US 11876924

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number.

Let me search for the specific litigation docket and any CAFC activity.

Let me verify the actual claim text and check for any PTAB/CAFC proceedings.

Summary: US Patent 11,876,924 ("the '924 patent")

Searches returned authoritative records for this exact number only. I found no other patent or application sharing the number 11876924.

Bibliographic data

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11876924/en ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/11876924 ; https://wiki.golden.com/wiki/US_Patent_11876924_Secure_transactions_using_customized_webpages-YZXR3G5

Abstract (verbatim)

"A computer that dynamically generates a customized second document is described. During operation, the computer receives information specifying activation of a hosted field in a document associated with a third party, where the information specifies a willingness to receive one or more messages from the computer and specifies a telephone number. In response, the computer dynamically generates the customized second document that includes information about one or more transactions (such as one or more upcoming events) of interest to an individual associated with the telephone number. Then, the computer sends a message to an address corresponding to the telephone number, where the message includes a link to the customized second document. Next, when the computer receives information specifying activation of the link from an electronic device, the computer provides information specifying the customized second document to the electronic device for display on the electronic device."

Independent claims — plain‑language overview

Important caveat on certainty: The authoritative Google Patents text I retrieved includes the claims as rendered in the "Aspects of the present disclosure" passages (Google's reformatting of the granted claim set), but the literal, numbered "What is claimed is:" block was truncated in my fetch. The overviews below are therefore reconstructed from the patent's own claim‑language passages and the parallel family text, and I cannot guarantee verbatim reproduction of claim numbers. Treat claim numbering as a best reading, not a confirmed citation.

There appear to be three independent claims, each covering the same core method from a different statutory angle:

1. Independent claim 1 — computer (apparatus): A computer with an interface circuit, processor, and memory storing program instructions. The programmed operations are:

   • receive information specifying activation of a hosted field in a document associated with a third party, where the information specifies (a) a willingness to receive one or more messages from the computer and (b) a telephone number;
   • in response, dynamically generate a customized second document containing information about one or more transactions of interest to an individual associated with the telephone number;
   • send a message to an address corresponding to the telephone number, the message containing a link to the customized second document; and
   • when the computer receives information (from the electronic device tied to the telephone number) specifying activation of the link, provide information specifying the customized second document to that electronic device.

2. Independent claim (storage medium): A non‑transitory computer‑readable storage medium storing program instructions that cause a computer to carry out the same set of operations (hosted‑field activation → dynamic generation of the customized second document → message with link → delivery of the document on link activation).

3. Independent claim (method): A method, performed by a computer, comprising the same steps — receiving the hosted‑field activation information, dynamically generating the customized second document, sending the link‑bearing message, and providing the customized second document upon link activation.

Representative dependent claims (from the patent's own claim passages): the document is a third‑party webpage; the message is an SMS message; the customized second document is a webpage; the customized second document facilitates completion of a given transaction; providing authentication information (e.g., an authentication cookie) to authenticate the transaction; rejecting the transaction if the authentication information is not confirmed as stored on the electronic device; the authentication information is valid for a predefined interval; checking whether the telephone number is already in a data structure and, if not, confirming the individual's willingness to receive messages; the transactions are associated with an entity with which the individual has a subscription; and receiving a request message with a predefined code (e.g., a 5‑digit short code / alphanumeric value) addressed to a second telephone number of the computer, then generating a customized third document and sending a second message with a link to it.

Litigation (E.D. Tex. / CAFC)

• Asserted in: IQX Corp. v. Intuit Inc., No. 2:26‑cv‑00351 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Division; District Judge Rodney Gilstrap; Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne; Nature of Suit 830 – Patent; cause 35 U.S.C. § 271). Google Patents' "family has litigation" link points to this same case.

  • https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A26-cv-00351
  • https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/64428468/IQX_Corp_v_Intuit_Inc
  • https://gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com/cases/Texas_Eastern_District_Court/2--26-cv-00351/IQX_Corp._v._Intuit_Inc/

• Accused instrumentality (per complaint analysis): Intuit's "text message marketing systems," specifically Intuit MailChimp. The complaint reportedly pleads the '924 patent (with a claim chart attached as Exhibit 2) and also asserts a related family member, U.S. Patent No. 12,368,799 ("Automated silent network authentication protocol" — a continuation in the same IQX family, priority via 18/984,041).

  • https://ai-lab-cl-prod.azurewebsites.net/case/dct/txed/2:26-cv-00351/doc/analysis/1

• Docket date discrepancy to flag: aggregator sources list the case as filed April 30, 2026, while the working date you supplied is April 26, 2026, and the patent record was fetched 2026‑09‑25. I am reporting the dates as the sources state them; I cannot reconcile the discrepancy from the records available to me.

• CAFC 2026 dockets: I searched the Federal Circuit 2026 opinions/orders sources and found no appeal, mandamus, or other CAFC proceeding involving 11,876,924. Given that the asserted district‑court case is described as recently filed and still open, the absence of CAFC activity is consistent, but I want to be explicit that I did not locate a positive CAFC record either way — this is an absence of evidence, not confirmation of no activity. I likewise found no IPR/PGR petition against the '924 patent (the PTAB hits returned in my searches were for unrelated patents, e.g., 10,626,820, 11,086,934, 12,015,118, 11,208,029).

Related family members (for context — not the '924 patent)

The Google Patents record shows priority links to continuations: US 12,041,197 B2, US 11,949,806 B2, US 12,126,752 B2, US 12,200,165 B1, US 12,368,799 B2, US 12,438,978 B2, and US 2026/0012531 A1. A sibling patent, US 11,765,262 B2 ("Customer capture using dynamically generated customized webpages"), shares substantially the same specification and has independently claimable subject matter (e.g., its claim 1 recites providing the hosted field to a third party and recites that a shared link lets others browse but not transact).

Bottom line

US 11,876,924 is an IQX Corp. patent (Spindler/Lewin/Wright) on "Amplify"-style hosted‑field → SMS link → dynamically generated personalized purchase webpage technology, with anti‑fraud "hot cookie" authentication. It is currently being asserted by IQX against Intuit/MailChimp in E.D. Tex. case 2:26‑cv‑00351. Verbatim granted‑claim text and definitive CAFC docket status should be confirmed against USPTO PatentCenter / PACER, since my fetch truncated the printed claims and returned no CAFC record for this number.

I'll run targeted searches for litigation involving this specific patent number.

Let me search for additional IQX cases and confirm the docket details.

Found a second case. Let me verify details and check for any additional defendants.

Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 11,876,924 ("the '924 patent")

I searched litigation-focused sources (Unified Patents portal/docket aggregators, Justia dockets, PacerMonitor, Docket Alarm, Ex Parte complaint-analysis database) using the specific number 11876924 and the patent owner ("IQX Corp"). I identified two known district-court cases asserting the '924 patent. No appellate (CAFC), ITC, or PTAB activity was located for this patent.

Case 1 — IQX Corp. v. Intuit Inc.

• Docket: https://gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com/cases/Texas_Eastern_District_Court/2--26-cv-00351/IQX_Corp._v._Intuit_Inc/
• PacerMonitor: https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/64428468/IQX_Corp_v_Intuit_Inc
• Unified Patents portal (linked by the patent record itself as "family has litigation"): https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A26-cv-00351
• Justia docket listing (E.D. Tex., NOS 830): https://dockets.justia.com/browse/circuit-5/state-texas/court-txedce/noscat-10/nos-830?page=6
• Complaint analysis (Ex Parte): https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:26-cv-00351/doc/analysis/1

The complaint reportedly pleads induced infringement under § 271(b) and willful infringement as to both asserted patents, and identifies the accused functionality as enabling a customer to send text messages containing links that lead to webpages for conducting e-commerce.

Case 2 — IQX Corp. v. Salesforce, Inc.

• PacerMonitor: https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/64898612/IQX_Corp_v_Salesforce,_Inc
• Complaint analysis (Ex Parte): https://ai-lab-cl-prod.azurewebsites.net/case/dct/txwd/7:26-cv-00213/doc/analysis/1

Cross-checks and explicit caveats

1. Number discipline. Every result above ties to the string 11876924 / '924 (or the IQX party name). I excluded unrelated hits that merely shared digits (e.g., the SEC filing tagged "11876924" for Astoria Financial; the PTAB IPRs on 11,799,131 / 12,015,118; the Guest Tek "iQx" hotel-system case, which is a different party and different patents).

2. Date inconsistency to flag (per your instruction). The previously generated section noted an unexplained "April 30, 2026 vs. April 26, 2026" mismatch. All sources I retrieved independently agree on April 30, 2026 for the Intuit filing. Separately, the Salesforce case (May 28, 2026) post-dates the "current date" of April 26, 2026 stated in this task. I am reporting the dates exactly as the sources state them and cannot reconcile them with the working date. This is an evidence-quality flag, not a correction of any identifier.

3. Possible under-inclusion. I was limited in the number of searches I could run, so I cannot represent this list as exhaustive. Both identified cases name the same plaintiff, IQX Corp., and the same lead filing attorney, Reza Mirzaie. IQX appears to be running a coordinated assertion campaign over a family of continuation patents (12,041,197; 11,949,806; 12,126,752; 12,200,165; 12,368,799; 12,438,978; and 2026/0012531), and additional suits — against the same or other defendants — may exist that I did not surface.

4. No appeal/PTAB activity located. I found no CAFC appeal, mandamus, or IPR/PGR involving 11,876,924. This is an absence of evidence rather than affirmative confirmation of none; because both district-court cases are at their inception, no appellate or post-grant record would yet be expected.

5. Outcomes. Neither case has a judgment, settlement, dismissal, or disposition. Both are open as of the latest docket data retrieved.

Bottom line: As of the available records, U.S. Patent No. 11,876,924 has been asserted in exactly two known litigations, both by IQX Corp. — against Intuit Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2:26‑cv‑00351, filed Apr. 30, 2026, accusing Intuit MailChimp) and against Salesforce, Inc. (W.D. Tex. 7:26‑cv‑00213, filed May 28, 2026, accusing Salesforce's text-message marketing system). Both remain pending at an early stage with no outcome. Definitive confirmation should be run against PACER and USPTO PatentCenter, since docket aggregators can lag and the printed-claim/venue details were derived partly from third-party complaint analyses rather than the primary filings.

I'll research the PTAB proceeding on file and any related AIA activity.

Let me dig into the Salesforce petition and check for related AIA activity across the family.

Let me check for the petition details and any other AIA challenges across the IQX family.

AIA Trial Proceedings — U.S. Patent No. 11,876,924

Prepared 2026-09-25. Ground-truth proceedings list sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal block provided in the task prompt; all supplemental facts are web-sourced and cited. Where a data point is not yet public, I say so rather than infer it.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding is on file against US 11,876,924 — a single IPR (IPR2026-00476, Salesforce, Inc. as petitioner), filed 2026-09-24 and still in the pre-institution "Pending" stage; zero claims have been invalidated, zero sustained, zero settled, zero institution denials. The bottom-line defensive posture for a defendant today is therefore not "hardened patent" and not "claims are dead" — it is "the first validity challenge was filed one day ago and the patent's claims are entirely UNTESTED at the Board." For the next several months the patent retains the full presumption of validity, all three independent claims remain live, and any infringement theory built on claims 1, 12, etc. is presently unassailable on the PTAB record.

IPR2026-00476 — Salesforce, Inc. v. IQX Corp.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319)
• Filed: 2026-09-24 (structured data: filing date 2026-09-24; last modified 2026-09-24)
• Status: Pending (verbatim from structured data). Plain-English gloss: the petition has been accorded a filing date; no Notice of Filing Date Accorded has ripened into any merits action, no Patent Owner Preliminary Response has been filed, and no institution decision has issued. Because the petition is one calendar day old as of today's date, this is expected rather than anomalous.
• Judge panel: Not yet public / not yet designated. Panel composition is assigned when the institution decision issues; the PTAB does not publish a merits panel at petition filing. I found no panel designation in any source and will not speculate.
• Petition grounds: Not captured in my sources. The structured USPTO Open Data Portal record does not expose the challenged-claim list, the statutory grounds (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112), or the asserted prior-art references, and my web searches did not surface the petition PDF or a third-party docket summary with the ground table. I am not going to guess the claims or references. For a § 311 IPR the grounds must be limited to prior-art patents and printed publications under §§ 102/103, so § 112 and system-art theories are categorically unavailable — but which references Salesforce picked is unknown to me. Retrieve the petition itself from PTAB E2E (below) before relying on any assumption here.
• Institution decision: Not yet issued. Statutory timing under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b): the Board decides within 3 months of the earlier of (a) the Patent Owner Preliminary Response or (b) the due date for it. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b) the POPR is due 3 months from service of the petition. Working forward from 2026-09-24, that puts the POPR due roughly 2026-12-24 and the institution decision due roughly on or before 2027-03-24. (Dates are arithmetic projections from the statute and rule, not published Board dates.)
• Final Written Decision: None. No FWD has issued and none is possible before institution. No claim of the '924 patent has been canceled, confirmed, or otherwise adjudicated by the Board. Critically for the reader: any statement that "claims X–Y of the '924 patent were canceled" would be fabrication at this stage.
• Settlement / termination: None reported. No joint motion to terminate, no § 317 settlement, no adverse-judgment paper in the record I can see.
• Appeal: None. No Federal Circuit docket for this proceeding exists, which follows directly from there being no FWD to appeal. (For purposes of § 319, appeal jurisdiction attaches only after a final written decision.)
• Defensive value: Limited today but strategically significant. (1) Nothing about the patent has changed in the plaintiff's favor or disfavor — a defendant facing a demand letter on the '924 patent is facing a fully intact, never-challenged set of claims; there is no off-the-shelf "this claim is already dead" argument. (2) Conversely, the filing of IPR2026-00476 tells a defendant that a well-resourced, repeat PTAB player (Salesforce) independently judged the '924 patent worth attacking — useful signal that invalidity arguments are credible, but not evidence they will succeed. (3) If you are a co-defendant, watch whether the petition is joined or followed; a first-filed IPR on an untested patent often becomes the template.

Strategic summary

Claim-by-claim status. US 11,876,924 has zero canceled claims and zero Board-sustained claims. Every claim — independent claim 1 (apparatus), the independent storage-medium claim, the independent method claim, and all dependents (including the hot-cookie authentication, telephone-number-in-data-structure, and short-code revisit claims) — is UNTESTED before the PTAB. There is no narrowing, no certificate of correction, no estoppel-evoking Final Written Decision anywhere in the '924 record. One IPR petition exists; it has not been instituted.

Estoppel landscape. No estoppel has attached, and none can yet. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel runs only from a final written decision, and § 315(e)(1) from termination of a proceeding that was instituted. With IPR2026-00476 pending and uninstituted, Salesforce is presently under no statutory estoppel. Practically speaking this is a one-way-street window: if you are a different accused defendant, you are free today to file your own IPR on the '924 patent on any § 102/§ 103 patent-or-printed-publication ground you like, and you will not be blocked by Salesforce's petition (no § 315(e) estoppel; the only constraints are § 315(b)'s one-year bar from service of your own complaint and the Board's § 314(a)/§ 325(d) discretion). Note also that IPR estoppel, once it does arise, reaches only grounds the petitioner "raised or reasonably could have raised" on patents and printed publications — it does not capture system prior art or § 112 grounds, which remain available in the district court regardless of the IPR outcome. I found no publicly reported Sotera-type stipulation by Salesforce in the parallel litigation; absent one, the § 314(a) Fintiv-style discretionary-denial picture (as constrained by current Director practice) is a live issue the Patent Owner will likely press in its POPR.

Pattern signals and litigation posture. This is a single-petition, single-petitioner challenge — no serial filings on this patent by the same petitioner, no defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents, RPX) in the chain on the '924 patent, and no IPR/PGR on the '924 patent before this one, notwithstanding that IQX has been asserting the family in district court. The petitioner, Salesforce, Inc., is itself the defendant in IQX Corp. v. Salesforce, Inc., No. 7:26-cv-00213 (W.D. Tex.), filed 2026-05-28 (docket; complaint analysis) — i.e., this is a direct defendant-filed IPR, not a proxy filing, which makes it a strong candidate for a stipulation and for the § 314(a) dispute described above. The W.D. Tex. complaint asserts the '924 patent (independent claim 1) alongside three family members — 12,200,165 (claim 1), 12,368,799 (claim 12) and 12,438,978 (claim 1) — all against "Salesforce text message marketing systems," and pleads direct, induced and willful infringement.

Two flags for the record. (a) Cross-reference contradiction to surface: the previously generated litigation section identifies the '924 patent as asserted by IQX against Intuit in E.D. Tex. No. 2:26-cv-00351. That is not contradicted — it is a second, separate case. IQX's party page shows two active patent cases across E.D. Tex. and W.D. Tex. (party page). The IPR petitioner (Salesforce) is the W.D. Tex. defendant, not the E.D. Tex. defendant, so do not assume the E.D. Tex. Intuit case and IPR2026-00476 are connected. (b) I could not obtain the petition PDF or a ground table; the claims challenged and art asserted remain unknown to me and are not inferred here.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant being asserted against on US 11,876,924:

• There is no cancelation to cite. Do not represent to a court that any claim of the '924 patent has been invalidated; no FWD exists. The correct framing is that the patent is untested at the Board and that a first challenge (IPR2026-00476) is pending.
• Pull the petition and its exhibit list directly from USPTO PTAB E2E (search by proceeding number at https://ptab.uspto.gov/ and https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb/) and from the PTAB Decisions portal (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/decisions) as soon as the Notice of Filing Date Accorded issues. That document will give you the exact challenged claims and the §§ 102/103 ground table, which is the single most useful piece of competitive intelligence available right now.
• Assess whether your own § 315(b) one-year clock has run. Salesforce filed its petition roughly four months after service in W.D. Tex.; if your complaint was served more than a year ago, an IPR is time-barred for you and your invalidity case must be made in the district court or via ex parte reexamination (which remains available and, per recent Office data, is being filed at roughly 4× the rate of all AIA trial petitions — see the June 2026 PTAB Committee materials).
• Note the discrimination in grounds: IPR is limited to patents and printed publications. If your best art is a system or public-use reference, IPR is unavailable to you and the reexamination route (also patents/printed publications only) will not help either — plan a district-court invalidity case.

Milestones to calendar for IPR2026-00476 (projected from the statute, not published):

• ~2026-12-24 — Patent Owner Preliminary Response due (37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b)); watch for a § 314(a)/§ 325(d) discretionary-denial request, which is where the Patent Owner's best near-term path lies.
• ~2027-03-24 — Institution decision due (35 U.S.C. § 314(b)). If institution is denied, the '924 patent emerges entirely untouched and the patent owner's litigation position strengthens materially.
• If instituted — the statutory trial deadline under § 316(a)(11) is one year from the institution date (extendable for good cause, up to six months under § 316(a)(11)), which places a Final Written Decision at roughly 2028-03-24 on the projected institution date, with oral hearing typically two to three months prior.
• Any Federal Circuit appeal would follow the FWD under § 319; there is nothing on the CAFC docket today for this proceeding, and I found no CAFC record tying any proceeding to this patent.

Where to verify everything above: PTAB E2E / PTAB Decisions (https://ptab.uspto.gov/, https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/decisions), the USPTO Open Data Portal (https://data.uspto.gov/), CourtListener for the Federal Circuit (https://www.courtlistener.com/), and the W.D. Tex. docket via PACER for No. 7:26-cv-00213. Persistent caveat: my searches produced no institution decision, no panel, no ground table, no settlement, and no appeal for IPR2026-00476 because none exists yet — the absence of those items is a function of the petition being one day old, not a gap in reporting.

I'll research the assignment record for US 11,876,924, starting with the USPTO Assignment Center and cross-referencing sources.

Let me dig into the assignment specifics, the corresponding attorney, and IQX Corp's corporate footprint.

Let me look for the specific assignment reel/frame and the recording firm, plus IQX's litigating counsel.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 11,876,924 ("Secure transactions using customized webpages")

Data-source caveat (read first). My only tool for this task was web search, and it returned USPTO guidance/PDF pages and third‑party mirrors rather than a live query result from assignmentcenter.uspto.gov. I could not retrieve the reel/frame numbers or the recorded correspondent for this patent's assignment(s), and I could not confirm that the record is complete (the Assignment Center can contain conveyances — security interests, licenses, corrections — that Google Patents' legal‑events feed does not surface). Everything below is anchored to the Google Patents legal‑events block reproduced in the patent text I was given, plus corroborating third‑party records. Where a field is genuinely unavailable I say so rather than invent it.

Inventors

All three are listed as the assignors on the sole recorded assignment (see timeline), i.e., they assigned their inventor rights to IQX Corp. That is the ordinary employee/founder→company pattern and is not by itself an unusual signal.

Unusual patterns: None affirmatively detected. I found no evidence of the inventors departing IQX within 12 months of filing, and no evidence of a subsequent inventor‑side assignment (which would precede a fire‑sale). I could not obtain employment dates to rule a departure in or out — this is an absence of evidence, not a clean bill of health.

Original assignee

• Entity: IQX Corp., Beverly Hills, CA (US). The address is taken from the front page of the sibling patent US 11,765,262 B2, which shares this specification and lists "IQX CORP., Beverly Hills, CA (US)" as assignee; the '924 record names the same assignee.
• Primary line of business: Event registration / ticketing / promotion delivered through text and instant messaging. Corroborated by U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 8,806,463‑series application 88/064,631, filed 2018‑08‑03, registered 2019‑09‑10, owned by iQX Corp., covering (Class 35/42) "online registration services for … business events … live entertainment … performance events … through a digital platform operating with text messaging and instant messaging communications; arranging for ticket reservations, sales and fulfillment…" — i.e., a real, branded service business.
• Product embodying the claims: The specification describes the system under the internal brand "Amplify" and an Amplify Decision Delivery Processor (ADDP). I could not independently confirm a currently‑shipping 2026 product, so "ships products embodying the claims" is circumstantially supported (trademark + spec) but not verified.
• Current status: Appears operating and actively enforcing (two co‑pending 2026 suits; see below). No bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition found.

Do not conflate: A similarly named Australian entity, iQX Limited (NSX‑listed, part of iQ Group Global, life‑sciences investment/funds), was suspended from quotation in 2022 and is unrelated to IQX Corp. (Beverly Hills). The UK "First Gazette" dissolution notice keyed to company number 11876924 is a coincidental numeric match (a UK Companies Act 2006 s.1003 notice) and has nothing to do with this US patent.

Assignment timeline

Only one recorded assignment appears in the sources I could access. Chronological list:

• Executed: not retrievable / recorded 2023-11-17 — Reel unavailable/unavailable (Google Patents' legal‑events block lists the conveyance but does not expose the reel/frame; I could not query the Assignment Center itself)
  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (see document for details)
  • Assignor: Lewin, Andrew; Spindler, Sacha; Wright, Aidan (the three joint inventors)
  • Assignee: IQX CORP.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from the sources I accessed. The name/firm of record could not be captured — treat as a gap, not as "none."
  • Context: Initial inventor→company assignment (original allocation of rights to the original/operating assignee). Not a post‑issuance transfer, not a shell‑entity move, not a securitization.

Verbatim source (Google Patents legal events, from the authoritative text supplied):

"2023-11-17 Assigned to IQX CORP. — reassignment … IQX CORP. ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS). Assignors: LEWIN, ANDREW, SPINDLER, Sacha, WRIGHT, Aidan"

No subsequent conveyance (to an NPE, an affiliate, a trust, or a defensive aggregator) is reflected in the record I retrieved. Note also the Google Patents "Priority to US18/480,088 / US18/481,540 / US18/483,670 / US18/896,197 / US18/984,041 / US19/192,732 / US19/324,477" events are continuation family links, not assignments — do not read them as title transfers.

Post‑assignment enforcement (context, not title):

• IQX Corp. v. Intuit Inc., No. 2:26‑cv‑00351 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.), Nature of Suit 830 / 35 U.S.C. §271 — accused instrumentality reportedly Intuit MailChimp. (Aggregator shows a filing date of 2026‑04‑30; the working date supplied to me was 2026‑04‑26 — the same discrepancy flagged in the earlier section remains unreconciled.)
• IQX Corp. v. Salesforce, Inc., No. 7:26‑cv‑00213 (W.D. Tex.) — complaint signed by Reza Mirzaie (docket line: "REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS by IQX Corp.. (Mirzaie, Reza)").

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11876924
    2018 : Provisional application filed
    2019 : PCT application filed
    2023 : Continuation filed
         : Inventors assign to IQX Corp
    2024 : Patent issues to IQX Corp
    2026 : IQX asserts patent in Texas

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The sole assignment (recorded 2023‑11‑17) runs inventors → IQX Corp., the operating entity itself. There is no "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" transferee anywhere in the chain.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. IQX Corp. does not match the queried NPE lists (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi‑LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). It appears in no RPX/Unified high‑frequency‑plaintiff list that surfaced.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR. I could not retrieve the recorded assignment correspondent, so I cannot test recurrence within the chain (there is only one link anyway, which is itself below the recurrence threshold). Related‐but‑distinct data point: litigation counsel Reza Mirzaie appears across IQX's suits (e.g., the Salesforce docket). That is assertion counsel, not the assignment correspondent — do not treat it as a §3 signal; noted only as a repeat player to watch.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. One assignment only; no chained LLCs, no shared correspondent addresses to compare.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. The only assignment is dated 2023‑11‑17; the first suits naming this patent are 2026. Nothing sits within 6 months of filing. (The pre‑suit alignment/standing‑record concern that motivates this signal does not arise.)

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No bankruptcy of IQX Corp. found; no Chapter 7/11 sale of the portfolio.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT / UNCLEAR. No evidence IQX holds title to assert on behalf of some other operating‑company beneficiary. IQX appears to be the originator.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti‑NPE) — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion (with a diligence caveat).

Across all eight signals the assignment record is clean: the patent sits with its original operating assignee, IQX Corp., which issued out of a single inventor→company assignment recorded 2023‑11‑17 and was never transferred. IQX holds a federal trademark (app. 88/064,631, reg. 2019‑09‑10) for the exact event‑registration/ticketing service described in the specification and is the real‑party plaintiff in the co‑pending 2026 suits against Intuit/MailChimp and Salesforce — the posture of an operating company enforcing its own patent (the "no transfer = original assignee still owns it" finding the instructions flag).

Caveat / where this could flip: I could not verify a currently‑shipping product embodying the claims, and IQX's targets (Intuit/MailChimp, Salesforce) are far larger marketing/CRM platforms rather than direct ticketing competitors — an "assertion vs. monetization" ambiguity that a strict reading of the "suing actual competitors" prong leaves unresolved. Because the assignment chain contributes zero NPE signals, this is not chargeable as an NPE‑chain finding on the present record; if product practice cannot be confirmed on diligence, the fallback characterization is Insufficient data.

Verification: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 11876924) — pull the 2023‑11‑17 record to recover the reel/frame and correspondent, and confirm no later conveyance exists. The absence of a reel/frame in this report is a gap in my retrieval, not a finding that the record is empty.

I'll research the USPTO record for US 11,876,924 and its cited references.

Now let me research the specific cited references. I'll look up several in parallel.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 11,876,924 B2 ("Secure transactions using customized webpages")

1. Scope, sourcing, and an important caveat

What I could retrieve. The authoritative full text of US 11,876,924 B2 (Google Patents mirror of the USPTO grant, fetched 2026‑09‑25) contains the specification, abstract, figures, and the "Aspects of the present disclosure" rendering of the claim set, but the front‑page "References Cited" ("References Cited / U.S. Patent Documents") block was not present in the fetched text — it was truncated along with the printed What is claimed is: block. I therefore used the Justia mirror of the USPTO front page (https://patents.justia.com/patent/11876924#3), which reproduces the examiner/IDS citation list for this exact patent number. That list is the basis for the analysis below.

What I could NOT do, and what I am not asserting. I could not open the full text of each cited reference within this session, and I did not obtain a direct USPTO Patent Public Search / PatentCenter front‑page dump for 11,876,924. Consequently:

• The citation, number, and date for each reference below come from the Justia front‑page reproduction and are stated as found.
• The "brief description" and the §102 mapping are my analytical judgments. Where I could corroborate a reference's disclosure from an independent source in this session, I say so. Where I could not, I label the entry UNVERIFIED and do not fabricate a disclosure summary.

No similar numbers are substituted. Every entry below is a reference cited on the face of US 11,876,924 itself. I have not inserted references from the family members (US 11,765,262, US 12,041,197, US 11,949,806, US 12,126,752, US 12,200,165, US 12,368,799, US 12,438,978, US 2026/0012531) or from unrelated IPR records that my searches incidentally surfaced.

Critical dates for § 102. US 11,876,924 is an AIA patent (earliest non‑provisional filing is PCT/US19/52847, filed 2019‑09‑25; the application itself filed 2023‑03‑30). Its claims take an earliest effective filing date / priority date of 2018‑09‑27 (provisional 62/737,315). Accordingly:

• § 102(a)(1) art = publicly available before 2018‑09‑27.
• § 102(a)(2) art = U.S. patents/applications effectively filed before 2018‑09‑27.
• References dated after 2018‑09‑27 can only be § 102(a)(2) art if their own effective filing date predates 2018‑09‑27; otherwise they are cited for background/IDS purposes and cannot anticipate.

Terminology caveat on the claim set. A contradiction I must flag: the previously generated section describes independent claim 1 as a computer/apparatus claim built on a "hosted field"; the Justia page for the '924's own publication (/patent/20230300239) reproduces a claim 2 that reads "A system comprising: … providing, to a third party, a subscriber customer identifier and a unique e‑commerce micro‑website link…" and a claim 9 directed to a storage medium. That claim 2 language (subscriber‑customer identifier + unique e‑commerce micro‑website link provided to a third party) matches the sibling patent's subject matter, not the hosted‑field claim 1 described earlier. I cannot reconcile the two renderings without the printed What is claimed is: block. Treat the element labels in § 3 below as element groups, not as confirmed claim numbers. Confirm against USPTO PatentCenter before relying on any specific claim number.

2. Complete list of references cited on the face of US 11,876,924

U.S. patent documents (as reproduced on the Justia front page)

U.S. patent application publications

Other cited documents

• International Search Report dated Dec 13, 2019 re PCT/US19/52847 (2 pages).
• Written Opinion dated Dec 13, 2019 re PCT/US19/52847 (5 pages).
  (These are the search/opinion documents for the '924's own parent PCT — they are file‑wrapper material identifying the art the ISA considered, not prior art themselves.)

Note on date anomalies to flag: US 10,699,264 (2020), US 11,158,009 (2021), US 11,250,098 (2022), US 11,301,219 (2022), US 11,443,325 (2022), and US 2023/0077942 (2023) all issued/published after the 2018‑09‑27 priority date. They can only be § 102(a)(2) art if their effective filing dates precede 2018‑09‑27 (plausible for the Barman, Chokhawala, DeTella, and Kallugudde families; I could not verify Crutchington 2023/0077942's effective date, which on its face would fall outside the § 102(a)(2) window and so may have been cited only for background/IDS completeness). This must be checked reference‑by‑reference.

3. Prior-art mapping by claim element

Because the '924's independent claims are combinations (hosted‑field activation → dynamic generation → SMS link → delivery on link activation, plus authentication‑cookie dependents), a single reference rarely anticipates the whole claim. I map each reference to the element group(s) it can reach, and I give a § 102 vs. § 103 posture for each.

Most probative references — detailed entries

1. US 10,122,824 B2 — Chokhawala, Tseng, Shankar — "Creation and delivery of individually customized web pages"

• Citation: US 10,122,824 B2; App. 14/986,825 filed Jan 4, 2016; granted Nov 6, 2018.
• Description (corroborated): A computer server receives a webpage request from an individual's device, analyzes first and second sets of stored information about the individual to predict a key‑performance‑indicator difference, automatically selects a UI design component, automatically generates and transmits a first customized webpage, and — on interaction with that component — automatically generates and transmits a second customized webpage to create a "customized page flow." (Source: https://wiki.golden.com/wiki/US_Patent_10122824_Creation_and_delivery_of_individually_customized_web_pages-Y3VNVXA.)
• § 102 posture: Filing date (2016‑01‑04) precedes 2018‑09‑27, so it is available as § 102(a)(2)/(e) art. It directly reaches element group E‑A (dynamically generating a customized second document with content selected for that individual — including the "second, different customized webpage" concept). It does not appear to disclose a hosted field in a third party's document, an SMS/message link to the person's telephone number, or the cookie‑gated transaction. Conclusion: strong § 102 challenge to any claim drawn to E‑A in isolation; at minimum a § 103 primary reference against the generation step.

2. US 11,250,098 B2 — Chokhawala et al.

• Citation: US 11,250,098 B2; granted Feb 15, 2022.
• Description (corroborated as to family): Same family/subject matter as US 10,122,824 (individually customized web pages); issued 2022 but its disclosure is the family disclosure.
• § 102 posture: Only § 102(a)(2) art to the extent its effective filing date predates 2018‑09‑27 (it shares the 10,122,824 priority, so this is likely). Same E‑A mapping; largely cumulative of US 10,122,824.

3. US 6,101,486 — Roberts et al. — "System and method for retrieving customer information at a transaction center"

• Citation: US 6,101,486; granted Aug 8, 2000.
• Description (corroborated): Automatically collects a customer profile when the customer accesses a company website (including via a cookie that logs active and passive activity), stores it in a profile database, and — when the customer is on the website or calls the transaction center — selects dynamic content messages in accordance with the profile and inserts them into a webpage template so that a customized webpage is presented (specification, "Customized Webpage Generation" section). Directly relevant: it recites "configuring the webpage" by "inserting the dynamic content message into the webpage" (claims 12–14). (Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6101486; http://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat6101486.html.)
• § 102 posture: Pre‑2018 (granted 2000), so § 102(a)(1)/(b) art. It reaches E‑A (profile‑driven customized webpage), and its cookie‑based collection of customer interest data touches the general E‑D concept. It does not disclose the hosted‑field/SMS‑link combination. Conclusion: § 102 against any claim reciting only "dynamically generate a customized second document… of interest to the individual," and a useful § 103 secondary reference for the profiling/customization rationale.

4. US 8,655,782 B2 — Poon et al. and US 2011/0218880 A1 — Hammad

• Citation: US 8,655,782 (Feb 18, 2014); US 2011/0218880 A1 (Sep 8, 2011).
• Description: UNVERIFIED — I did not retrieve these texts in this session. Both fall in the mobile/electronic‑payment and account‑authentication space, and Hammad is a Visa‑affiliated publication. I am not asserting their disclosure.
• § 102 posture (conditional): Both predate 2018‑09‑27 and are therefore § 102(a)(1)/(b) art in form. Based on their titles/serial context they are candidates against E‑D (authentication credential gating a payment; confirmation via a mobile device) and possibly the dependent claims directed to authentication information valid for a predefined interval. Definitive mapping requires the full texts.

5. US 7,197,324 — Sweeney and US 8,630,670 — Sweeney

• Citation: US 7,197,324 (Mar 27, 2007); US 8,630,670 (Jan 14, 2014).
• Description: PARTIALLY UNVERIFIED. This session's searches corroborated that the CenturyLink inventor "Jeffrey Sweeney" has a family of location‑based‑services / mobile‑device‑notification patents (e.g., US 8,983,488 "System and method for providing location based services at a shopping facility" — profile‑based advertising pushed to a registered mobile device; US 8,428,620 "Mass transportation service delivery platform"). The two Sweeney patents cited here are not those two numbers, and I did not verify their disclosures. Treat as unverified.
• § 102 posture (conditional): Pre‑2018, so § 102(a)(1) art in form; candidates against E‑E (targeted content pushed to a registered mobile device based on a stored profile) but very likely lacking the hosted‑field trigger and the SMS‑link‑to‑purchase‑page mechanism. Likely § 103 material at best.

Remaining cited references — status

For the following I could not verify a disclosure in this session; I list them so the record is complete and flag them as UNVERIFIED: 8,131,258 (Smith et al.); 8,195,509 (Mhatre et al.); 8,700,729 (Dua); 9,053,189 (Hoag et al.); 9,143,831 (Hendren et al.); 10,699,264 (Barman); 11,158,009 (Barman); 11,301,219 (DeTella et al.); 11,443,325 (Kallugudde et al.); 2007/0174448 (Ahuja et al.); 2007/0255620 (Tumminaro et al.); 2012/0185382 (Fischer); 2012/0203605 (Morgan et al.); 2014/0187197 (Sege); 2017/0256007 (Barman); 2017/0295414 (Murray); 2018/0005263 (McNulty et al.); 2023/0077942 (Crutchington et al.).

Based on naming conventions and dates alone, the payment/mobile‑authentication cluster (Poon; Tumminaro; Hammad; Hoag; DeTella; Kallugudde) is the most likely place to find art against the authentication‑cookie / predefined‑validity‑interval dependent claims, and the Barman family (10,699,264 / 11,158,009 / 2017/0256007) is the most likely place to find art against messaging‑based commerce. I am flagging these as hypotheses to verify, not findings.

4. Bottom line for this task

1. The examiners' cited art clusters onto three of the five element groups, not the whole combination:
   • Customized‑webpage generation → US 6,101,486 (Roberts) and US 10,122,824 / US 11,250,098 (Chokhawala) are the strongest single‑reference § 102 candidates (both comfortably pre‑2018‑09‑27).
   • Authentication gating / credential validity → the Poon / Hammad / Tumminaro / Hoag payment cluster (unverified here) is the most promising art against the cookie dependent claims.
   • Mobile targeted content → the Sweeney and Dua references are § 103‑grade at best on the present record.
2. No cited reference appears to disclose the specific combination the applicant treated as the point of novelty — (i) a hosted field embedded in a third party's document capturing an opt‑in and a telephone number, (ii) a message containing a link sent to that number, and (iii) delivery of a de novo‑created, per‑subscriber customizable page whose non‑existence before link generation is emphasized in the specification ("the webpage does not exist before the link is created and provided"). That gap is why the patent granted.
3. Therefore the realistic invalidity theories are § 103 combinations, e.g. Roberts or Chokhawala (customized page generation) + a mobile‑messaging/payment reference (link delivery + authentication), not clean § 102 anticipation of the independent claims.

5. Caveats you should carry forward

• The front‑page citation list above is itself a secondary‑source reproduction; confirm it against USPTO PatentCenter before citing it in any filing.
• I could not confirm the printed independent‑claim numbering or text for US 11,876,924 in this session, and the Justia claim rendering for its own publication conflicts with the previously generated summary (flagged in § 1). Any "anticipates claim N" statement must be re‑run against the certified claim set.
• Entries marked UNVERIFIED are included for completeness of the citation record only; I have not represented what they disclose.
• Consistent with the earlier section: the asserted litigation is IQX Corp. v. Intuit Inc., No. 2:26‑cv‑00351 (E.D. Tex.). I found no IPR/PGR petition and no Federal Circuit record against 11,876,924 — an absence of evidence, not confirmation.

I'll ground this analysis in the prior art actually associated with this patent, then build the §103 combinations.

Let me try to retrieve the actual "References Cited" section and the published-but-unasserted sibling patent's prior art.

Now let me retrieve the '924 patent's own front-page references and the published PCT (WO 2020/068911) ISR.

Obviousness Analysis — US 11,876,924 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Date of analysis: April 26, 2026 · Critical date: September 27, 2018 (earliest priority, provisional 62/737,315); the § 102(a)(1) cutoff for the continuation claim set is therefore before 2018‑09‑27, with § 102(a)(2) art qualifying if effectively filed before that date.

0. What the "Prior Art" section of the page actually contains — and what it does not

Strictly applying the instruction to use this page's Prior Art section, the fetched Google Patents record discloses only the following:

That is classification/keyword metadata, not a citation list. The fetched page did not render a "(56) References Cited" block or a "Similar Documents" list. Two consequences:

1. Contradiction to flag with the previously generated section. The earlier summary correctly noted the printed claim text was truncated. I have the same limitation here and add a second one: I could not retrieve the '924 front-page (56) references. The (56) list below is taken from U.S. 11,765,262 B2, the co-family patent (same specification, same PCT, same examiner-cited art). Treat it as a proxy requiring confirmation against PatentCenter, not as verified '924 text.
2. Date contradiction to flag. The earlier section recorded the E.D. Tex. complaint as filed April 30, 2026, while today's stated date is April 26, 2026 — i.e., the docket date post-dates today. I cannot reconcile this; I report it as-is.

(56) art family (from US 11,765,262 B2 front page)

Confidence caveat: I could not verify the substantive disclosure of Ahuja, Fischer, Tumminaro, or Demit from primary text in this session. I therefore use them as corroborating art, and build the primary grounds on the categories of art that the specification itself admits and that are corroborated by independent records I did retrieve (below). Any assertion that a specific one of these four teaches a specific element should be re-verified against the reference text before filing.

1. Framework

Under Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), and KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007):

• The four Graham factors control: scope/content of prior art, differences, PHOSITA level, secondary considerations.
• KSR authorizes combination where elements were known, and the combination yields only predictable results; the motivation "need not be found in the references" and may come from "market forces," "design incentives," or "common sense."
• Where an apparatus claim recites only generic hardware (interface circuit, processor, memory), the patentability question collapses onto the programmed operations — here, ordinary web, messaging and session-management steps.
• Applicant-admitted prior art (AAP) in the specification is properly treated as prior art in a § 103 analysis.

2. Level of ordinary skill (PHOSITA)

A bachelor's degree in computer science or electrical engineering (or equivalent), with 2–4 years' experience in one or more of: (a) web/e‑commerce application development including third‑party embedded form widgets, (b) mobile messaging campaigns and short codes, and (c) web session/authentication security (cookies, tokens, OTP). This is not an unusually high level; the '924 claims recite no algorithm beyond conventional request/serve/branch logic.

3. Element decomposition of the independent claims

The three independent claims (computer; CRM; method — numbering as previously flagged as unverified) share this core:

Dependents add: SMS; webpage; third‑party webpage; transaction completion; authentication cookie; time‑limited validity; reject if cookie not confirmed present; data‑structure check, else confirm opt‑in; entity/subscription relationship; short‑code request → third document → second message.

4. The prior art landscape

Group A — Third‑party "hosted fields" and embedded form capture (→ E1, E2)

"Hosted fields" is a term of art in payment integration: third‑party providers (Stripe Checkout/Elements, Braintree Hosted Fields, PayPal hosted buttons) inject iframe/widget form fields into a merchant's own page so the merchant never touches card data. Independent corroboration: the WO2018144419A1 ISR I retrieved shows the ISA treating embedded‑field/interaction documents as a well‑searched field. The specification itself treats injection of a hosted field into a third‑party page as a given capability of computer 112, not as the invention. This element is the single weakest point of the claim set.

Group B — Dynamic personalized document generation (→ E3)

Independent, retrievable evidence that server‑side generation of a de‑novo, user‑specific page from a stored user profile predates 2018 by well over a decade: the E.D. Tex. claim‑construction/record for the "personalized web page" patent (Exhibit A/B) describing a visitor data manager 350, component assembler 340, monogrammer 330, pre‑customized file store 365, and dynamic page generator 380 — with express disclosure that "each visitor to the web site might receive a different introductory web page, customized for their preferences," and that pages may be "dynamically generated on demand by the dynamic page generator."
https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/2:2011cv00419/[132355/269](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=132355-0269)/0.pdf
Also: U.S. 7,565,359 ("Dynamic Page Generator"), cited in the same litigation record (https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/13836287). Add Amazon‑era recommendation art (US 6,317,722) and Ticketmaster/sports‑league "recommended for you" ticketing. Personalized per‑user page generation is squarely old.

Group C — Message containing a link to a personalized mobile page; short codes (→ E4, and the "third document" dependent)

This is admitted prior art in the '924 specification itself: the patent states that a subscriber "can, at any time, get or receive a text message with a link to a customized webpage with events and/or user preferences by sending a text message with, e.g., a 5‑digit short code," and that the short code may be "an organizer name and/or a name of a provider." That is the dependent claim read verbatim. Common Short Codes (5–6 digits, CTIA/Neustar‑administered) and "text KEYWORD to 12345 to receive a link" campaigns were mainstream by the mid‑2000s. Family‑cited corroboration: US 2007/0255620 A1 (Tumminaro — mobile number as the account/identity key in a messaging‑driven payment flow) and US 2018/0103004 A1 (Demit — H04L 51/52, messaging).

Group D — Cookie/token session authentication of a purchase (→ dependent auth claims)

HTTP cookies with expiry (RFC 6265, 2011), session tokens, "remember‑me" persistence, and re‑authentication on expiry are foundational web practice. Rejecting a request when an expected token is absent is exactly the CSRF/session‑validation pattern documented in OWASP guidance well before 2018. Out‑of‑band SMS one‑time‑password second factors were recognized in NIST SP 800‑63‑2 (2013) and deployed at scale by banks by the mid‑2010s — and the '924 spec itself describes a "4‑digit PIN code… sent to subscriber customer via MMS/SMS" input into the purchase form as an existing mechanism.

Group E — The SIM‑swap framing (not claim‑limited)

The specification argues the "hot cookie" addresses "SIM‑case swapping or fraudulent use of a link." No claim recites any SIM‑swap‑specific step, any device‑binding step, or any non‑guessability requirement. The claims recite only: provide authentication information; reject absent confirmation. Under Graham/KSR, unclaimed advantages cannot supply patentability. This is the most important vulnerability I identified.

5. Specific § 103 combinations

Ground 1 — Personalized‑page generation (Group B) + hosted third‑party field (Group A) + SMS link delivery (Group C)

Mapping: B→E3; A→E1/E2; C→E4/E5; the generic server of B or C→E1 hardware.

Motivation to combine (KSR "market forces" / predictable use): The business problem was explicitly known and stated in the art: static one‑size‑fits‑all landing pages produce a "cumbersome user experience" (the '924 Background says this itself). Combining a known personalization engine with a known embedded opt‑in field and a known SMS link is the predictable use of three known techniques for their known purposes, yielding no more than the expected result. Capture of the opt‑in at the point of purchase is a design choice dictated by the pre‑existing purchase form. Reasonable expectation of success is high: each step is a standard HTTP redirect/serve operation.

Ground 2 — Messaging campaign system with short code (Group C) + recommender/personalization engine (Group B)

Motivation: Marketers already used short‑code keyword campaigns; feeding a known user profile into a known dynamic page generator produces a personalized landing page. The only asserted difference is that the page is generated in response to the opt‑in event rather than from a pre‑built campaign template — a trivial sequencing/implementation choice ("in response to" is met by any server that renders on request). KSR: "a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." It is not.

Ground 3 — Any of Grounds 1–2 + browser cookie/token with expiry (Group D) for the authentication dependents

Motivation: Authenticating a purchase with a client‑side token is the default web security pattern; adding expiry reflects the ordinary trade‑off between convenience and security; adding SMS OTP was a recognized second factor (NIST SP 800‑63‑2). Rejecting a purchase absent the token is the purpose of the token. Substantially all functional language ("valid for a predefined time interval," "rejected… if the authentication information is not stored") is a result, not a mechanism, and results achieved by known mechanisms are obvious.

Ground 4 — The short‑code "third document" dependent claim

Anticipated/obvious on the specification's own admission (Group C). A message "ORGANIZER"→5‑digit code→reply SMS containing a personalized link was a standard double opt‑in marketing flow. This limitation should be considered the easiest in the set to invalidate and the least defensible if asserted.

Ground 5 — The "data structure check, else confirm opt‑in" dependent claim

Obvious: Two‑branch opt‑in verification (known subscriber → proceed; unknown → confirm consent) is required by TCPA/carrier opt‑in rules for SMS marketing and was routine database logic. Motivation: legal compliance for messaging campaigns.

Claim‑chart summary (independent claims):

6. Rebuttals the patentee will likely raise, and my assessment

7. Bottom line

On the record available, claims 1 and the parallel CRM/method claims appear vulnerable to § 103 as combinations of (i) embedded third‑party form fields, (ii) known dynamic per‑user page personalization, and (iii) known short‑code/SMS link delivery — with the authentication dependents met by conventional cookie/token and SMS‑OTP practice. The strongest non‑obviousness positions for IQX are, in my view: (a) the specific sequencing of opt‑in capture → generation → link delivery as a single automated pipeline for a purchase form; and (b) any argument that the art does not teach generating the customized document in direct response to the hosted‑field activation event (E3's "in response to"). Both are narrow and, on the present record, look like routine implementation choices rather than invention.

Explicit uncertainties I am not papering over:

1. Verbatim granted claim text was truncated in my fetch — claim numbering remains a best reading, as previously flagged. Confirm on PatentCenter before relying on this for any filing.
2. The (56) list above is from the sibling US 11,765,262, not verified on the '924 front page.
3. I did not verify the substantive disclosure of Ahuja, Fischer, Tumminaro, or Demit; the primary art I relied on is the specification's own admissions plus independently retrievable personalization/dynamic‑page records.
4. Consistent with the earlier section, I found no IPR/PGR or CAFC proceeding against the '924 — but that was an absence of evidence, and I did not re‑run that check in this session.
5. The April 26 vs. April 30, 2026 docket‑date discrepancy remains unresolved.