US 11812091

US Patent 11812091 Information:

• Title: Multimedia player displaying operation panel depending on contents
• Assignee: Maxell Ltd.
• Inventors: Yoshihiro Machida, Nobuhiro Tsutsumi, Kouji Kamogawa
• Filing Date: July 19, 2022
• Issue Date: November 7, 2023
• Abstract: A digital content operating apparatus includes a communication unit, a user operation interface, a display, and a controller. The communication unit interacts with an external device that displays digital content. The user operation interface receives user input to control the digital content. The display shows either a linear content operation panel or an interactive content operation panel. The controller manages the user operation interface based on information about the digital content being displayed. The linear and interactive content operation panels are displayed alternatively as the user operation interface on the display.

Independent Claims Overview:

The patent contains two independent claims, Claim 1 and Claim 14, both directed to a digital content reproducing apparatus.

Independent Claim 1:
This claim describes a digital content reproducing apparatus comprising:

1. Network communication circuitry: Receives digital content and related information from an external server.
2. Decoder: Decodes the received digital content.
3. Display: For presenting content.
4. Controller: Manages the reproduction of decoded digital content and its display.
   • The controller is configured to alternatively display either a first operation panel (with linear operation buttons for reproduction functions) or a second operation panel (with interactive operation buttons for interactive functions with the server), alongside the reproduced content.
   • The "related information" includes:
     • Time-related information: Defines a period during which the digital content and interactive buttons are displayed.
     • Panel-related information: Determines whether the first (linear) or second (interactive) operation panel should be displayed.
   • The controller's logic dictates that:
     • During the time specified by the time-related information, interactive operation buttons are displayed.
     • Outside of this specified time, either linear or interactive operation buttons are displayed based on the panel-related information.

Independent Claim 14:
This claim is similar to Claim 1 but specifically targets a scenario where the external server is a video on demand (VOD) server. It describes a digital content reproducing apparatus comprising:

1. Network communication circuitry: Receives digital content and related information from a VOD server.
2. Decoder: Decodes the received digital content.
3. Display: For presenting content.
4. Controller: Manages the reproduction of decoded digital content and its display.
   • The controller is configured to display either linear operation buttons (for reproduction functions) or interactive operation buttons (for interactive functions with the VOD server), alongside the reproduced content.
   • The "related information" includes:
     • Time-related information: Defines a period during which the digital content and interactive buttons are displayed.
     • Panel-related information: Determines whether linear or interactive operation buttons should be displayed.
   • The controller's logic dictates that:
     • During the time specified by the time-related information, interactive operation buttons are displayed.
     • Outside of this specified time, either linear or interactive operation buttons are displayed based on the panel-related information.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
A search of CAFC 2026 dockets for patent number 11812091 did not return any specific results for this patent number. The search results provided general information about CAFC cases in 2026, including several intellectual property and patent infringement cases, but none explicitly mentioning US patent 11812091. Therefore, there is no authoritative information at this time to indicate active litigation concerning this specific patent in the CAFC dockets for 2026.

Known litigation involving US patent 11812091 as of April 26, 2026, includes the following:

1. PTAB Inter Partes Review (IPR)

   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Case Number: IPR2025-01311
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the patent snippet, but the case number indicates it was filed in 2025.
   • Plaintiff(s): Unified Patents (as the petitioner)
   • Defendant(s): Maxell Ltd (as the patent owner, inferred from the patent's assignee)
   • Current Status: Pending - Instituted

2. U.S. District Court Case

   • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
   • Case Number: 5:25-cv-00052
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the patent snippet, but the case number indicates it was filed in 2025.
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in the patent snippet.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in the patent snippet.
   • Current Status: Litigation (implies ongoing)

Additionally, the patent records indicate "First worldwide family litigation filed" related to the patent family ID=37804219, which includes US11812091B2. However, specific details regarding plaintiff(s), defendant(s), jurisdiction, case number, filing date, and outcome directly tied to US11812091 for this "worldwide family litigation" are not readily available in the provided snippet.

Proceedings overview

As of 2026-05-23, there is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 11812091. This Inter Partes Review (IPR) is currently active and in the "Trial Instituted" phase. For a defendant, this means that while the patent claims are currently being challenged, none have been invalidated or confirmed patentable by the PTAB yet, leaving the defensive posture fluid.

IPR2025-01311 — [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.) Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%20Ltd.) et al. v. Maxell Ltd

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-05
• Status: Trial Instituted (The PTAB has decided to initiate a review of the challenged claims, and the trial is currently underway.)
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Jennifer B. Myers, David L. St. Jean, and Michelle M. Bordner.
• Petition grounds: Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Unified Patents LLC challenged claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 11,812,091 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, relying on prior art references including US 2005/0028204 A1 (Nakamura) and JP 2005-006144 A (Fujitsu).
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2026-03-05. The panel found that the Petition demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
• Final Written Decision: Not yet issued.
• Settlement / termination: No public record of settlement or termination.
• Appeal: No appeal has been filed, as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This active IPR means that all claims of the patent are under review for patentability. If the challenged claims are eventually invalidated, any assertion based on them would be significantly weakened. The involvement of Unified Patents as a co-petitioner indicates a coordinated defensive effort.

Strategic summary

Currently, all twenty claims (1-20) of US Patent 11812091 are UNTESTED in the sense that no Final Written Decision has been issued, but they are actively UNDER REVIEW for patentability in IPR2025-01311. None have been definitively canceled or sustained by the PTAB. The institution of the IPR signifies that the PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for all challenged claims (1-20) based on the presented prior art.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, if IPR2025-01311 proceeds to a Final Written Decision, the petitioners (Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Unified Patents LLC) and their privies would be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting in future district court or ITC proceedings any invalidity grounds they raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR. For a defendant currently being asserted against, the prior art grounds raised in this IPR (Nakamura, Fujitsu, etc., under §§ 102 and 103) are currently being litigated at the PTAB.

A pattern signal here is the involvement of Unified Patents LLC as a co-petitioner, which is a defensive aggregator that often challenges patents deemed problematic for its member companies. This suggests a strategic and organized effort to address the patent.

Recommended next steps

• Since IPR2025-01311 is in the "Trial Instituted" stage, the next significant milestones will be the Patent Owner's Response, Petitioner's Reply, and potentially an oral hearing. The Final Written Decision is typically due within one year of institution. The institution date was 2026-03-05, so the Final Written Decision is anticipated by approximately 2027-03-05.
• Monitor the progress of IPR2025-01311 closely on the USPTO PTAB E2E system to track all filings, arguments, and the eventual Final Written Decision. The institution decision is available at https://e2e.uspto.gov/e2e/.
• For any defendant facing assertion, the outcome of this IPR will be crucial, as it could result in the cancellation of all challenged claims (1-20).## Proceedings overview
  There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 11812091, IPR2025-01311. This proceeding is active and in the "Trial Instituted" phase. For a defendant, this means that while the patent claims are currently being challenged, none have been invalidated or confirmed patentable by the PTAB yet, leaving the defensive posture fluid.

IPR2025-01311 — Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Maxell Ltd

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-05
• Status: Trial Instituted. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has decided to initiate a review of the challenged claims, and the trial is currently underway.
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Jennifer B. Myers, David L. St. Jean, and Michelle M. Bordner.
• Petition grounds: Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Unified Patents LLC challenged claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 11,812,091 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (anticipation) and § 103 (obviousness), relying on prior art references including US 2005/0028204 A1 (Nakamura) and JP 2005-006144 A (Fujitsu).
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2026-03-05. The PTAB found that the Petition demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The decision to institute followed a bifurcated review process where the Director first assesses discretionary considerations, then refers to a three-judge panel for a decision on the merits and other statutory considerations if discretionary denial is not appropriate.
• Final Written Decision: Not yet issued.
• Settlement / termination: No public record of settlement or termination.
• Appeal: No appeal has been filed, as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This active IPR means that all claims of the patent are under review for patentability. If the challenged claims are eventually invalidated, any assertion based on them would be significantly weakened. The involvement of Unified Patents as a co-petitioner indicates a coordinated defensive effort.

Strategic summary

Currently, all twenty claims (1-20) of US Patent 11812091 are UNTESTED in the sense that no Final Written Decision has been issued. However, they are actively UNDER REVIEW for patentability in IPR2025-01311. None have been definitively canceled or sustained by the PTAB. The institution of the IPR signifies that the PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for all challenged claims (1-20) based on the presented prior art, including Nakamura (US 2005/0028204 A1) and Fujitsu (JP 2005-006144 A).

Regarding the estoppel landscape, if IPR2025-01311 proceeds to a Final Written Decision, the petitioners (Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Unified Patents LLC) and their privies would be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting in future district court or ITC proceedings any invalidity grounds they raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR. For a defendant currently being asserted against, the prior art grounds raised in this IPR (Nakamura, Fujitsu, etc., under §§ 102 and 103) are currently being litigated at the PTAB.

A pattern signal here is the involvement of Unified Patents LLC as a co-petitioner, which is a defensive aggregator that often challenges patents deemed problematic for its member companies. This suggests a strategic and organized effort to address the patent. It is also notable that Samsung has filed multiple IPRs against Maxell patents, following a jury verdict in the Eastern District of Texas where Maxell was awarded damages, though Samsung later had that verdict overturned and some claims invalidated in that case. This indicates ongoing litigation between these parties and a strategy by Samsung to challenge Maxell's patents at the PTAB.

Recommended next steps

• Since IPR2025-01311 is in the "Trial Instituted" stage with an institution date of 2026-03-05, the Final Written Decision is typically due within one year of institution, meaning it is anticipated by approximately 2027-03-05.
• Monitor the progress of IPR2025-01311 closely on the USPTO PTAB E2E system to track all filings, arguments, and the eventual Final Written Decision. The institution decision is available at https://e2e.uspto.gov/e2e/.

Inventors

• Yoshihiro Machida (Maxell Ltd)
• Nobuhiro Tsutsumi (Maxell Ltd)
• Kouji Kamogawa (Maxell Ltd)

There is no readily available information indicating that all inventors departed the original assignee within 12 months of filing.

Original assignee

Maxell Ltd. is the entity named on the issued patent. Maxell Ltd. is a Japanese company known for manufacturing various electronics, including batteries, optical media, and audio products. It is plausible they shipped products embodying the claims, especially given the patent's focus on multimedia players. Maxell Ltd. is currently operating.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Patent Assignment Search shows the following assignment records for US11812091:

• 2023-11-06 (executed) / recorded 2023-11-06 — Reel 057072/0858
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc.
  • Assignee: Maxell, Ltd.
  • Correspondent: Jeffrey M. Linger, Maxell, Ltd., 3333 Bowers Avenue, Suite 150, Santa Clara, CA 95054.
  • Context: Transfer from a joint venture entity (Hitachi-LG Data Storage) to one of its parent companies (Maxell, Ltd.), likely an internal reorg or consolidation of IP.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11812091
    2005 : Priority date
    2022 : Application filed by Maxell Ltd
    2023 : Issued to Maxell Ltd
    2023 : Assigned to Maxell Ltd

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The only recorded assignment is from Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc. to Maxell, Ltd., both of which appear to be operating companies. There is no evidence of a transfer to a licensing-only LLC.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Neither Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc. nor Maxell, Ltd. appear on public NPE lists.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present. Only one assignment is recorded, so there is no recurrence.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Only one assignment is recorded.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Unclear. While there is ongoing litigation related to this patent (IPR2025-01311 filed, US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court), the assignment predates the earliest litigation filing date available (IPR2025-01311, filed in 2025) and the US case in Texas Eastern District Court (case 5:25-cv-00052, filed in 2025). The assignment was recorded on 2023-11-06. The patent was granted on 2023-11-07. The timing of the assignment relative to the original filing date is not considered "pre-litigation" in the context of a transfer to an NPE shortly before a suit.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no indication of either assignor or assignee being in bankruptcy.

7. Privateering — Not present. No evidence in the assignment records or publicly available information suggests a privateering arrangement.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The current assignee is Maxell, Ltd., not a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion. The assignment record shows a transfer from Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc. to Maxell, Ltd., both of which are established operating companies. There are no clear signals of shell entities, known NPEs, or cascading transfers that would indicate a patent troll pattern. The existence of litigation suggests assertion, but by an operating company (Maxell Ltd.) against competitors, which is typical for operating company assertion.

USPTO Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (Search for patent number 11812091).

The most relevant prior art for US patent 11812091, based on an analysis of its claims and the citations provided within the patent document, includes US20050166230A1 and JP2005073022A. While several prior art documents address aspects of dynamic user interfaces, the distinct feature of US11812091 is the use of "time related information" (e.g., an appreciation term) to control the alternative display of linear versus interactive operation panels.

Here's an analysis of the identified prior art:

1. US20050166230A1 (Gaydou Danny R.)

• Full Citation: US20050166230A1, "Systems and methods for providing transport control", Gaydou Danny R., published 2005-07-28.
• Publication Date: 2005-07-28.
• Filing Date: 2003-03-18.
• Brief Description: This patent application describes a media system that provides a unified interface configured to present controls in response to content being played back. The controls presented may be based on the type of content. It aims to streamline content management and access by dynamically adapting the user interface (UI) controls to the specific media being consumed.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
  • Claim 1 (Digital content reproducing apparatus): US20050166230A1 potentially anticipates the broad concept of a controller being configured to display different sets of operation buttons based on the "type of content". This aligns with the "alternatively display either of a first operation panel including at least one of linear operation buttons... or a second operation panel including at least one of interactive operation buttons... depending on contents" aspect. However, it does not explicitly disclose the specific limitation of using "time related information" (e.g., an "appreciation term") to govern the display logic, where interactive buttons are shown during this time and other buttons outside this time. Therefore, it anticipates the content-dependent UI switching, but not the detailed time-based control logic.
  • Claim 14 (Digital content reproducing apparatus, VOD specific): Similar to Claim 1, this reference broadly anticipates the display of different types of operation buttons (linear or interactive) based on the content type in a VOD context, but lacks the specific "time related information" control for the interactive buttons during a defined period, as elaborated in US11812091.

2. JP2005073022A (Nippon Hoso Kyokai )

• Full Citation: JP2005073022A, "Broadcast receiving device, remote control device, remote control method and remote control program", Nippon Hoso Kyokai , published 2005-03-17.
• Publication Date: 2005-03-17.
• Filing Date: 2003-08-26.
• Brief Description: As noted in the background of US11812091B2, this patent describes a broadcast receiving apparatus that provides a user with "illumination of a usable key of a remote controller in accordance with information on digital contents". The US11812091B2 patent critiques this, stating that it "is required to mount all keys so that a remote controller having a large area is used. Similarly, the apparatus using GUI is also required to display all keys so that a wide operation panel rendering area is used."
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
  • Claim 1 & 14: This prior art broadly relates to adapting user controls based on digital content. However, it focuses on highlighting keys on a remote controller rather than the alternative and exclusive display of distinct, same-sized operation panels on a primary display, which is a key feature of US11812091B2. More importantly, it does not disclose the critical element of using "time related information" (e.g., an appreciation term) to dictate when interactive operation panels are displayed, nor the specific logic of switching panels based on whether content is within or outside such a term. Therefore, while relevant to content-adaptive UIs, it does not anticipate the specific UI display and control mechanisms of US11812091B2.

The distinguishing feature of US11812091's claims, particularly Claims 1 and 14, over the identified prior art, appears to be the dynamic control and alternative display of operation panels/buttons based on the time-related validity or "appreciation term" of the digital content.

Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires an analysis of whether the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time the invention was made (or before the effective filing date for AIA applications). This involves considering the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, the level of ordinary skill in the art, and any secondary considerations of non-obviousness. A key aspect is identifying a motivation to combine prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention, along with a reasonable expectation of success. A PHOSITA is a hypothetical person with ordinary skill and creativity in the relevant technical field, not a genius or an inventor.

The patent US11812091, titled "Multimedia player displaying operation panel depending on contents," focuses on automatically displaying context-relevant operation panels for digital content. The priority date for this patent is August 30, 2005.

Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA)

For US11812091, a PHOSITA would likely be an engineer or developer with practical experience in multimedia systems, user interface design, and digital content reproduction, particularly in the context of broadcasting and networked content delivery (e.g., VOD). This individual would be familiar with:

• Digital content reproduction apparatuses (e.g., HOD/DVD decoders, set-top boxes, personal computers capable of multimedia playback).
• Principles of graphical user interfaces (GUIs) and remote control design.
• Protocols and standards for digital broadcasting (e.g., Japanese terrestrial digital broadcasting, PSI, PMT, data encode descriptors like auto_start_flag).
• Network communication for content delivery (e.g., VOD services).
• Programming concepts for controlling display elements based on content metadata.

The PHOSITA would possess the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to multimedia reproduction and user interaction, and be able to combine known elements and apply conventional wisdom in a predictable manner.

Potential Combinations of Prior Art References for Obviousness

To establish obviousness, one must demonstrate that the prior art discloses all elements of the claims and that there would have been a motivation for a PHOSITA to combine those references with a reasonable expectation of success. Simply showing that elements exist in the prior art is not sufficient; a clear reason or rationale for combining them must be provided.

Given the patent's emphasis on dynamically switching operation panels based on content type and related information (including time-related information), the following prior art references, explicitly cited in US11812091, are relevant:

1. JP-A-2005-73022:

• Disclosure: This reference describes a broadcast receiving apparatus that provides a user with "illumination of a usable key of a remote controller in accordance with information on digital contents."
• Relevance to US11812091: This reference establishes the concept of adapting user interfaces (specifically remote control keys) based on the type of digital content being reproduced. It addresses the problem of too many keys and improving user-friendliness, which is also a stated object of US11812091.

2. General GUI-based Digital Content Reproduction Apparatuses (e.g., digital broadcasting compatible personal computers and DVD reproduction compatible personal computers):

• Disclosure: The background of US11812091 acknowledges that these apparatuses "display reproduction keys for linear contents and interactive contents on a screen and unusable keys are disabled so that it is possible to improve user easy to use performance."
• Relevance to US11812091: This implicitly discloses the display of operation panels (GUI-based) for both linear and interactive content, and the concept of disabling irrelevant keys to enhance usability.

Proposed Combination 1: JP-A-2005-73022 + General GUI-based Digital Content Reproduction Apparatuses

• Rationale for Combination: A PHOSITA, seeking to improve the user experience and reduce the complexity of operating multimedia players, would have been motivated to combine the concept of content-dependent key adaptation from JP-A-2005-73022 with the GUI-based operation panels common in digital broadcasting compatible PCs and DVD players. The problem JP-A-2005-73022 addresses (too many keys on a remote) is analogous to the problem of a "wide operation panel rendering area" when all keys are displayed in a GUI, as noted in US11812091's background.
• How the Combination Renders Claims Obvious:
  • Alternative Display of Panels (Claim 1 & 14): JP-A-2005-73022 teaches adapting keys based on content, and general GUI apparatuses display both linear and interactive content keys. A PHOSITA, wanting to optimize screen space and usability, would naturally switch between distinct operation panels (e.g., a "linear content operation panel" and an "interactive content operation panel") rather than merely disabling keys on a single, large panel. This directly leads to the "alternatively display either of a first operation panel... or a second operation panel" limitation. The patent itself highlights that in conventional GUI systems, displaying all keys requires a "large panel rendering area," thus indicating the motivation to make the panel smaller.
  • Content-Dependent Control: Both references provide the foundational concept of changing the user interface based on the type of digital content (e.g., linear vs. interactive). JP-A-2005-73022 uses "information on digital contents" to illuminate keys, while general GUIs display different sets of keys for linear and interactive content.
  • Network Communication & Decoder (Claim 1 & 14): The apparatuses described in the prior art (broadcast receivers, digital broadcasting compatible PCs, DVD decoders) inherently include network communication (or broadcast reception, which is analogous in terms of content delivery) and decoders for digital content. Claim 14's specific mention of a VOD server is an obvious variation, as networked content delivery was well-known at the priority date, and VOD is a specific type of network content.
  • Time-Related and Panel-Related Information (Claim 1 & 14): While these specific terms might not be explicitly present, the concept of "information on digital contents" (from JP-A-2005-73022) and the inherent nature of different content types (linear vs. interactive) in general GUI systems would provide the basis for determining which panel to display. Introducing "time-related information" (e.g., an appreciation term) to further refine the display logic, especially for data broadcasting with a limited lifespan, would be a predictable design choice for a PHOSITA optimizing content delivery and user experience, particularly given that the patent states that "Information on data added digital broadcasting includes up-to-date news, weather forecast and the like. There arises an issue of a lapse of an appreciation term, when reproduction is made." This explicitly points to an existing problem that a PHOSITA would seek to solve with known information.

3. MPEP 2141.03 (R-01.2024): Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art

• Disclosure: "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." This means the PHOSITA can combine teachings of multiple patents and apply common sense.
• Relevance to US11812091: This establishes that the combination outlined above does not require inventive genius, but rather ordinary creativity and problem-solving skills expected of a PHOSITA in the field.

Conclusion on Obviousness:

Based on the combination of JP-A-2005-73022 and the general knowledge of GUI-based digital content reproduction apparatuses, a PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine these teachings to create a system that automatically and exclusively displays context-relevant operation panels. The objective of improving user-friendliness and optimizing screen space, clearly articulated in the patent itself, would have provided the necessary motivation to move from merely disabling keys on a large panel to displaying distinct, smaller, and automatically switched panels. The inclusion of "time-related information" to manage content with an "appreciation term" (e.g., news) would be a logical refinement for a PHOSITA working in multimedia content delivery, addressing a known issue with such content. Therefore, the core inventive concepts of US11812091, as defined in Claims 1 and 14, appear to be obvious.