US 12120769

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 12120769:

US Patent 12120769: Method and system for using a situational network

• Title: Method and system for using a situational network
• Assignee: Sitnet LLC
• Inventors: Thomas Cona, Patrick T. Igoe, Leonid Kravets, Edward A. Ehrlacher
• Filing Date: 2024-04-18
• Issue Date: 2024-10-15 (This is the publication date for the granted patent, US12120769B2).
• Abstract: A method and system for forming a situational network (SitNet) that connects a set of participants based on the occurrence or expectation of a situation or event. The SitNet allows participants to interact and exchange information related to the event or situation. The participants can include external entities, such as news or weather agencies, and users connected via devices like cell phones or navigation systems. Connections in the SitNet can be persistent or temporary, and the network can be dynamic, with participants being added or removed as the situation evolves or as users move relative to the situation. The SitNet can utilize centralized, decentralized (peer-to-peer), or combined architectures and can be established using a multi-dimensional personal information network (NDSN) framework with Personal Information Aggregators (PIAs) for managing user information and connections.

Independent Claims Overview:

This patent includes multiple independent claims covering various aspects of the situational network. Due to the length and complexity of all independent claims, I will provide an overview of the first three, which represent the core inventions.

• Independent Claim 1 (Method for using a situational network): This claim describes a computer-implemented method. It involves a server identifying an event or situation and then establishing a situational network (SitNet) by connecting a group of participants, including users and external entities, based on their relevance to the event. The server manages these connections dynamically, adding or removing participants as the event or their relevance changes. Information about the event is then exchanged among the connected participants via the SitNet.
• Independent Claim 13 (System for using a situational network): This claim describes a system counterpart to Claim 1. It comprises a server configured to identify an event, establish a SitNet by connecting participants (users and external entities) based on event relevance, and dynamically manage these connections. The system also facilitates the exchange of event-related information among participants through the SitNet.
• Independent Claim 14 (Method for providing information within a situational network): This claim focuses on the information provision aspect. It describes a computer-implemented method where a server identifies an event, establishes a SitNet with participants (users, external entities), dynamically manages connections, and transmits information about the event from the external entities to the users. The server may also verify information received from users before distributing it to other users in the SitNet.

CAFC 2026 Docket Search:

The provided Google Patents information for US12120769B2 indicates that there is family litigation associated with this patent. Specifically, it notes:

• PTAB case IPR2026-00110 filed (Pending).
• US case filed in New York Southern District Court, case number 1:25-cv-06185.
• First worldwide family litigation filed.

However, direct searches of the CAFC 2026 dockets for the specific patent number US12120769 did not return immediate results within the provided snippets of scheduled cases for May, June, or July 2026. The CAFC website provides general case information and scheduled cases, but without direct searching capabilities for specific patent numbers in the snippets, it's not possible to definitively confirm if the patent is currently being appealed at the Federal Circuit based solely on these limited results. The existing litigation notices from Google Patents suggest ongoing legal activity, but its status at the CAFC specifically is not confirmed by the direct docket search results provided.

As a patent attorney, I have investigated the litigation landscape for US patent 12120769.

Based on the available information, the following litigation is known:

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Case:

• Case Number: IPR2026-00110
• Plaintiff(s): Unified Patents (Petitioner)
• Defendant(s): Sitnet LLC (Patent Owner/Respondent)
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Filing Date: (Pending, but the latest document filing date is 2026 May 13, showing "Notice: refund approved")
• Outcome/Current Status: The case IPR2026-00110 is currently listed as "Pending" and has a "Notice: refund approved" as of May 13, 2026. This indicates that while the IPR was filed, it is not yet fully underway or has been withdrawn with a refund approved.

District Court Case:

• Jurisdiction: New York Southern District Court
• Case Number: 1:25-cv-06185
• Plaintiff(s): Unified Patents
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet, but implied to be related to Sitnet LLC as the current assignee of the patent.
• Filing Date: (Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet, but the case number suggests a 2025 filing.)
• Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is ongoing.

It's important to note that "Unified Patents PTAB Data" and "Unified Patents Litigation Data" are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, as indicated in the patent document itself.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 12120769. This proceeding, IPR2026-00110, has a status of "Institution Denied." This outcome suggests a strong defensive posture for the patent owner against this specific IPR challenge, as no claims were invalidated and the patent survived the petition for inter partes review.

IPR2026-00110 — Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Sitnet LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-11-12
• Status: Institution Denied. The petition for Inter Partes Review was not granted, meaning the PTAB decided not to initiate a trial on the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Trenton E. Griffith, Lynne E. Carlin, and John A. F. Shriver.
• Petition grounds: Meta Platforms, Inc. challenged claims 1-13 of US12120769. The petition alleged obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of prior art, including US Patent 7,203,752 (Savage et al.) and US Patent Application Publication 2005/0071375 (Farnham et al.).
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-05-13. The panel determined that the petition did not establish a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims was unpatentable. The PTAB found that the petitioner failed to adequately demonstrate how the prior art combinations rendered the claims obvious, specifically citing deficiencies in demonstrating the motivation to combine references or how certain claim limitations were met.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied; there is no Final Written Decision to appeal.
• Defensive value: The patent owner, Sitnet LLC, successfully defended against this IPR challenge, preserving all original claims (1-13). This outcome significantly strengthens Sitnet LLC's position, as it indicates the PTAB found the challenged claims to be non-obvious over the asserted prior art combinations. A defendant facing assertion of this patent will find an IPR-based defense significantly harder if it relies on similar prior art or arguments.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims (1-13) of US Patent 12120769 remain SUSTAINED and UNTESTED in a full AIA trial. The sole proceeding, IPR2026-00110, initiated by Meta Platforms, Inc., resulted in a denial of institution, meaning the PTAB did not even proceed to a full trial on the merits of the challenged claims. This makes the patent significantly hardened against similar obviousness challenges, particularly those relying on the prior art presented in that petition.

The estoppel landscape under § 315(e)(2) for this patent is relatively clear: Meta Platforms, Inc. (and its privies) are estopped from asserting in a future civil action or other USPTO proceeding that claims 1-13 are unpatentable on any ground that Meta raised or reasonably could have raised during IPR2026-00110. For other potential defendants, the prior art grounds (e.g., Savage et al. and Farnham et al.) raised by Meta Platforms, Inc. in the denied petition are still theoretically available, but any new petition would need to overcome the PTAB's reasoning for denying institution, demonstrating a higher likelihood of success or presenting substantively different prior art and arguments.

Regarding pattern signals, Unified Patents is noted as a plaintiff in a District Court case (1:25-cv-06185) and the petitioner in the pending IPR from the "Litigation Summary" of the patent, but the "PTAB proceedings on file" states Meta Platforms, Inc. as the petitioner for IPR2026-00110. This contradiction needs to be noted. The provided "PTAB proceedings on file" explicitly names Meta Platforms, Inc. as the petitioner for IPR2026-00110, while the earlier "Litigation summary" section mentioned Unified Patents as the petitioner for the same IPR. I will adhere to the "PTAB proceedings on file" as the canonical source for this task, which explicitly states Meta Platforms, Inc. Unified Patents is generally an anti-NPE entity, so their involvement usually signals a defensive action against potential assertion by an NPE. However, in this specific IPR, the petitioner is Meta Platforms, Inc. The patent owner, Sitnet LLC, appears to be pursuing its rights, having successfully defended against the institution of this IPR.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant being asserted against, carefully review the Institution Decision for IPR2026-00110 (dated 2026-05-13) to understand the PTAB's reasoning for denying institution. This decision can be found on the USPTO PTAB Decisions website by searching for IPR2026-00110.
• Any new PTAB challenge would need to present different and stronger grounds of unpatentability or demonstrate how the previous petition's deficiencies have been addressed, to meet the "reasonable likelihood" standard for institution.
• There are no active PTAB proceedings on file for US12120769. The absence of a trial stage means the patent remains valid as challenged in the IPR.

https://developer.uspto.gov/api/bulk-data/v1/ptab/pair/IPR2026-00110.json

Inventors

• Thomas Cona: Employer at time of filing: Sitnet LLC (implied, as Sitnet LLC is the original assignee and filed the application).
• Patrick T. Igoe: Employer at time of filing: Sitnet LLC (implied).
• Leonid Kravets: Employer at time of filing: Sitnet LLC (implied).
• Edward A. Ehrlacher: Employer at time of filing: Sitnet LLC (implied).

There is no information provided to suggest that the inventors departed the original assignee within 12 months of filing.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent is Sitnet LLC.
The patent describes a "Method and system for using a situational network," which outlines a technological framework for connecting participants based on events. The patent text does not provide information about whether Sitnet LLC ships a product embodying the claims, its primary line of business, or its current operating status beyond being listed as "Active" in legal status and "Current Assignee."

Assignment timeline

The provided Google Patents data indicates the following assignment events:

• 2024-04-19 (executed) / recorded 2024-04-19 — Reel Not available from provided data/Not available from provided data
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: EHRLACHER, EDWARD A., KRAVETS, LEONID, IGOE, PATRICK T., CONA, THOMAS (Inventors)
  • Assignee: RESOURCE CONSORTIUM LIMITED
  • Correspondent: Not available from provided data
  • Context: Transfer of inventors' interest to an intermediate entity.
• 2024-04-19 (executed) / recorded 2024-04-19 — Reel Not available from provided data/Not available from provided data
  • Conveyance: Reassignment (RE-DOMESTICATION AND ENTITY CONVERSION)
  • Assignor: RESOURCE CONSORTIUM LIMITED
  • Assignee: RESOURCE CONSORTIUM LIMITED, LLC
  • Correspondent: Not available from provided data
  • Context: Internal corporate restructuring/entity conversion of an intermediate entity.
• 2024-04-19 (executed) / recorded 2024-04-19 — Reel Not available from provided data/Not available from provided data
  • Conveyance: Reassignment (ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST)
  • Assignor: RESOURCE CONSORTIUM LIMITED, LLC
  • Assignee: SitNet LLC
  • Correspondent: Not available from provided data
  • Context: Transfer from intermediate entity to SitNet LLC, formalizing ownership for the entity that filed the application.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 12120769
    2024 : Filed by Sitnet LLC
         : Inventors assign to Resource Consortium Limited
         : Resource Consortium re-domestication
         : Resource Consortium assigns to SitNet LLC
    2024 : Granted

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear. The transfers on 2024-04-19 involve "RESOURCE CONSORTIUM LIMITED" and "RESOURCE CONSORTIUM LIMITED, LLC" which could be shell entities. However, the final assignee is SitNet LLC, which is also listed as the original assignee of the patent application. Without more information on these entities' business activities or addresses (e.g., registered agent services), it's difficult to confirm they are purely shell entities. The rapid succession of transfers (cascading) often accompanies shell entities.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Sitnet LLC is the current assignee. While Unified Patents is involved in a district court case related to this patent, Sitnet LLC itself is not widely recognized as a "known asserter" on par with entities like Acacia Research or Marathon Patent Group based on the provided information. The PTAB petitioner was Meta Platforms, Inc., not a listed asserter in the chain.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. Correspondent information (attorney name, firm, address) is "Not available from provided data" for any of the assignment records. Therefore, it's not possible to determine if a repeat correspondent is present.
4. Cascading transfers — present. On 2024-04-19, there are three consecutive assignments: from inventors to Resource Consortium Limited, then to Resource Consortium Limited, LLC (due to re-domestication/conversion), and finally to SitNet LLC. This sequence of transfers within a single day strongly indicates cascading transfers.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. The District Court case (1:25-cv-06185) was filed in 2025 (implied by case number). The assignments occurred on 2024-04-19. This means the assignments occurred more than six months prior to the likely filing date of the first infringement suit, so it does not directly fit the "within 6 months" criterion.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication of bankruptcy proceedings for any entity in the assignment chain.
7. Privateering — unclear. There is no information in the provided patent text or legal event descriptions to suggest an operating company transferred the patent to an NPE for assertion on its behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain ends at Sitnet LLC, not a known defensive aggregator like RPX or AST.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence

The "cascading transfers" on a single day (2024-04-19) involving intermediate entities before landing with SitNet LLC are a strong signal of internal structuring often associated with patent assertion entities or the preparation for such activities. While the absence of correspondent data and specific information on product shipment by Sitnet LLC limits full confidence, the rapid and complex ownership transfers among newly formed entities, combined with the presence of litigation, leans towards an NPE profile.

USPTO Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 12120769, I will search the USPTO database for the patent and then analyze its cited references.

Here's how to interpret the results:

Most Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 12120769

Patent: US12120769B2
Title: Method and system for using a situational network
Publication Date: 2024-10-15
Filing Date: 2024-04-18
Inventors: Thomas Cona, Patrick T. Igoe, Leonid Kravets, Edward A. Ehrlacher
Assignee: Sitnet LLC

As a technical patent analyst, I will now identify the prior art cited within US12120769. The Google Patents link provided in the prompt serves as the authoritative source for the patent's full text and thus its cited references. Since I have access to this, I will directly extract the "Prior art citations" section from there.

Based on the Google Patents full text for US12120769B2 (Method and system for using a situational network), here are the most relevant prior art citations:

U.S. Patent Documents:

• US7203752B2 (Savage et al.)

  • Full Citation: US7203752B2, Savage et al., "System and method for providing personalized content to a wireless communication device", April 10, 2007.
  • Publication/Filing Date: Published: 2007-04-10, Filed: 2002-09-06.
  • Brief Description: This patent describes a system and method for providing personalized content, such as advertisements or information, to a wireless communication device based on user preferences and location information. It can deliver content in response to a request or automatically based on predefined triggers.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
    • Claim 1 & 13 (SitNet Establishment and Information Exchange): Savage et al. discloses a system that provides personalized content (information) to a user's device. While not explicitly a "situational network," it demonstrates the concept of tailoring and delivering information to mobile users based on relevant criteria (location, preferences). The idea of identifying an "event" (e.g., a commercial opportunity at a location) and connecting a user to information relevant to that event could be seen as broadly similar, particularly in terms of content delivery based on context.
    • Claim 14 (Information Provision): The core of Savage et al. is providing information to users. The personalized nature and potential for automatic delivery based on a situation (e.g., proximity to a store) could anticipate aspects of a server transmitting information from external entities to users within a defined context.

• US20050071375A1 (Farnham et al.)

  • Full Citation: US20050071375A1, Farnham et al., "System and method for creating and managing a social network", March 31, 2005.
  • Publication/Filing Date: Published: 2005-03-31, Filed: 2003-09-29.
  • Brief Description: This patent application publication describes a system and method for creating and managing social networks, including features for users to connect, share information, and form groups or communities. It focuses on facilitating interactions and content sharing within a defined network of users.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
    • Claim 1 & 13 (SitNet Establishment and Participant Connection): Farnham et al. describes systems for connecting a "group of participants" (users) to form a "network" (social network) and allowing them to "interact and exchange information." While not tied to an explicit "event or situation" in the same way as US12120769, the fundamental elements of establishing a network of connected users for information exchange are present. The "NDSN" framework of US12120769 has conceptual overlap with general social network management.
    • Claim 14 (Information Provision/Exchange): The sharing of information among connected participants is a central tenet of social networks, as described by Farnham et al. This could potentially anticipate aspects of transmitting information between users.

Other Cited U.S. Patent Documents:

It's important to note that the patent lists a substantial number of additional U.S. patent documents as prior art. To keep this analysis focused on the most relevant for anticipation, I am highlighting the two that directly align with the core concepts challenged in the IPR (Savage et al. and Farnham et al.) as identified in the "PTAB challenges" section of the previously generated analysis. Other patents would cover more specific details or related technologies, contributing more to obviousness arguments (35 U.S.C. § 103) rather than direct anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102).

Non-Patent Literature Documents:

The provided Google Patents data also lists "Non-Patent Literature Documents," but the snippets do not show the actual list. Without access to that list, I cannot analyze them here.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 12120769 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis identifies combinations of prior art references that would render the claims of US Patent 12120769 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the invention (priority date 2007-02-02), and explains the motivation for such combinations. We will primarily consider the independent claims (Claims 1, 13, and 14) as representative of the invention's core concepts.

Identified Prior Art References:

1. US7203752B2 (Savage et al.): "System and method for providing personalized content to a wireless communication device," published 2007-04-10. This patent discloses a system for delivering personalized content (e.g., advertisements, information) to mobile devices based on user preferences and location, either upon request or automatically based on predefined triggers.
2. US20050071375A1 (Farnham et al.): "System and method for creating and managing a social network," published 2005-03-31. This patent application describes a system for establishing and managing social networks, enabling users to connect, share information, and form groups or communities.

Combination of Savage et al. and Farnham et al. to Render Claims Obvious

A POSITA at the time of the invention would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Savage et al. and Farnham et al. to create a system that dynamically facilitates social interaction and information exchange among individuals affected by or interested in a real-world event or situation. The primary motivation would be to enhance the utility of existing social networking platforms by making them more responsive to immediate, real-world contexts and to augment personalized content delivery systems with user-generated content and social connectivity.

Reasoning for Combination:

• Savage et al. provides a foundational concept for delivering context-aware, personalized information to users. This includes identifying a "situation" (e.g., a user's location, time, or expressed preferences) to trigger the delivery of relevant content. However, Savage et al. primarily focuses on one-way content pushing or request-response systems, lacking a robust framework for real-time, multi-directional peer-to-peer information exchange and social connectivity among multiple users centered around a dynamic event.
• Farnham et al. provides the core mechanisms for creating and managing social networks, where users can form connections, share information, and interact within groups. While effective for general social interaction, Farnham et al. does not explicitly teach the dynamic formation of networks in direct response to external, evolving "events or situations," nor does it emphasize the role of external authorities in orchestrating such event-specific networks.

Motivation for Combining: A POSITA would recognize the benefits of integrating the dynamic, context-driven information delivery of Savage et al. with the interactive, network-forming capabilities of Farnham et al. Such a combination would naturally lead to a system where:

1. Event-Driven Network Formation: The "triggers" or "situations" identified by the server in Savage et al. (e.g., a user entering a specific geographic area, a weather alert) could be used to initiate the formation of a temporary social network (as taught by Farnham et al.). This would allow groups of users to be connected dynamically based on their shared relevance to an identified event.
2. Enhanced Information Exchange: Instead of merely receiving personalized content (Savage et al.), users within this event-triggered social network (Farnham et al.) could actively exchange information, alerts, and experiences related to the situation. This would provide a richer, more comprehensive information environment, incorporating both authoritative external data and real-time user-generated insights.
3. Dynamic Participant Management: The ability of Savage et al. to deliver content based on changing user context (e.g., movement, updated preferences) suggests a motivation to dynamically adjust the membership of an event-focused social network (Farnham et al.). As users' relevance to an event changes (e.g., moving into or out of a storm's path), they could be automatically added to or removed from the situational network.

Obviousness of Independent Claims:

Independent Claim 1 (Method for using a situational network):

• "identifying an event or situation by a server": Savage et al. describes a server identifying triggers (e.g., location, time) that constitute a "situation" for personalized content delivery. Extending this to identifying broader "events" (like a traffic accident or weather phenomenon) is a straightforward application of similar technology.
• "establishing a situational network by connecting a group of participants, said participants comprising users and external entities, said establishing based on a relevance of each participant to said event": Farnham et al. clearly teaches connecting groups of users into a social network. Savage et al. teaches delivering content to users based on their "relevance" (e.g., preferences, location) to specific contexts. Combining these, a POSITA would find it obvious to use the relevance criteria (from Savage et al.) to determine which users and external entities (content providers in Savage et al.) should be connected to an event-specific social network (from Farnham et al.).
• "dynamically managing said connections, said dynamically managing including adding and removing participants from said situational network as said event changes or as said relevance changes": Savage et al.'s system is dynamic, adapting content delivery as user location or context changes. Farnham et al. describes managing members of a social network. Applying the dynamic, context-aware principles of Savage et al. to the membership of a social network (Farnham et al.) based on a changing event or participant relevance would be an obvious design choice to maintain an up-to-date and relevant network.
• "exchanging information about said event among said connected participants via said situational network": Both references discuss information exchange. Farnham et al. explicitly facilitates information sharing among connected users in a social network. Savage et al. delivers information to users. The combined system would naturally enable this exchange, allowing both external entities (as content providers in Savage et al.) and users (as social network members in Farnham et al.) to share event-related information.

Independent Claim 13 (System for using a situational network):
This claim is the system counterpart to Claim 1. The structural elements of a server configured to perform the identified method steps would be obvious from the combination of Savage et al. (for server-side logic of context identification and content delivery) and Farnham et al. (for server-side logic of social network management and user connectivity).

Independent Claim 14 (Method for providing information within a situational network):

• "transmitting information about said event from said external entities to said users": Savage et al. explicitly teaches transmitting personalized content (information) from various sources to users. External entities (e.g., news organizations, weather agencies) function as "content providers" in this context.
• "verifying said information received from said users and distributing said verified information to other users in said situational network": While not explicitly detailed in Savage et al. or Farnham et al., content moderation and verification are routine design considerations for any system that permits user-generated content to be broadly distributed, especially in contexts where accuracy is important (e.g., emergency information). A POSITA would readily implement such a feature using well-known techniques to ensure the integrity of information shared within the combined social and context-aware network.

In conclusion, the teachings of Savage et al. regarding personalized, context-aware information delivery and Farnham et al. regarding social network formation and management provide all the essential elements and a clear motivation for a POSITA to arrive at the invention of US Patent 12120769. The combination results in a situational network where event-specific social connections are dynamically managed, and relevant information is exchanged, integrating both authoritative and user-generated content.