abstract (as issued)

Disclosed is a method and system for utilizing a digital data capture device in conjunction with a Bluetooth (BT) enabled mobile device for publishing data and multimedia content on one or more websites automatically or with minimal user intervention. A client application is provided on the BT enabled mobile device; absent in-built BT capability, a BT communication device is provided on the digital data capture device. The BT communication device is paired with the BT enabled mobile device to establish a connection. The client application detects capture of data and multimedia content on the digital data capture device and initiates transfer of the captured data, multimedia content, and associated files. The digital data capture device transfers them to the client application, which automatically publishes the transferred data and multimedia content on one or more websites.

Important caveat: the issued claims are materially narrower and different in character from this 2007-era specification narrative. The claims are directed to a mobile phone software application plus a server-side advertising/authentication architecture, including HTTP upload over a cellular data network, GPS-inclusive user preferences, and in-app advertising — limitations that were added late (via the Feb. 21, 2023 Notice of Allowance and the post-NOA amendment filed before issuance).

3. Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — System (mobile app + online publishing service)

A two-sided system:

• (a) A mobile software application on a Bluetooth-enabled cellular phone that:
  1. Detects and receives "new-data" acquired by a Bluetooth-enabled data capture device, where the data is acquired after pairing, and where pairing includes the capture device cryptographically authenticating the phone's identity (i.e., Bluetooth pairing/authentication, not merely discovering the phone). Detection is done by the app listening for an event notification (a signal pushed from the capture device) and then receiving the notification and the new-data over the paired link;
  2. Stores the received new-data in phone memory;
  3. Uses HTTP to upload the new-data plus a user authentication credential to a remote server over a cellular data network, and further uses HTTP to send a user preference to the server, the user preference including GPS information; and
  4. Displays a mobile advertisement inside the app.
• (b) An online data publishing web service comprising: the remote server with an internet connection to the app; a user-authentication software module that processes the received credential; a database storing a user profile; and a mobile-application advertising software module that selects ads based on the user profile and sends them to the app.
• The web service receives the new-data and credential over HTTP and processes them.

Claim 7 — Standalone mobile software application

The same app-side requirements as claim 1 (Bt device-pairing with cryptographic authentication of the phone; event-notification detection; store in memory; HTTP upload of new-data + authentication credential over a cellular data network; HTTP send of a GPS-containing user preference; display an in-app advertisement) — but recited as the software application per se, without the server-side modules of claim 1.

Claim 12 — Standalone mobile software application (polling variant)

Identical to claim 7 except for the detection mechanism: instead of listening for an event notification, the app polls the Bluetooth capture device over the paired connection — i.e., it sends a request asking the capture device to check whether acquired new-data is available for transfer — and then receives the new-data.

Dependent claims (2–6, 8–11, 13–16): credential stored in phone memory and used by the server to authenticate the user; server stores the new-data; touch-based GUI for the received data; touch-based advertisement targeted to a user; and (claim 6) the in-app advertisement being based on the user profile.

Practical takeaway: the claim family reduces to three independent concepts — (i) event-push detection (claims 1, 7) vs. (ii) polling detection (claim 12), and (iii) app-only vs. app-plus-server ("online data publishing web service") claim format. The distinctive post-2007 additions that distinguish these claims from the earlier patents in the family are the GPS-inclusive user preference sent by HTTP and the advertising/user-profile monetization layer.

4. Post-grant and PTAB proceedings against the '381 (as of April 2026)

Related district court litigation: Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. ByteDance Ltd. et al., No. 2:23-cv-00496 (E.D. Tex., filed Oct. 20, 2023; Judge Rodney Gilstrap / Mag. J. Roy S. Payne). Asserted patents include 11,659,381, plus 10,667,089; 11,234,121; 6,344,470; 8,756,336; 8,862,757; 8,898,260; 8,904,030; 9,900,766. Docket: stay granted Jan. 27, 2025 (Doc. 106); unopposed motion to continue (Doc. 113, June 3, 2026); status conference June 17, 2026; stay lifted July 16, 2026 (Doc. 119). Google Patents also flags "First worldwide family litigation filed" (Darts-ip family 40799912).

5. Older Federal Circuit / Supreme Court history (context, not 2026)

The Cellspin appellate history I found concerns earlier-family patents, not the '381:

• Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, LLC, Fed. Cir. No. 23-1526 (nonprecedential disposition, Nov. 1, 2024): appeal dismissed as to Nikon; affirmed as to Fitbit (recusal issue, tracking the summary judgment of noninfringement).
• Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Nikon (Fed. Cir. No. 22-2032): affirmance by summary order; patents at issue were US 8,738,794, 8,892,752, and 9,749,847.
• [Garmin USA, Inc.](/litigations/by-defendant/Garmin%20USA%2C%20Inc.) v. Cellspin Soft, Inc., S. Ct. No. 19-400 (cert. petition; § 101 / Alice step two as a factual question under Aatrix).
• Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit LLC, S. Ct. No. 24-944 — cert. petition denied May 5, 2025.

6. CAFC 2026 docket search — explicit uncertainty

I found no Federal Circuit docket, appeal, or order in 2026 that specifically names U.S. Patent No. 11,659,381. My searches surfaced 2026 activity only at the PTAB/Director level (IPR2024-00767 vacatur and denial, Mar. 30, 2026; the April 17, 2026 new institutions; the June 2026 settlements) and in the district court (E.D. Tex. stay lifted July 16, 2026). A 2026 CAFC appeal of the Director Review decision, the reexamination, or the ByteDance case is possible but I have no authoritative record of one, and I am not able to query PACER/CM-ECF directly here. Per your instruction, I have not substituted or auto-corrected any patent number — all identifiers above are reproduced literally as found.

7. Key discrepancies flagged (not resolved)

1. Filing date: Dec. 4, 2021 (Google Patents / USPTO receipt) vs. Dec. 3, 2021 (Unified Patents).
2. Issue date: May 23, 2023 (Google Patents / certificate record) vs. May 22, 2023 (Unified Patents).
3. Priority date: Dec. 28, 2007 (Google Patents, matches provisional 61/017,202) vs. Dec. 27, 2007 (Unified Patents).
4. Claim numbering: the pre-issuance post-NOA amendment shows claim 4 cancelled and claim 5 = "touch based GUI"; the issued claim set printed in the patent text shows claim 4 = touch based GUI and claim 5 = touch based advertisement — consistent with the Certificate of Correction renumbering, but I have not independently confirmed the corrected text line-by-line.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 11659381. Let me search multiple sources.

Let me gather more specifics on each case and verify which assert the '381 patent.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 11,659,381 ("the '381 patent")

Based on my searches (Unified Patents portal, Docket Alarm, Justia Dockets, Law.com Radar, USPTO PTAB documents, and the Google Patents family record for US11659381B2), I found one district-court litigation in which the '381 patent is confirmed asserted, plus one PTAB inter partes review and one USPTO ex parte reexamination. I did not find any ITC action or other district-court suit expressly asserting the '381 patent.

Note on scope: The '381 patent is a continuation in a large CellSpinSoft family (priority date 2007‑12‑28). Many CellSpinSoft suits assert sibling patents (e.g., 8,738,794; 8,892,752; 9,749,847; 8,904,030; 9,900,766), and these are not the '381 patent. I have confined the list below to matters where '381 is identified.

1. District Court — Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. ByteDance Ltd. et al.

Sources: Google Patents US11659381B2 (Texas E.D. case link); Docket Alarm (2:23-cv-00496); CellSpinSoft POPR in IPR2024‑00767 (identifying "Plaintiff CellspinSoft, Inc., and Defendants Bytedance Ltd., Bytedance Pte. Ltd., and TikTok Pte. Ltd. [Case No. 2:23-cv-496-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex., filed Oct. 23, 2023)]").

2. PTAB — TikTok Inc. v. Cellspin Soft, Inc., IPR2024-00767 (U.S. Patent No. 11,659,381 B2)

Caution: A later PTAB development (reported April 2026) vacated institution and denied/terminated several related CellSpinSoft IPRs (IPR2024‑00768, ‑00769, ‑00770, and others) on a real-party-in-interest / foreign-government-control theory tied to TikTok. I could not positively confirm whether that vacatur order also reached IPR2024‑00767; the reported order enumerated -00768, -00769, and -00770. I flag this as unresolved.

3. USPTO — Ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 11,659,381 (Control No. 90/019,507)

Not "litigation" in the judicial sense, but a contested administrative challenge to the same patent:

Related matters that do NOT involve the '381 patent (for exclusion/clarity)

• CAFC Nos. 22-2025 and 23-1526 — Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit LLC, et al. (nonprecedential decision Nov. 1, 2024): asserted U.S. Patents 8,738,794; 8,892,752; and 9,749,847 — not the '381 patent. The court affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement (user-identifier limitation) as to Fitbit, Fossil, and Garmin, and dismissed the Nikon appeal.
• Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:25-cv-00949 (E.D. Tex., filed Sept. 15, 2025): reporting indicates the asserted patents are 9,900,766; 10,425,806; and 11,234,121 — not 11,659,381 (a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is pending).
• Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Garmin Corporation, No. 2:25-cv-00950 (E.D. Tex.): briefing references the '847 patent (9,749,847); I could not confirm '381 is asserted.
• Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fossil Stores I, Inc. et al., No. 2:25-cv-00683 (E.D. Tex., filed July 3, 2025): reported as asserting "three patents related to Bluetooth data transfer"; I could not confirm from available sources whether '381 is among them.
• Older 2017 CellSpinSoft campaign (N.D. Cal.): asserted the '794/'752/'847 family, not '381.

Bottom line

The only confirmed district-court litigation asserting U.S. Patent No. 11,659,381 is Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. ByteDance Ltd. et al., No. 2:23-cv-00496-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.), which is stayed pending IPR2024-00767 (instituted) and is also the subject of ex parte reexamination 90/019,507. I could not verify the outcome, settlement, or current operative status of the stay beyond the January 27, 2025 stay order; the docket-index entries referencing a June/July 2026 lifting of the stay post-date today's date and should be independently verified on PACER before reliance. I found no other litigation asserting the '381 patent, but I cannot rule out unindexed or very recent filings, and I could not confirm the patent lists in the 2025 DJI, Garmin, and Fossil complaints.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been on file against US 11,659,381 ("'381"): IPR2024-00767 (TikTok Inc. et al. v. CellSpin Soft, Inc.) — status: institution granted 2024-10-01, then institution vacated and the petition denied / IPR terminated by Director decision on 2026-03-30. There are no claims invalidated, none sustained, no FWD, no settlement, and no live AIA trial on the '381 patent today. Bottom line for a defendant: the '381 patent has never been adjudicated on the merits at the PTAB — the one instituted IPR died on a real-party-in-interest/"person" defect three months into trial — so all 16 claims remain untested-and-presumed-valid, and there is zero § 315(e)(2) estoppel blocking any invalidity ground you want to run. The offsetting signal is the opposite of "hardened": a separate third-party ex parte reexamination (90/019,507, Unified Patents) is pending on claims 1–16, the claimed-validity picture is therefore still open, and the patent is co-pending with a family that has already been held unpatentable in IPR and knocked out on § 101 in the Northern District of California.

Data-source flag (per your instructions): the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block reports zero AIA trials on '381 from the USPTO ODP ingest. That is contradicted by the patent record and multiple public sources, which show IPR2024-00767. I treat the proceeding below as real (it is documented in the Director's own orders and in Law360) and flag the ODP gap as an ingest/terminated-case indexing issue. The IPR is no longer pending, which may explain its absence from a current-status ingest. Note also that the Google Patents snapshot in the full patent text still labels IPR2024-00767 as "Pending - Instituted" — that label is stale as of 2026-03-30.

IPR2024-00767 — TikTok Inc. et al. v. CellSpin Soft, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319)
• Filed: 2024-04-04 (petitioner-side docket; the companion CellSpin IPRs were filed 2024-04-01 through 2024-04-04)
• Status (verbatim from structured data): "Pending - Instituted" (Google Patents snapshot, 2026-10-01 fetch — outdated). Third-party databases now show "Institution Denied." Plain-English gloss: the Board instituted trial on 2024-10-01; the Director later vacated that institution and terminated the proceeding on 2026-03-30, so no trial ever occurred and no FWD ever issued.
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Gregg I. Anderson, Cynthia M. Hardman, and Michael A. Valek (panel of record for the 00767 grouping per the Board's oral-argument order, in which Judge Valek authored). Chairing APJ on the October 2024 institution decision: Hardman, joined by Anderson and Valek.
• Petition grounds: Challenged all claims 1–16 (independent claims 1, 7, 12). Grounds were § 103 obviousness combinations built on Hiroishi, Kahn, the Bluetooth specifications, and Singh129 / Singh906 (the combination set is recited verbatim in Unified Patents' later reexam request, which expressly distinguishes its own art from "IPR2024-00767['s] … Hiroishi, Kahn, Singh129 and Singh906"). No § 112 or § 101 grounds were instituted; CellSpin's preliminary response also defended priority and the "event notification," "polling," "advertising," and "HTTP" limitations.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2024-10-01 (Paper 9). The panel refused discretionary denial, holding that 35 U.S.C. § 316(b) does not extend to foreign-policy or national-security considerations — i.e., it declined to deny because of the TikTok/Chinese-government controversy CellSpin pressed, and it also rejected CellSpin's § 325(d) and written-description arguments. See Banner Witcoff's PTAB Highlights summary: https://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/ptab-highlights-getzelman-moon-2.pdf
• Final Written Decision: None. No FWD was ever issued in this IPR, and no claim of '381 was canceled or confirmed by the Board. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise — the trial was terminated before the FWD deadline.
• Settlement / termination: Not a settlement. Chain of events after institution:
  • 2025-06-02 — Board denies Patent Owner's motion to terminate (Paper 33), rejecting CellSpin's arguments that (i) TikTok failed to name the Chinese Communist Party as an RPI under § 312(a) and (ii) TikTok is a sovereign-controlled non-"person" under Return Mail.
  • 2025-06-05 — Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart initiates sua sponte Director Review of the institution decisions in all seven CellSpin IPRs (Paper 34) and stays the proceedings. This is the point at which this IPR ceased to be a normal trial.
  • 2025-06-18 — consolidated oral argument was held (90 minutes per side for the 00767/00768/00769/00770 grouping) per the Board's order: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00757/TikTok_Inc._v._Cellspin_Soft_Inc/docs/05-21-2025-Board/Order__Other-29-ORDER_Setting_Oral_Argument_37_CFR_%C2%A7_4270.pdf
  • 2026-03-30 — Director John A. Squires issues the dispositive decision (Paper 42): "the Board's decisions granting institution of inter partes review in the above-captioned proceedings are vacated… the Petitions are denied, and no trials are instituted." Reasoning: TikTok bore the burden to show no foreign government was an RPI at filing; CellSpin put the RPI question in dispute with documentary evidence and DHS advisories; TikTok declined the Board's offer to submit rebuttal evidence; under Tianma Microelectronics Co. v. LG Display Co., IPR2025-01579, Paper 12 (Director Mar. 18, 2026) (precedential), a foreign government is not a "person" under the AIA, and a petitioner that cannot carry its burden on RPI is ineligible to file an IPR. TikTok's 2026 TikTok USDS joint-venture restructuring was irrelevant, because standing is measured as of the petition filing date. The same order vacated the joinders of LifeScan, Senseonics, and Ascensia into IPR2024-00768/-00769/-00770. Decision text (NYIPLA PTAB committee reproduction): https://www.nyipla.org/images/nyipla/Programs/2026/April21PTAB/April%[202026](/patent/202026)%20PTAB%20Committee%20Meeting.pdf ; confirmed in the Director's later order at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ipr2025-01061_tiktok_v_destefano_director_review_order.pdf ; trade press: https://www.law360.co.uk/media/articles/[2460056](/patent/2460056)/squires-ends-tiktok-ip-challenges-for-not-listing-foreign-ties
  • Note the date discrepancy in third-party databases: GreyB lists the institution-decision/termination event as 2026-03-29; the Director's order and Law360 are dated 2026-03-30. Use 2026-03-30.
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal of this IPR found, and none is realistically available — denials of institution are insulated from judicial review by Cuozzo / § 314(d), and the decision rests on petitioner eligibility rather than a merits adjudication. (If TikTok does file, it will be a new CAFC docket not yet indexed; I did not find one.)
• Defensive value: For today's defendant this is close to a best case on the PTAB axis: the only IPR ever instituted against '381 was terminated without any merits holding on any claim, so there is no FWD to cite, no claim-level cancellation, and — critically — no § 315(e)(2) estoppel on TikTok, ByteDance, or their privies. Conversely, you get no free ride: you cannot inherit TikTok's work, you cannot point to a Board finding of unpatentability, and the '381 claims you will face in court are the same claims that survived prosecution and survived institution. Your leverage is procedural and evidentiary (the RPI/standing saga, the reexam, the family's § 101 history), not a pre-issued invalidity judgment.

Related proceedings you should not confuse with the '381 IPR

These are not AIA trials on '381, but they define the ecosystem and the estoppel/privity map:

Strategic summary

Claim status. All 16 claims of '381 are UNTESTED at the PTAB. No claim has been CANCELED by any AIA trial and no claim has been SUSTAINED by any FWD — there is no FWD in this patent's history. Independent claims 1, 7, and 12 and their dependents (2–6, 8–11, 13–16) are therefore all live and entitled to a statutory presumption of validity. The only adverse Office action of record is the ex parte reexamination granted on 2024-08-02 over Moron against all of claims 1–16 — a "substantial new question" threshold finding, not an invalidity holding, and it targets exactly the limitation the applicant added late in prosecution: "the mobile software application is further configured to use the Hypertext Transfer Protocol to send a user preference to the remote server over the cellular data network, and wherein the user preference comprises global positioning system information." Anyone drafting invalidity contentions should start there.

Estoppel landscape. This is the single most important takeaway: because the Director vacated institution and denied the petition before any FWD, § 315(e)(2) estoppel never attached — to TikTok, ByteDance, or their privies. Estoppel under § 315(e)(2) is triggered by a final written decision, and there is none. That means the full universe of prior art and grounds remains available to every defendant, including the Hiroishi/Kahn/Bluetooth-spec and Singh129/Singh906 combinations TikTok tried, and including the Moron/Husemann/Sands art Unified is running in reexam. The practical caveat is § 325(d)/§ 315(e)-adjacent discretion and General Plastic-type concerns, plus the ordinary risk that a reexam certificate could amend or cancel claims mid-litigation — so sequence your invalidity theory around the reexam outcome rather than assuming a frozen claim set. Also remember the mirror-image risk: CellSpin's own conduct (repeated continuations, 21 family applications, a terminal-disclaimer chain) is fertile § 112/obviousness-type double-patenting territory that the PTAB never reached.

Pattern signals. (1) The same petitioner did not file twice on '381 — TikTok filed one petition per patent, seven in total, and got all seven wiped out on one procedural defect; expect either a corrected TikTok re-filing (a new petition by a properly constituted petitioner is not barred by the denial, which was jurisdictional rather than a § 315(b) time bar) or a re-filed petition from LifeScan/Senseonics/Ascensia, whose IPR2025-00102/-103/-104 were left for the Board to institute "on their own." (2) A defensive aggregator is squarely in the chain: Unified Patents filed the '381 ex parte reexamination (and parallel reexams on '030 and siblings), represented by Haynes and Boone in-house plus Raghav Bajaj — if you are a defendant, that filing is free prior art and a ready-made § 325(d)/§ 102(b) record you can incorporate. (3) CellSpin litigates aggressively and appeals: it pursued Director Review, fought recusal of Judge Gonzalez Rogers to the Federal Circuit (2023-1526, affirmed 2024-11-01), and pressed § 101 to the Supreme Court in the Garmin cert petition (No. 19-400). Expect it to litigate the reexam, not settle cheaply.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not cite any FWD for this patent — there isn't one. If senior management or an outside valuation model assumes "claims were canceled in IPR," correct it. The document you should pull first is the Director's 2026-03-30 decision in IPR2024-00757, Paper 42, whose operative language is: "the decisions granting institution are hereby vacated, the Petitions are denied, and these IPRs are terminated" (opening text: https://www.nyipla.org/images/nyipla/Programs/2026/April21PTAB/April%202026%20PTAB%20Committee%20Meeting.pdf ; independently confirmed at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ipr2025-01061_tiktok_v_destefano_director_review_order.pdf). Use it defensively for claim-preclusion/issue-preclusion-free framing and to show the '381 family has never been sustained on the merits.
2. Track the ex parte reexamination 90/019,507 like a docket. The grant order (SNQP over Moron on claims 1–16) is the closest thing to an adverse merits record, and a reexam certificate canceling or amending claims would change your infringement analysis overnight. Confirm certificate status directly in PTAB/PatentCenter (I could not verify it as of 2026-10-01); the Unified portal is https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/exparte/90019507.
3. Assume a new IPR is possible and calendar it. The 2026-03-30 denial was jurisdictional; a properly constituted petitioner filing on the same Hiroishi/Kahn/Bluetooth-spec art would face a fresh 1-year clock from the (re)start of service, a 6-month preliminary-response period, and a § 316(a)(11) FWD deadline of one year from institution. If you are a co-defendant, consider coordinating so that one of you files rather than relying on TikTok's vacated work — you cannot inherit their institution.
4. Assume no estoppel and build your own grounds. Because there is no FWD, every ground remains open, including the Moron-based and Hiroishi/Kahn/Singh-based combinations, plus art the Board never saw. But watch the interaction between a parallel reexam and your district-court invalidity case — CellSpin has already used Fintiv arguments once (its preliminary response argued all six factors weighed against institution), and the same playbook will recur.
5. If the demand letter quotes the patent's printed text, quote the certificate of correction. CellSpin filed a post-issuance correction request (2023-05-29) covering claims 1, 8, and 14 (the certificate of correction also addresses claim 12 text). Verify the operative claim language in the corrected patent before you chart infringement; a typographical "mistake" argument on either side is a cheap early win.

I'll research this patent's ownership chain using the tools available.

Let me dig deeper into the litigation and assignment details.

Let me nail down the specific assignment reel/frame records and the company's status.

I've gathered the key records. Note upfront: I could retrieve the substantive filings and their correspondents, but I could not directly query the Assignment Center UI, so several reel/frame numbers are missing from the sources I could reach. I flag every gap rather than fill it.

Inventors

Named on the ADS as "Gurvinder Singh, Santa Clara, CA; Marcos Klein, Mountain View, CA; Vince Laviano, Alviso, CA," applicant CellSpinSoft Inc., San Jose, CA (NoA, app. 17/542,373).

Pattern note — the usual red flag is absent. There is no sign of the "all inventors leave within 12 months" pattern that precedes a portfolio fire-sale. Singh remained the company's President at least through July 2018 (he executed the IP Security Agreements as President of CellSpinSoft), and he appears as the declarant in the 2024 E.D. Tex. litigation ("Gurvinder Bobby Singh – July 12, 2024"). The inventors are the same people running the asserting entity — this is a founder-controlled portfolio, not an orphaned one.

Original assignee

CellSpinSoft Inc. — a California corporation. Addresses of record: 4423 Fortran Drive, Suite #116, San Jose, CA 95134 (2014) and 1410 Mercy Street, Mountain View, CA 94041 (2018).

• Primary line of business: software / mobile content-publishing. The patent itself describes a "client application" that auto-uploads camera/phone media to web services — i.e., the company was built around the claimed subject matter.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Not demonstrated. Third-party coverage describes CellSpinSoft as a company with "almost no actual products" over many years while holding ~17 patents. There is no evidence in the record of a commercial CellSpin client application in the market.
• Current status: Operating as a patent-assertion entity — not dissolved, not acquired, not in bankruptcy. Unified Patents publicly characterizes it as "an NPE" and maintains active challenges against it. It is the plaintiff of record in multiple live suits. Google Patents' legal-events feed shows the current assignee as CellSpinSoft Inc.

Assignment timeline

Important structural point: ownership has never left CellSpinSoft. The only recorded ownership transfer is the founders' original assignment to CellSpinSoft. Everything else in the chain is (a) that original assignment's re-recording for continuations, and (b) a July 2018 cluster of security interests (liens), which are recorded in the Assignment Center but do not convey title.

• 2012-12-03 (executed) / recorded 2014-10-01 — Reel 33857/0990

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Singh, Gurvinder; Klein, Marcos; Laviano, Vince
  • Assignee: CellSpin Soft Inc. (listed "Cellspinsoft Inc."), 4423 Fortran Drive, Suite #116, San Jose, CA 95134
  • Correspondent: not retrieved from the sources consulted
  • Context: founders' original conveyance to their own company (the base link in the chain; recorded against parent family member 14/503,401).

• 2018-07-24 (executed) / recorded 2018-07-27 — Reel/Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Interest (Short-Form IP Security Agreement)
  • Assignor: Cellspin Soft, Inc. (debtor)
  • Assignee: John W. Kastelic, 715 Flat Shoals Ave SE, Atlanta, GA 30316 (secured party)
  • Correspondent: John W. Kastelic — same address; this is the recurrent correspondent on every 2018 recording (see flag below)
  • Context: securitization — company pledges all IP as collateral for personal indebtedness.

• 2018-07-27 (executed) / recorded 2018-07-27 — Reel/Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Interest (supplements a Security Agreement dated 2007-09-11)
  • Assignor: Cellspin Soft, Inc.
  • Assignee: Gurvinder Singh, 151 Buckingham Drive #299, Santa Clara, CA 95051
  • Correspondent: John W. Kastelic, 715 Flat Shoals Ave SE, Atlanta, GA 30316 — recurring
  • Context: securitization — the company's own President takes a lien on the portfolio. 15 properties listed.

• 2018-07-27 / recorded 2018-07-27 — Reel/Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Interest (supplements SA dated 2008-04-14)
  • Assignor: Cellspin Soft, Inc.
  • Assignee: James Bland Kessinger, 1801 Broderick #B, San Francisco, CA 94115
  • Correspondent: John W. Kastelic — recurring
  • Context: securitization.

• 2018-07-27 / recorded 2018-07-27 — Reel/Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Interest (supplements SA dated 2007-10-23)
  • Assignor: Cellspin Soft, Inc.
  • Assignee: Ram Akella, 9640 Crosby Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94588
  • Correspondent: John W. Kastelic — recurring
  • Context: securitization.

• 2018-07-27 / recorded 2018-07-27 — Reel/Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: Cellspin Soft, Inc.
  • Assignee: Donald A. Williams, 9715 Alcosta Blvd, San Ramon, CA
  • Correspondent: John W. Kastelic — recurring
  • Context: securitization.

• 2018-07-27 / recorded 2018-07-27 — Reel/Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Interest (supplements SA dated 2008-01-11)
  • Assignor: Cellspin Soft, Inc.
  • Assignee: N. Silverman
  • Correspondent: John W. Kastelic — recurring
  • Context: securitization.

• 2023-03-31 — Reel/Frame not retrieved (reflected only in Google Patents legal events as "Assigned to CELLSPINSOFT INC.")

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (re-recording for the '381 continuation)
  • Assignor: Klein, Marcos; Laviano, Vince; Singh, Gurvinder
  • Assignee: CellSpinSoft Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: internal/administrative — confirming title to the continuation; not a third-party transfer.

Correspondent flag: Two repeat players dominate different phases of this portfolio's record:

1. John W. Kastelic (715 Flat Shoals Ave SE, Atlanta, GA 30316; johnwkastelic@gmail.com) is named correspondent on all six July-2018 security-interest recordings, and is himself also a secured party/lienholder in one of them. An attorney filing lien recordings is normal; an attorney who is simultaneously the recorded correspondent and the secured creditor is an unusual dual-role tell and recurs across the entire 2018 encumbrance cluster.
2. Ashok Tankha (Reg. No. 33802; 36 Greenleigh Drive, Sewell, NJ 08080; ash@ipproceurement.com) is the prosecution correspondent across the family, with attorney docket numbers "CellSpin_04Con9_US / 04Con10_US" etc. He appears repeatedly on CellSpinSoft filings. This is a recurring single-attorney patent-record footprint for the whole portfolio.

(Caveat on signal value: recurrence is the test, and here both names recur. A single appearance would not be a finding.)

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11659381
    2007 : Provisional filed
    2008 : Non-provisional filed
    2012 : Inventors assign rights to CellSpinSoft
    2014 : Assignment recorded Reel 33857 0990
    2017 : Fitbit litigation filed
    2018 : CellSpinSoft pledges IP to six lenders
    2021 : Continuation application filed
    2023 : Patent granted
         : Inventor assignment to CellSpinSoft recorded
         : ByteDance and TikTok litigation filed
    2024 : Unified Patents reexams and IPRs filed
    2025 : DJI and LifeScan assertions active

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present (with nuance).
The patent was applied for by, issued to, and is still held by CellSpinSoft Inc. — the original assignee — not a name-suffixed "IP/Holdings/Ventures" LLC. No ownership transfer to a licensing vehicle ever occurred. The nuance: CellSpinSoft is a California corporation, not a single-member Delaware/Texas LLC with a registered-agent address, but it functions as a non-practicing holder (see #2). The classic shell-transfer tell is absent; the non-practicing character is intrinsic, not the product of a transfer.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT (strong).
The sole owner, CellSpinSoft Inc., is explicitly identified by Unified Patents as "an NPE" in its public insights ("U.S. Patent 8,904,030, owned and asserted by Cellspinsoft, Inc., an NPE"; and again for '757, '260, '381, '030). It is a high-frequency plaintiff: Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit/Nike/Canon/GoPro/Garmin/Panasonic/Moov/Fossil/JK Imaging (N.D. Cal., Fed. Cir. 2018-1817, reversed on §101 in 2019); Cellspin Soft v. Nikon (Fed. Cir. 22-2032, affirmed); Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. ByteDance Ltd. et al., No. 2:23-cv-00496 (E.D. Tex., filed 2023-10-20); LifeScan (IPR2025-00102); Senseonics; and DJI (E.D. Tex., 2025). This is a documented, named-entity asserter, not an inference from a name.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — PRESENT.
John W. Kastelic appears as correspondent/submitter on the entire 2018 security-interest cluster (six recordings, 2018-07-24/27) — and is also a secured party on one of them. Ashok Tankha (Reg. No. 33802) recurs as the prosecution correspondent across the family. Recurrence is the finding; both names meet it.

4. Cascading transfers — not present (as ownership).
There are no chained LLC-to-LLC assignments. The only multi-link cluster is the six same-day (2018-07-27) security-interest recordings from CellSpinSoft to natural-person lenders. Those are encumbrances, not title transfers, and the assignees are individuals, not LLCs — so the "chained shells / shared correspondent address" pattern is not met, even though a six-lien same-day cluster is itself a distress tell.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — PRESENT (weak/atypical).
Title never moved, so the classic "transfer dated within 6 months of suit" pattern does not exist. However, note that the July 2018 security-interest perfection cluster is not linked to any suit; and the 2023-03-31 inventor re-assignment to CellSpinSoft was recorded before/around the 2023-10-20 ByteDance complaint, confirming a clean standing record for the '381 continuation. Call it present-but-atypical.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present.
No bankruptcy filing for CellSpinSoft was found. But the 2018 pattern — pledging all IP as collateral to six separate individuals under security agreements dating back to 2007–2008, one of them the President — reads as a creditor-perfection event following financial distress, not a bankruptcy sale. Flag it as distress evidence, not a fire-sale finding.

7. Privateering — not present.
No evidence an operating company transferred this patent to CellSpinSoft to assert on the operating company's behalf. CellSpinSoft is the original holder; there is no upstream supplier feeding it.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present (inverse is true).
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN. To the contrary, Unified Patents is challenging the patent (ex parte reexam filed 2024-05-06 against the '381; IPR2024-00767 instituted), and TikTok filed IPR2024-00757/00759/00769. The patent is being attacked by the defensive alliance, not neutralized by transfer to it.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

The patent's entire title chain runs from the founding inventors to CellSpinSoft Inc., which has never transferred ownership out — so the finding does not rest on a shell LLC at all; it rests on the owner's own conduct. Signal #2 is a strong, named-entity match: Unified Patents expressly labels CellSpinSoft "an NPE," and the company is a serial plaintiff asserting this and sibling patents against Fitbit, Nike, Canon, GoPro, Garmin, Panasonic, Nikon, ByteDance/TikTok (2:23-cv-00496), LifeScan, Senseonics, and DJI, with no demonstrated commercial product. Signal #3 (recurring correspondent) is a second, independent support: John W. Kastelic is the correspondent on all six 2018 security-interest recordings (and a lienholder in one), and Ashok Tankha recurs as portfolio counsel. The 2018 all-assets lien cluster (including a lien to the President, Gurvinder Singh) is consistent with a litigation-financed assertion model rather than an operating company.

Caveat on completeness: I could not open the Assignment Center directly, so reel/frame numbers for the 2018 security interests and the 2023-03-31 inventor assignment were not retrieved; only Reel 33857/0990 (2012/2014) is confirmed here. No ownership transfer to a third-party NPE LLC was found — if one exists, it is not reflected in the records surfaced, and the current assignee of record remains CellSpinSoft Inc.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 11659381) — and the litigation record at https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A23-cv-00496

I'll research US patent 11659381 and its cited prior art references.

Let me look for the specific prior art citations listed on the face of the patent and in the IPR proceedings.

Let me retrieve the actual face of the patent and its cited references, plus the IPR grounds.

Prior Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 11,659,381 B2

1. Patent identification (verified)

Important sourcing caveat / honesty note: My fetch of the Google Patents page for the '381 patent was truncated before the "Patent Citations" (References Cited) list, so I could not read the '381 patent's own face-of-patent citation list directly. The examiner-cited references below are reconstructed from the identical "References Cited" lists printed on the face of same-family patents sharing the same examiner (Sulaiman Nooristany) — e.g., US 8,738,794 B2 and US 8,862,757 B2 — plus the IPR record. This is strong but indirect evidence. I flag where I could not confirm an exact alphanumeric identifier rather than inventing one (per the strict no-auto-correction rule).

2. Examiner-cited references (U.S. Patent Documents)

These appear in the "References Cited" lists of the sibling family patents (same specification, same examiner) and are therefore the references the examiner of this family considered.

R1 — US 2003/0157960 A1 (Kennedy)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0157960 A1, "Remote storage for electronics," pub. Aug. 21, 2003 (cited as US 2003/0157960 A1, cited by examiner, e.g., on US 8,862,757 B2).
• Description: Discloses a digital camera/detachable-phone arrangement in which captured images are remotely stored/transmitted from an electronics device (classified 455/556). It is the primary "camera + phone + remote storage" reference in the family.
• Potentially §102-relevant claims: independent claims 1, 7, 12 (the "capture device → cellular phone → remote server" pipeline) and dependent claims 3/9/14 (remote server stores the data). Note: on this family it was cited as prior art but was not the reference that resulted in a standalone §102 rejection.

R2 — US 2006/0264176 A1 (Hong)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0264176 A1, "Hong," pub. Nov. 23, 2006 (US 2006/0264176 A1, cited by examiner; classified 455/41.2 — Bluetooth).
• Description: Bluetooth short-range pairing/communication between a mobile terminal and an accessory device.
• Potentially §102-relevant claims: the Bluetooth paired-connection / cryptographic-authentication element of claims 1, 7, 12 and the polling/event-notification transfer recited in claims 1 and 12.

R3 — US 2008/0163311 A1 (St. John-Larkin)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0163311 A1, "St. John-Larkin," pub. Jul. 3, 2008 (cited by examiner; classified 725/68).
• Description: Transfer/delivery of media content (image/video messaging) between capture devices and network services.
• Potentially §102-relevant claims: claims 1, 7, 12 (new-data capture + transfer to server) and, via the "publish/receive" step, the processing of the received data by the online data publishing web service.

R4 — US 2009/0023428 A1 (Behzad et al.)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0023428 A1, "Behzad et al.," pub. Jan. 22, 2009 (cited by examiner; classified 455/414.3).
• Description: Mobile-device content/services, including location-based/mobile application services.
• Potentially §102-relevant claims: claims 1, 7, 12 (mobile software application functions) and the "user preference … global positioning system information" clause added to issued claims 1/7/12.

R5 — US 2003/0217189 A1 (Kelley)

• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0217189 A1, "Event data acquisition," pub. Nov. 20, 2003 (appears in the citation list of the related '305/'422 publications in this family).
• Description: Automated event-data capture and forwarding.
• Potentially §102-relevant claims: the automatic detection/receipt of "new-data" element of claims 1, 7, 12.

3. Documents incorporated by reference (not prior art to this patent, but directly related)

R6 — US Non-provisional Application 11/901,802, "Online Publishing of Multimedia Content," filed Sep. 19, 2007 — expressly incorporated by reference in the '381 patent's "Cross Reference to Related Applications." It is not prior art (same-inventor/applicant lineage and incorporated), but it is the closest related disclosure and is frequently raised when analyzing this family.

4. Prior art relied on in the instituted IPR (IPR2024-00767, TikTok Inc. v. CellSpinSoft) and related IPRs

These are the references that the PTAB found sufficient to institute (obviousness, §103), and are the live §102/§103 art for this exact patent. Note the asserted grounds were §103 combinations, not standalone §102 anticipation.

R7 — "Kahn" (U.S. patent/publication), cited as Ex. 1017

• Description: Location-based image management — a camera communicates with a host device (cell phone); the host uses GPS/location data and an HTTP connection to an online image-management server. (In the record, Kahn's "Wireless Modular Transport Protocol (WMTP)" vs. HTTP was a disputed point; the Board noted Kahn also discloses HTTP.)
• §102/§103 relevance: the HTTP upload and GPS "user preference" limitations of claims 1, 7, 12; claim 4's GPS-information limitation in the pre-correction claim set.
• Confidence note: I could not confirm the exact Kahn patent number from the retrieved record, so I am not asserting one.

R8 — "Hiroishi" (Japanese-origin patent/publication)

• Description: Self-portrait camera with Bluetooth; used by Petitioner as the camera-side Bluetooth pairing reference.
• §102/§103 relevance: the Bluetooth-enabled data capture device + paired connection of claims 1, 7, 12.
• Confidence note: exact publication number not confirmed in my retrieved results.

R9 — "Aaltonen" (U.S. patent/publication)

• Description: Segmented upload of content from a cellular phone to a "user media publishing website," using URI for synchronization and HTTP POST/PUT; FIGS. 9, 11 and ¶¶ [0101]–[0103], [0112]. (This reference was central to prosecution of a sibling member; the applicant distinguished it on "segment identifier + user information" grounds.)
• §102/§103 relevance: the segment-identifier / data-segment limitations and the HTTP segment upload to the publishing service — most directly the segmentation subject matter described in the specification (FIGS. 4) and the HTTP-upload element of claims 1, 7, 12.

R10 — Bluetooth Specifications

• Description: Standards documents cited by Petitioner as evidence that pairing with cryptographic authentication ("cryptographically authenticating an identity") was known.
• §102/§103 relevance: the "establishing the paired Bluetooth connection comprises … cryptographically authenticating an identity" limitation of claims 1, 7, 12.

5. Claim-level summary of §102 exposure

Critical caveat on §102 vs. §103: none of the above was established as a standalone §102 anticipation. In prosecution the family issued over these references (many were applied only in §103 combinations), and in IPR2024-00767 the Petitioner asserted obviousness (§103) over Kahn/Hiroishi/Bluetooth specs. Treat the §102 column above as candidate single-reference exposure, not an adjudicated anticipation.

6. What I could not confirm (stated rather than fabricated)

• The exact face-of-patent "References Cited" list printed on US 11,659,381 B2 itself — my source was truncated; the list above is reconstructed from sibling family patents with the same examiner (Nooristany), which is a strong but indirect proxy.
• Exact alphanumeric identifiers for Kahn, Hiroishi, and Aaltonen (I have the party names and substance from the IPR/PTAB record but not verified publication numbers).
• The discrepancy between priority 2007-12-28 (Google Patents, matching provisional 61/017,202) and 2007-12-27 (Unified Patents) is reported literally and unresolved.

If you can share the full text of the '381 patent's face (the "(56) References Cited" block) or the IPR petition exhibit list, I can complete the confirmation of identifiers and map each reference to specific claims with pinpoint citations.

I'll research the prior art landscape, including the pending IPR, to ground this obviousness analysis.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 11,659,381 (35 U.S.C. § 103)

Patent: US 11,659,381 B2 ("the '381 patent"), Automatic multimedia upload for publishing data and multimedia content
Appl. No.: 17/542,373 | Filed: 2021‑12‑04 | Granted: 2023‑05‑23 | Assignee: CellSpinSoft Inc.
Claimed priority: 2007‑12‑28 (Prov. 61/017,202) via a long continuation chain
Claims: 1–16; independent claims 1 (system), 7 (mobile app), 12 (mobile app w/ "poll")
Source (authoritative): https://patents.google.com/patent/US11659381/en

I. Governing law and POSITA

Because the earliest claimed priority is 2007‑12‑28, the analysis proceeds under pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Graham v. John Deere; KSR Int'l v. Teleflex). Critically, however, the claims are entitled to that date only if the 2007‑2008 chain provides § 112 written‑description support — a point squarely contested in the parallel proceedings (see § VII below). If priority fails, the effective filing date is 2021‑12‑04, post‑AIA § 103 applies, and an additional decade of art becomes available.

Level of ordinary skill (consistent with the PTAB's findings in the related IPR2019‑00127 involving CellSpin's '698 patent): a bachelor's degree in EE, CS, or equivalent, with ~2 years' experience in software development, electronic system design, digital camera technology, and/or wireless communications. See https://insight.rpxcorp.com/federal_circuit/[1094432](/patent/1094432)/rpx-ptab/IPR2019-00127/2021_12_06_IPR2019_00127_Amended_NoA_28424a0585ee1bf50747ad1f27265ce1.pdf

II. Limitation map of independent claim 1

Claim 7 = same, minus [1.8]–[1.14]. Claim 12 = same, but [12.3.1] recites the app "poll the BT data capture device for new‑data… sending a request… to check if the acquired new‑data is available for transfer," replacing the "event notification" architecture of [1.4].

Prosecution note: The adversarial record shows claim 1 was amended after the Notice of Allowance to insert the "listen for an event notification," HTTP/credential/GPS, and advertising limitations (Ex. 2015 in the IPRs). These are the very limitations the challengers target, and their late addition is relevant to both § 103 and § 112.

III. Ground 1 — Hiroishi + Kahn + Bluetooth Core Specification

This is the primary obviousness combination (Grounds 1, claims 1–16, IPR2024‑00767). See the institution decision at http://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/IPR2024-00767.pdf and the case summary at https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2024-00767

Hiroishi (Ex. 1011): a digital camera wirelessly (Bluetooth) controlled by, and transferring images to, a cellular phone; the phone displays thumbnail images representative of images stored in camera memory, then requests/transmits full‑resolution images; images can be forwarded to a print shop. Teaches [1.1]–[1.5] architecture, the paired BT link, and the transfer of "new‑data" after capture.

Kahn (Ex. 1017): a mobile‑phone image management/publishing system that uploads images to a remote image‑management server; uses HTTP for phone‑server communication, user authentication credentials for secure storage/transmission, a remote database, and location (GPS) information to "offer location‑dependent promotions to the user" (i.e., advertisements) and to locate nearby print shops. Teaches [1.6]–[1.14].

Bluetooth Core Specification (Ex. 1018): teaches pairing, link‑key generation, and cryptographic authentication (mandatory under Security Mode 3; a required "Authenticated Link Key" for three of four association models under Security Mode 4 of BT 2.1+EDR). Teaches [1.3.2].

Motivation to combine (KSR factors)

1. Same field of endeavor / same problem. Both Hiroishi and Kahn address wireless transfer and publication of image data captured by a camera through a cellular phone — the identical problem recited in the '381 background. Analogous art is satisfied.
2. Finite, predictable solutions / design need. At the 2007 critical date, phones and photo‑sharing sites (Flickr, Photobucket, Picasa) were ubiquitous; the '381 specification itself calls the mobile phone "ubiquitous." A POSITA seeking to publish the images Hiroishi delivers to the phone would naturally look to a known upload mechanism, and HTTP was the standard application‑layer vehicle.
3. Known, predictable techniques. HTTP upload, user authentication credentials, GPS‑based ad targeting, and server‑side user profiles and ad modules were all routine, well documented, and combined without unexpected results — the hallmark of KSR "combination of known elements according to known methods."
4. Cryptographic authentication as routine design choice. As the PTAB held in the sibling IPR2019‑00127, cryptographic authentication through the BT "authenticated link key" was a known and, in Security Mode 3, mandated feature; selecting it "to ensure that each device is communicating with its intended recipient and that information is protected from outsiders" is a routine design choice, not invention.

Contested limitations and why the combination still renders them obvious

• "Event notification" vs. request‑response (claims 1, 7). Patent Owner argues Hiroishi's synchronous request‑response (phone instructs → camera replies with thumbnail) is not an asynchronous "event notification" and that neither Hiroishi nor Kahn contains the word "event." The Board, at institution, credited Petitioner's position that "[a] POSITA would have understood that the program on the mobile phone 'waits' for the thumbnail images, the waiting constituting… listening for the event notification signal." That is a genuine claim‑construction fight, but the claim language ("listen for… receive… the event notification and the acquired new‑data") is broad enough to read on Hiroishi's thumbnail transfer, and the specification's own FIG. 1 push mode ("the BT communication device sends a signal to the client application on creation of a new file") is the disclosed species — nothing in the claim requires asynchronous middleware.
• "Polling" (claim 12). Hiroishi's phone repeatedly checks the camera for images; the Board found a reasonable likelihood this reads on "poll… sending a request… to check if the acquired new‑data is available." Patent Owner's layer argument (link‑layer vs. application‑layer polling) reads a limitation into the claim that its text does not require.
• HTTP vs. WMPP (Kahn). Patent Owner asserts Kahn uses "WMPP" (transport layer) for media/login and HTTP only for other purposes. Kahn also expressly teaches HTTP for phone‑to‑server communication, and HTTP image upload from a phone was notoriously well known. Even under the narrower reading, substituting HTTP for WMPP is a predictable, results‑preserving substitution of a known application‑layer protocol.
• Cryptographic authentication. As above, a routine selection among known BT security modes.

IV. Ground 2 — Singh129 + Singh906

Ground 2 relies on the patentee's own earlier disclosures: Singh129 and Singh906 (the published 11/901,802 application, "Online Publishing of Multimedia Content," filed 2007‑09‑19). If Singh129/906 qualify as prior art (their date depends on the priority analysis), they anticipate/obviously render the claims in view of the § 102(a)/(e) or § 103 relationship — they are the same family teaching targeted advertising, user profiles in a database, and app‑based publishing. This ground is important because it demonstrates that the advertising limitations ([1.7], [1.10]–[1.12]) were within the patentee's own prior possession.

V. Ground 3 — Ex parte reexamination (Moron)

The CRU granted reexamination 90/019,507 (control no. 90/019,507, granted 2024‑08‑02) on Moron et al., "J2ME and smart phones as platform for a Bluetooth Body Area Network for Patient‑telemonitoring," IEEE EMBS, Aug. 26, 2007 (Ex. 1003), finding a substantial new question of patentability as to claims 1–16. See https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2024/8/5/fourth-cellspinsoft-data-transfer-patent-challenge-instituted and the grant order at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1555900](/patent/1555900)/download-documents?artifactId=9rMnzRBNMqD0__pAXhShkYaCX2n4CgyfXKm8HKa5koy2s124MgTO-TA

Moron teaches a J2ME smartphone receiving sensor data over a Bluetooth body‑area network — i.e., the generic "BT‑enabled capture device → BT phone → application" pipeline. Its force is chiefly on the preamble and [1.1], [1.5], and the "capture device lacking connectivity" architecture; it is best used as a cumulative third reference rather than a standalone § 103 ground.

VI. Cumulative/secondary references from the page's prior‑art list

The "Families Citing this family" list supplies corroborating art for individual limitations; these are best deployed as secondary references to reinforce motivation and to show the elements were known:

None alone meets every limitation arrangement; each is a predictable building block for the elements the primary references are asserted to lack.

VII. Dependent claims

• Claim 2 / 8 / 13 (credential stored in phone memory for server authentication): routine; squarely in Kahn.
• Claim 3 / 9 / 14 (server stores the new‑data): Kahn's remote image library.
• Claim 4 / 10 / 15 (touch‑based GUI for received data): touch GUI on handhelds was ubiquitous by the critical date; a predictable design choice.
• Claim 5 / 6 / 11 / 16 (touch‑based targeted advertisement / ad based on user profile): Kahn's location‑dependent promotions + a server‑side ad module selecting on a stored user profile.

These add no patentable weight; they recite known ancillary features combined with the independent claims without unexpected results.

VIII. Countervailing considerations and caveats

1. Non‑obviousness positions already on record. CellSpin argues (a) "event notification" ≠ request‑response; (b) HTTP is not disclosed for media transfer (Kahn's WMPP); (c) claim 12's polling is link‑layer, not application‑layer; (d) cryptographic authentication is an optional BT feature; and (e) no articulated motivation to combine. These are substantive and were not fully resolved at institution.
2. Priority / written‑description vulnerability. The patentee incorporated the unpublished '802 application by reference (37 C.F.R. § 1.57(d) requires a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication). If that incorporation is ineffective — and if claims amended after allowance to add the event‑notification/polling, HTTP‑credential‑GPS, and advertising limitations lack support in the 2007 chain — the claims lose the 2007 date entirely. That would (i) make Singh129/Singh906 and post‑2008 art available, and (ii) apply post‑AIA § 103. On the current record, the Board declined to "exalt form over substance" and tentatively credited the incorporation because Singh906 published 2008‑05‑01, before the 2008‑12‑11 utility filing; this issue remains live.
3. Related final written decision. In IPR2019‑00127, the Board found CellSpin's '698 patent claims obvious over Hiroishi/Hollstrom (with Ando/Nozaki/Takahashi) — i.e., the same BT‑pairing‑new‑data architecture was held unpatentable. That decision is powerful corroboration, though claim scope differs.
4. Procedural status — conflicting signals. Sources disagree on the outcome of IPR2024‑00767: the Board instituted review (Sotera stipulation overcoming Fintiv), while the case was later stayed for sua sponte Director Review (TikTok Inc. v. CellSpin Soft, IPR2024‑00757 et al., Paper 34, June 5, 2025), and the Director's subsequent order (Jan. 2026) reopened the RPI/Return Mail issue. One database reflects "Institution Denied" with a 2026‑03‑29 decision date (https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2024-00767). The final posture is genuinely uncertain, and I cannot state with high confidence whether review was ultimately instituted, denied, or terminated. The legal merits analysis above is unaffected by the procedural wrangling.

IX. Conclusion

• Primary § 103 ground: Claims 1–16 are obvious over Hiroishi + Kahn + Bluetooth Core Specification. Hiroishi supplies the BT camera‑to‑phone capture‑detection/transfer architecture and the paired connection; Bluetooth supplies the routine cryptographic authentication; Kahn supplies HTTP upload, user credentials, GPS‑based user preferences, the server/database/user‑profile, and the advertising module. The combination is a textbook KSR aggregation of known elements for the same purpose, with a clear motivation (ubiquitous phones + photo‑sharing sites + standard HTTP) and a reasonable expectation of success, with no unexpected results.
• Alternative § 103 / § 102 ground: Singh129 + Singh906 (patentee's own prior disclosures), contingent on the priority analysis.
• Cumulative ground: Moron (reexam 90/019,507) plus the page's citing references (Nokia '442, Google '676, Open Text '387, TVU '246, Greenfly '140, Qualcomm '692, Samsung KR '979).
• Confidence: High that a prima facie § 103 case exists over Hiroishi + Kahn + Bluetooth; moderate on the "event notification" and HTTP/WMPP claim‑construction issues, which are the fulcrum of any defense; low/unresolved on the ultimate procedural outcome of IPR2024‑00767 and the priority dispute.

Recommendation for a challenger: Lead with Hiroishi + Kahn + Bluetooth; pre‑empt the "event notification" and "polling" constructions with intrinsic evidence (the '381 spec's own push/pull modes); and pursue the priority/§ 112 attack in parallel, since losing the 2007 date collapses the patentee's most valuable art‑avoidance argument.