US 12160681

An analysis of U.S. Patent 12,160,681 reveals a technology focused on efficiently updating device capability information in a wireless video system. As of April 26, 2026, a search of the CAFC 2026 dockets for this specific patent number did not yield any results; however, this does not conclusively rule out the existence of ongoing litigation.

Summary of U.S. Patent 12,160,681

• Title: Video transmitter apparatus and video receiver apparatus
• Assignee: Maxell Ltd.
• Inventors: Nobuaki Kabuto, Yuya Ogi
• Filing Date: February 23, 2023
• Issue Date: December 3, 2024
• Abstract: The patent describes a video receiver that stores its own capability information (e.g., supported video formats). It also stores "history information" that changes whenever its capabilities are altered. When a video transmitter requests this information, it can also send the history information it currently has stored for the receiver. The receiver compares the transmitter's history information with its own. If they don't match, the receiver sends its updated capability information to the transmitter. This method aims to minimize unnecessary data transmission between the devices.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims

The independent claims form the core of the patent's legal protection. In essence, they describe a system and method for a video transmitting device to efficiently manage its connection with a display.

• Claim 1: This claim outlines a video transmitting apparatus that connects wirelessly to a display. Upon connection, it sends a request message with a number to the display to get its capability information (like EDID - Extended Display Identification Data). The transmitter then stores this information, configures its audio/video stream accordingly, and sends it to the display. The claim specifies that under a "predetermined condition," the transmitter will send a subsequent request with a different number, which is an incremental change from the first, to check for any updates to the display's capabilities.

• Claim 9: This claim describes a similar video transmitting apparatus. The key distinction is the added capability to store a third and fourth number received from the display, where the fourth number is generated by the display based on the third. This suggests a more complex versioning or history tracking system for the display's capability information, allowing for more granular updates.

• Claim 11: This claim recasts the invention as a method for controlling a video transmitting apparatus. It mirrors the steps described in Claim 1: transmitting a request with a number, receiving and storing capability information, determining the appropriate audio/video parameters based on that information, generating the stream, and transmitting it. It also includes the step of sending a second, different request number when a specific condition is met.

• Claim 19: This claim describes a method similar to Claim 11 but includes the additional steps of storing a third and a fourth number received from the display. This aligns with the apparatus described in Claim 9, detailing a method for a more sophisticated tracking of changes in the display's capabilities.

In summary, the patent protects a system where a video transmitter, like a streaming device or Blu-ray player, can intelligently query a display, such as a TV, to get its latest settings. By using a numbering or versioning system, the devices can avoid resending the full set of capability data every time, only doing so when a change is detected. This makes the connection and setup process more efficient, which is particularly useful in wireless communication where bandwidth can be limited.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 12,160,681 across litigation databases.

I found the key litigation. Let me search for additional cases involving this patent and confirm details.

I have the core case. Let me verify the current status and check for any other related litigation.

Known Litigation Involving U.S. Patent 12,160,681

I searched the Unified Patents litigation portal/caselist, PACER Monitor, court filings and PTAB petition exhibits for the specific number 12,160,681. There is one known litigation asserting this patent. No CAFC appeal specific to the '681 patent was located.

Case 1 (the only case asserted on the '681 patent)

Status and outcome (as of the latest docket data available):

• On March 30, 2026, the court ordered the parties to mediation with the Hon. David Folsom (deadline March 31, 2027), and on March 31, 2026 appointed Michael D. Paul as technical advisor, resetting the Markman hearing to May 12, 2026.
• On April 1, 2026, Samsung filed an Unopposed Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Inter Partes Review (Dkt. 72).
• On April 2, 2026, Judge Schroeder granted the stay: "the above-captioned case is STAYED pending further order of the Court." The docket remained open with the last update on 08/21/2026. No trial, verdict, or judgment specific to the '681 patent has issued.
• The case is therefore open but administratively stayed; no liability outcome on the '681 patent.

Important clarification — proceedings that do NOT involve the '681 patent

To avoid conflating the '681 patent with Maxell's other Samsung disputes:

• Maxell, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 5:23-cv-00092 (E.D. Tex.) — Maxell's first Samsung suit (Sept. 7, 2023), asserting seven different patents. It produced the May 28, 2025 ~$112M jury verdict (willful infringement), which was overturned by JMOL on Sept. 19, 2025 (non-infringement on all three tried patents; invalidity of two). The '681 patent is expressly not among these.
• ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1432 ("Certain Mobile Electronic Devices," instituted Jan. 23, 2025) — asserts the '241 patent and five others (8,130,280; 11,490,004; 11,509,953; 11,750,915; 12,108,103). The '681 patent is not asserted in this investigation. (Target date extended to Nov. 5, 2026.)
• UPC actions (e.g., UPC_CFI_196/2025 Munich; LD The Hague decision of Aug. 10, 2026) — these concern EP 2 061 230 B1, a different European patent, not the EP family member of the '681 (which is EP2273485B1). The '681 patent itself is a U.S. patent and is not at issue in the UPC.

Related PTAB proceeding (not court litigation, but the basis for the stay)

• IPR2025-01310 — Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Maxell, Ltd. — challenges claims 1–20 of the '681 patent. Samsung filed 10 IPR petitions against the ten patents in the 5:25-cv-00052 case, with the last filed October 13, 2025. This directly relates to the stay above.

Contradiction to flag: The authoritative Google Patents record for US12160681 states the PTAB case "IPR2025-01310 filed (Pending - Instituted)." However, Samsung's own motion papers in the district court case (filed April 1, 2026) recite that, as of late 2025, "None of the petitions has been instituted… institution deadlines… range from January 30, 2026 to April 16, 2026." These are reconcilable on timing (institution would have occurred between Jan. and April 2026, consistent with the April 2, 2026 stay), but I could not, within the search limits, retrieve the actual IPR2025-01310 institution decision paper to confirm which claims were instituted. Treat the "Instituted" status as likely but not independently verified from the institution decision itself.

Search caveats

• I could not locate any CAFC appeal, other district court case, or other defendant asserting the '681 patent. Based on available results, Samsung is the only accused infringer of the '681 patent.
• No final judgment, injunction, or damages award has been entered in the '681 portion of the EDTX case; it is stayed.
• Because PACER/Unified Patents data updates continuously, the stay could be lifted or the IPR could resolve after the last retrieved docket entry (08/21/2026).

Primary sources: Unified Patents litigation caselist (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist); PACER Monitor docket for 5:25-cv-00052 (https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/57731125/); the April 2, 2026 stay order and related EDTX filings reproduced in PTAB petition exhibits (ptacts.uspto.gov, petition 1558236); the EDTX complaint (Count 10) at https://ipfray.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/25-04-21-EDTX-Maxell-v.-Samsung-Electronics-complaint.pdf; RPX/Mondaq case report "Maxell's $112M Verdict Against Samsung Falls in Posttrial Challenge."

Proceedings overview

There is one active AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 12,160,681. This gives a defendant some defensive options, as the validity of the patent's claims is currently being challenged in an Inter Partes Review.

IPR2025-01310 — [[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: 2025-10-13
• Status: Trial Instituted
• Judge panel: Not publicly available yet.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available yet.
• Institution decision: Instituted. Date and reasoning are not publicly available yet, but the status "Trial Instituted" indicates the PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not yet issued as the trial is ongoing.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement or termination has been reported.
• Appeal: Not applicable yet as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This active IPR means that the validity of at least some of the patent's claims is currently under scrutiny. If facing assertion of this patent, a defendant could potentially benefit from a favorable outcome in this IPR, where claims might be canceled. It also indicates that at least one third party (Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.) believes there are strong grounds to challenge the patent.

Strategic summary

Currently, the status of US Patent 12,160,681 shows that all claims are untested by a final PTAB decision. However, IPR2025-01310 has been instituted, meaning the PTAB has found a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable and a trial is underway. The specific claims under challenge and the grounds for the petition are not yet publicly available.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, if IPR2025-01310 proceeds to a Final Written Decision, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and its privies will be estopped under § 315(e)(2) from asserting in future civil actions or other USPTO proceedings any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised during the IPR. For other defendants, the prior art grounds raised by Samsung in this IPR (once public) would be unavailable if they are in privity with Samsung or raised identical or substantially identical arguments.

The filing of this IPR by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. signals that the patent is considered a potential threat by a major industry player. The involvement of such a large entity suggests a significant challenge to the patent's validity.

Recommended next steps

As IPR2025-01310 is an active proceeding with trial instituted, it would be crucial to monitor its progress. Key milestones to watch for include:

• Institution Decision Details: Once publicly available, review the full institution decision to understand which claims are being challenged and on what grounds. This will provide insight into the PTAB's initial assessment of the patent's validity.
• Oral Hearing: If an oral hearing is scheduled, it can offer further insights into the arguments of both parties.
• Final Written Decision (FWD) Due Date: The PTAB has a statutory one-year deadline from institution to issue a Final Written Decision. This decision will determine the patentability of the challenged claims. Access to this decision (when issued) will be critical and can be found on the USPTO PTAB Decisions website.

Inventors

• Nobuaki Kabuto (Maxell Ltd.)
• Yuya Ogi (Maxell Ltd.)

Both inventors were employed by Maxell Ltd., the original assignee, at the time of filing.

Original assignee

The original assignee on the issued patent US12160681B2 is Maxell Ltd. Maxell Ltd. is a Japanese company known for manufacturing various electronic products, including batteries, optical discs, and audio products. It is an operating company. Based on the provided patent information, it is not explicitly stated if Maxell Ltd. ships a product embodying the claims of this specific patent, but their primary line of business involves manufacturing and selling consumer and industrial electronic products. Maxell Ltd. is currently an operating company.

Assignment timeline

To reconstruct the full assignment record, I would need to perform a live search on the USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) using patent number US12160681B2. As an AI, I do not have the ability to perform live web searches or interact with web forms.

Therefore, I cannot provide a chronological list of every recorded assignment, including reel/frame numbers, conveyance types, assignors, assignees, correspondents, and context for US12160681B2.

Based on the information provided in the prompt, which is limited to the Google Patents overview, the "Current Assignee" is Maxell Ltd., and the "Original Assignee" is also Maxell Ltd. This suggests that as of the information available in Google Patents, the patent has not been assigned away from the original assignee. Without access to the USPTO Assignment Center, I cannot confirm if there have been any internal assignments or other recordations that do not change the ultimate beneficial owner.

If the Assignment Center has no records for this patent, then the original assignee, Maxell Ltd., still owns the patent. Given the current information, there are no recorded post-issuance assignments publicly available in the provided text.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 121606681
    2009 : Priority date
    2023 : Application filed by Maxell Ltd
    2024 : Patent granted to Maxell Ltd

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Without access to the USPTO Assignment Center records, I cannot definitively determine the presence or absence of specific NPE/troll-pattern signals. The current assignee listed on Google Patents is Maxell Ltd., which is an operating company.

1. Shell-entity transfer — Unclear. There are no recorded assignments in the provided data to assess this.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. The current assignee, Maxell Ltd., is an operating company, not a known NPE from the provided lists.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear. No assignment records are available to track correspondents.
4. Cascading transfers — Unclear. No assignment records are available to assess this.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Unclear. While there is litigation mentioned, there are no recorded assignments in the provided information that can be dated relative to the litigation filing dates.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no indication of Maxell Ltd. being in bankruptcy or selling patents due to such.
7. Privateering — Unclear. No information available to suggest this pattern.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain ends at Maxell Ltd., not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Insufficient data

Without access to the USPTO Assignment Center records, it is not possible to reconstruct the full assignment timeline or definitively assess the presence of NPE/troll-pattern signals beyond the initial assignment to the operating company, Maxell Ltd. The available information only indicates that Maxell Ltd. is the original and current assignee.

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

The analysis of US patent 12,160,681 identifies prior art through its own "Prior Art Documents" section and a broader "Citations" list. The patent explicitly discusses two prior art documents, which are considered the most relevant as detailed by the inventors themselves.

Most Relevant Prior Art (Explicitly Discussed in US12160681)

1. Japanese PCT Publication No. 2006-519549 (Patent Document 1)

• Full Citation: JP2006519549A (English equivalent: WO2006052340A2, US20060095638A1, US7353158B2, US20060129370A1 - the given citation in US12160681 is JP2006519549A).
• Publication/Filing Date: The Japanese PCT Publication date is 2006-08-24. The original priority date from which it claims is 2003-02-27.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a method for a source (video transmitter) to quickly read EDID (Extended Display Identification Data) from a display (video receiver). It involves a master simulator on the display side continuously polling for changes in a slave (EDID) and maintaining the current condition in a shadow memory within a slave simulator on the source side. This allows the master to read directly from the shadow memory without detecting a wireless link.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): While this document addresses the problem of quickly reading EDID, the patent 12,160,681 distinguishes itself by criticizing the continuous polling and periodic EDID transmission inherent in this method, stating it generates processes even when not needed. The independent claims of US12160681 (Claims 1, 9, 11, 19) focus on using a "history number" or "revision value" to conditionally transmit EDID only when a mismatch is detected, thereby minimizing transmission volume. Patent Document 1 does not appear to anticipate this specific mechanism of comparing numerical revision values to determine the necessity of full EDID transmission.

2. Japanese Patent Laying-Open No. 2000-194346 (Patent Document 2)

• Full Citation: JP2000194346A.
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication date is 2000-07-14. The priority date is 1998-12-28.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system where, upon a change in EDID information, corresponding data in a rewritable memory is updated. Additionally, a unique product ID within that EDID information is rewritten, and the updated EDID is transmitted to a personal computer via a DDC communication function.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Patent 12,160,681 acknowledges that this method allows detecting EDID changes by reading a unique product ID. However, it critiques this approach for potentially "losing the identification information, as being the ID unique to the product, originally." The independent claims of US12160681 (Claims 1, 9, 11, 19) involve comparing an incrementing "history number" or "revision value" to trigger EDID transmission. While the unique product ID serves a similar function as an indicator of change, the mechanism of an incrementally updated history number (which is explicitly distinguished from a product ID) and the conditional transmission logic of US12160681 appear to differ from Patent Document 2.

Other Cited Prior Art

US patent 12,160,681 also lists numerous other patent documents under its "Citations" section. However, the patent's detailed description does not provide a brief overview or analysis of how these documents specifically relate to or are distinguished from the claimed invention. Without access to the full text of each of these cited patents, it is not possible to confidently provide a brief description for each or determine which specific claims of US12160681 they might anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

For completeness, the additional patent citations listed are:

• JPH05250239A
• JPH10154121A
• US6536041B1
• WO2000001191A1
• EP1093319A1
• US6996837B1
• US20050144651A1
• US20020023270A1
• US7028057B1
• US7162499B2
• US20030093792A1
• US20070008302A1
• US20020085023A1
• US20040003403A1
• US7151575B1
• JP2004110166A
• US20040054910A1
• US20080191582A1
• US20040187151A1
• US20050210501A1
• CN101053011A
• US7353158B2
• US20070222779A1
• US20070230909A1
• JP2007267116A
• US20080046950A1
• JP2008048136A
• JP2008102786A
• US20080320539A1
• JP2009004877A
• JP2009049787A

An analysis of U.S. Patent 12,160,681 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 reveals that its independent claims may be rendered obvious by combining the teachings of Japanese PCT Publication No. 2006-519549 (Patent Document 1) and Japanese Patent Laying-Open No. 2000-194346 (Patent Document 2), as acknowledged and described within the patent itself.

Independent Claims Overview

The independent claims of US12160681, specifically claims 1, 9, 11, and 19, center on a video transmitting apparatus and a method for controlling it. The core inventive concept involves:

• A video transmitting apparatus wirelessly communicating with a display.
• The apparatus transmitting a request message along with a "first number" to obtain capability information (e.g., EDID) from the display.
• Storing this capability information and determining audio/video stream parameters.
• Transmitting the audio/video stream.
• Crucially, under a "predetermined condition," transmitting a "second request message" with a "second number" that is different from the first number, where one is generated by increasing the other by an arbitrary number. This "number" (referred to as "history number" or "revision value" in the patent's detailed description) serves as a version indicator for the display's capability information.
• Claims 9 and 19 further elaborate on storing a "third number" and a "fourth number" from the display, implying a more sophisticated versioning system.

Prior Art References and Their Teachings

1. Patent Document 1 (Japanese PCT Publication No. 2006-519549):

   • Addresses the problem of quickly reading out EDID from a display by a video transmitter, especially in interfaces with transmission delays and limited capacity, such as wireless connections.
   • Describes a "master simulator" on the display side continuously polling for changes in a "slave" (i.e., EDID) and maintaining the current condition in a "shadow memory" on the source (transmitter) side. This allows the transmitter to read EDID directly from the shadow memory without detecting the wireless link, thereby speeding up the process.

2. Patent Document 2 (Japanese Patent Laying-Open No. 2000-194346):

   • Describes a system where, upon a change in EDID information, corresponding data in a rewritable memory is updated, and a "unique ID to a product" within that EDID information is also rewritten.
   • The updated EDID information is then transmitted to a personal computer (source) via a DDC communication function.

Obviousness Analysis and Motivation to Combine

A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Patent Document 1 and Patent Document 2 to achieve the efficiency benefits claimed by US12160681.

Motivation for Combination:

Patent Document 1 highlights the problem of transmission delay and capacity limitations in wireless interfaces when reading EDID, and proposes a solution involving continuous polling for changes and maintaining a shadow memory on the transmitter side for quick access. However, continuous polling of the entire EDID, even for changes, could still be inefficient and consume precious wireless bandwidth.

Patent Document 2 provides a more granular mechanism for indicating EDID changes: by rewriting a "unique ID to a product" whenever the EDID content changes. A PHOSITA, seeking to improve the efficiency of the system described in Patent Document 1, would recognize that the "unique ID" from Patent Document 2 could serve as an efficient "checksum" or "version number" for the EDID data.

How the Combination Renders Claims Obvious:

1. Initial Connection and EDID Acquisition (Claims 1, 11): Both Patent Document 1 and 2 implicitly, or explicitly, deal with a video transmitter acquiring EDID from a display. The initial transmission of a request message with a "first number" (e.g., '0' as an initial revision value as described in US12160681's detailed description) and receiving the full EDID is a standard operation.
2. Efficient Change Detection via History Number (Claims 1, 11): Instead of the continuous polling of the entire EDID as might be inferred from Patent Document 1's "polling on change," a PHOSITA would be motivated to use the "unique ID to a product" concept from Patent Document 2.
   • The transmitter would send a request message containing its currently stored "unique ID" (acting as the "first number").
   • The display, upon receiving this request, would compare the received "unique ID" with its own internally stored and updated "unique ID" (which changes when EDID changes, as per Patent Document 2).
   • If the IDs are inconsistent (meaning the display's EDID has changed), the display would transmit its new EDID along with its updated "unique ID" (acting as the "second number"). If they are consistent, it could send a message indicating no change, avoiding full EDID transmission.
   • The mechanism of "increasing the other of the first number and the second number by an arbitrary number" is a well-known and conventional method for generating version or revision numbers in computing systems, and would be an obvious choice for a PHOSITA implementing the "unique ID" of Patent Document 2 as a revision counter.
3. Advanced History Tracking (Claims 9, 19): The storage of a "third number" and a "fourth number" from the display, where the fourth is generated from the third, is a natural extension of the versioning concept. If the "unique ID" of Patent Document 2 is the "third number," and the display "rewrites" it upon a change, this rewritten ID would become the "fourth number" (e.g., incremented version). This simply represents multiple iterations of the same change-detection and version-update process.

Therefore, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to combine the shadow memory and polling concept of Patent Document 1 with the specific EDID change signaling mechanism (using a unique, rewritable ID) of Patent Document 2. This combination would lead directly to the claimed invention's method of using a revision number to efficiently manage EDID updates over wireless interfaces, minimizing unnecessary data transmission and addressing the problems articulated in the background of US12160681.

I'll research the prosecution and family details for US 12,160,681, focusing on term adjustments and the continuation chain.

The first search returned an unrelated "'781 Patent" (Actelion's). Let me pin down the specific term-adjustment and family data for US 12,160,681.

Let me try to find the front-page term-adjustment notice and any certificate of correction for the specific patent.

Term, Continuation Chain, and Family Analysis — US 12,160,681 B2

Scope note: You asked me to search the USPTO database for US patent 12,160,681 literally. My external searches returned mostly generic PTA/PTE case law rather than this patent's IFW front-page data (and one search returned an unrelated Actelion "'781 patent," which I disregarded). I therefore ground this section on the authoritative full patent text you provided, supplemented by the family/legal-status metadata, and I flag explicitly where a figure could not be independently verified.

1. Bibliographic anchors (as they appear in the record)

The Cross-Reference in the specification states verbatim: "This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 12/783,329, filed May 19, 2010, which relates to and claims priority from Japanese Patent Application No. 2009-158361 filed on Jul. 3, 2009…"

2. Patent Term Adjustment (PTA)

Eligibility: US 18/113,545 was filed 2023-02-23, i.e., after the May 29, 2000 statutory cutoff, so it is eligible for PTA under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b) in its own right. A continuation is treated as an "original" (non-reissue) application for PTA purposes under 37 C.F.R. § 1.702(f).

Key structural point — PTA does not carry over from the parent. PTA under § 154(b) is computed per application, measured from that application's own dates. In particular:

• The B-delay clock (three-year guarantee, § 154(b)(1)(B)) runs from this application's actual filing date of 2023-02-23. Because the patent issued 2024-12-03 (≈1.8 years pendency), the three-year threshold was never crossed → B-delay = 0. This is the single most important difference between the child and the parent: the parent had ~12.8 years of pendency and would accrue very large B-delay on its own; the child essentially cannot.
• A-delay entries (§ 154(b)(1)(A)) are likewise measured from the child's own filing and its own Office actions. From the legal-events timeline: non-final action 2023-09-29 (< 14 months from filing), response 2024-04-09, allowance(s) 2024-06-05 and 2024-06-14, then a re-docketing and a further allowance 2024-09-26, grant 2024-11-13 / publication 2024-12-03. None of the 14-month or 4-month A-delay windows appears to be clearly exceeded, and the post-allowance activity could itself trigger an applicant-delay reduction under 37 C.F.R. § 1.704. Net PTA anticipated to be small — plausibly 0 to a few tens of days.

What the record shows: Google Patents lists this patent's anticipated expiration as 2030-05-19, which is exactly 20 years from the earliest U.S. non-provisional filing date (2010-05-19). That figure is consistent with PTA ≈ 0 for this particular patent, but it is a computed projection, not the authoritative figure.

⚠️ Limitation / explicit uncertainty: I could not verify the exact PTA day-count (the "extended or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by ___ days" notice that appears on the patent's front page, or the PTOL-85B issue-notification figure) from a primary USPTO source within this session. The definitive number must be read from (a) the front-page Notice of US 12,160,681 itself and (b) the Patent Term Adjustment panel in USPTO Patent Center for application 18/113,545. Treat the "PTA ≈ 0" inference as a projection, not a confirmed fact.

Apparent internal inconsistency (flagged): The family table in the provided record lists the parent US 12/783,329 as "Active 2032-12-01." A Dec 1, 2032 date is not the base 20-year date (2030-05-19) and implies roughly ~927 days of PTA on the parent alone. This is legally coherent (PTA is per-application, so a parent may outlive its child), but it means:

• Parent US 11,611,718 B2 projected term ≈ 2032-12-01 (base 2030-05-19 + large accrued PTA from its ~12.8-year pendency).
• Child US 12,160,681 B2 projected term ≈ 2030-05-19 (base term, little/no PTA).

These two are consistent with a PTA divergence, not a data error — but I flag it because a reader may reasonably expect a continuation to share the parent's adjusted term, which it does not.

3. Patent Term Extension (PTE) — 35 U.S.C. § 156

Not applicable / none. A § 156 PTE is available only where the patent claims a drug, medical device, food additive, or color additive subject to a pre-market regulatory review period. US 12,160,681 claims a video transmitting apparatus / display-capability (EDID) update scheme and a method of controlling it — no regulated product pathway exists. Therefore no PTE is or can be granted, and no regulatory-review extension contributes to the term.

4. Continuation Applications

The record shows this patent sits in a serial continuation chain (no divisionals, no CIPs):

JP 2009-158361 (JP 5506260 B2)  —  priority, filed 2009-07-03
        │
        ▼
US 12/783,329  —  filed 2010-05-19  →  US 11,611,718 B2 (granted 2023-03-21)
        │           (published US 2011/0004911 A1 on 2011-01-06)
        ▼  continuation
US 18/113,545  —  filed 2023-02-23  →  US 12,160,681 B2  ← THIS PATENT
        │           (published US 2023/0209009 A1 on 2023-06-29)
        ▼  continuation
US 18/828,492  —  filed 2024-09-09  →  US 2024/0430381 A1 (published 2024-12-26) — PENDING

• Immediate parent (continuation-of): US 12/783,329, filed 2010-05-19, issued as US 11,611,718 B2 (also identified as "US11611718B2").
• Child continuation: US 18/828,492, filed 2024-09-09, published as US 2024/0430381 A1 on 2024-12-26; status Pending (as of the record). Its cross-reference (per the sibling publication) confirms it is "a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 18/113,545, filed Feb. 23, 2023, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 12/783,329, filed May 19, 2010, now U.S. Pat. No. 11,611,718…"

Family "Applications Claiming Priority" list (US): JP2009158361A / JP2009-158361 → US12/783,329 → US18/113,545 (plus the JP and the child filings above).

5. Divisional Applications

None identified. Neither the "Related Parent/Child Applications" tables nor the specification's cross-reference disclose any divisional application or any restriction requirement that would spawn one. The entire U.S. family is a straight line of § 120 continuations, so the § 121 "safe harbor" (which protects divisionals from being used as prior art against one another) is not implicated here.

6. Related Family Members (worldwide, Family ID 42710753)

The EP filing date (2010-05-20) and CN filing date (2010-05-24) confirm they were filed as the foreign counterparts of the 2010-05-19 U.S. parent, claiming the 2009-07-03 JP priority.

7. Projected Expiration Date

Base term: 20 years from the earliest U.S. non-provisional filing date in the § 120 chain → 20 years from 2010-05-19 = 2030-05-19. Google Patents records this patent's "Anticipated expiration: 2030-05-19," which matches the base term and implies PTA ≈ 0 for this specific patent.

Best current projection for US 12,160,681:

≈ May 19, 2030, plus any PTA actually awarded to application 18/113/545 (projected small; unverified), subject to timely payment of maintenance fees. No terminal disclaimer appears in the provided record, so no disclaimer-based truncation is evident.

Maintenance fees: Due at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years from the 2024-12-03 grant:

• 3.5-year window ≈ June 2028
• 7.5-year ≈ June 2032 — after the 2030-05-19 expiration, so it would not fall due
• 11.5-year ≈ June 2036 — not reached

So the patent's economic life turns on the one maintenance fee before expiration and on whether any PTA pushes the expiry past 2030-05-19.

8. Bottom line & verification checklist

To confirm the one open item (exact PTA), check:

1. The front-page "Notice" line of US 12,160,681 B2 (states the day-count of adjustment), and
2. USPTO Patent Center → application 18/113,545 → "Patent Term Adjustment" panel (authoritative day-count and any reconsideration/certificate of correction).

⚠️ Contradiction flagged for follow-up: the listing showing this child patent at 2030-05-19 while the parent US 11,611,718 B2 is shown as "Active 2032-12-01" implies a large PTA on the parent and near-zero PTA on the child. That is legally consistent, but if the prosecution histories instead show a shared/adjusted term, the 2030-05-19 child projection would be understated — verify against the issued notices before relying on either date.