US 12368799

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent and any related litigation.

Let me check the Federal Circuit docket and case details.

Let me look for the actual claim text to describe the independent claims accurately.

US Patent 12,368,799 — Summary Report

Verification & header data

Continuity chain (per the specification): US 18/984,041 is a continuation of US 18/896,197 (filed Sep. 25, 2024), which is a continuation-in-part of US 18/483,670 (Oct. 10, 2023), a continuation of US 18/193,163 (Mar. 30, 2023), a continuation of US 17/279,188 (Mar. 24, 2021), which is the U.S. national-stage entry of PCT/US19/52847 (Sep. 25, 2019), claiming priority to provisional 62/737,315 (Sep. 27, 2018).

Classifications: H04M1/72436, H04M1/72445 (SMS/RCS/browser UI on mobile phones); H04W12/06 (authentication); H04W4/12, H04W4/14 (messaging / SMS); H04W4/20 (auxiliary data signalling).

Family members referenced on the record: US20250119493A1, US12,438,978B2 (from application 19/192,732), and US20260012531A1 (from 19/324,477).

Abstract (as granted)

Systems and methods for receiving a request to provide content to at least one authorized recipient; generating a customized message comprising at least one action associated with the content; causing transmission of the customized message to a mobile computing device associated with the at least one authorized recipient; requesting authorization data corresponding to the at least one authorized recipient; responsive to receiving the requested authorization data: verifying that the authorization data correlates to an identity of the at least one authorized recipient or an identity of the mobile computing device; determining a classification of the at least one authorized recipient; and generating a Rich Communication Service (RCS) message comprising the content; and scheduling, using a machine learning model and based on the determined classification, delivery of the RCS message to the mobile computing device.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

⚠️ Important caveat: The claim set is not reproduced in the authoritative text supplied to me, and I could not retrieve the verbatim granted claim language for every independent claim. What follows is grounded in (a) the patent's own Summary section, which mirrors the independent claims nearly word-for-word, and (b) a third-party analysis of the district-court complaint (not authoritative for claim text). Claim numbering below should be treated as probable, not confirmed. The claim text should be verified against the USPTO PatentCenter / grant document before being relied upon.

The patent appears to carry at least three independent claim families plus at least one additional independent method claim:

1. Independent method claim (~claim 1) — "RCS campaign with ML-scheduled delivery"
Receive a request to provide content to an authorized recipient; generate a customized message with at least one action (link, button, carousel, quick reply) associated with that content; send the message to the recipient's mobile device; when the user selects the action, request authorization data for that recipient; if the authorization data checks out against the recipient/device identity, classify the recipient; then generate an RCS message containing the content and schedule its delivery using a machine-learning model based on that classification. (E.g., a text with a carousel offering to complete a purchase or resume an abandoned journey, sent back as a rich RCS message at a time the ML model predicts the user will engage.)

2. Independent system claim — "Automated messaging subscription and distribution system"
Same pipeline recast as a processor + memory system: request content for a service subscriber → customized message with an action → transmit → on selection, request subscription data → verify the subscription data correlates to the subscriber/device identity → classify the subscriber → generate RCS content based on the classification → ML-scheduled delivery.

3. Independent non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim
Same pipeline recast as program instructions, using "at least one link" as the actionable element, with subscription-data verification, classification, RCS generation, and ML-based scheduling.

4. Independent method claim (~claim 18) — "Silent Network Authentication Protocol (SNAP)"
This is the claim that matches the patent's title and FIG. 18. Per the complaint analysis (not authoritative claim text): generate a customized webpage with transaction information for a subscriber; generate and transmit a message containing a link to perform the transaction; receive a request from the client device to perform the transaction via the link; cause initiation of a silent network authentication protocol comprising (i) generating a security code packet containing a subscriber network credential and a client device carrier identifier, (ii) transmitting that packet to an authentication service provider (e.g., the mobile carrier), and (iii) receiving an indication that the credentials match or fail to match existing records; and perform the transaction responsive to a match. On a failed match, the specification describes falling back to alternative authentication (e.g., an SMS/MMS/RCS-delivered PIN or access code, or non-cellular/Wi-Fi paths).

Note on claim 6: The complaint analysis references a claim chart for "independent claim 6," implying an additional independent claim (likely the system claim). I could not independently confirm this.

Common dependent-claim subject matter (from the Summary): delivering the RCS message per schedule; carousels of selectable options (secure transaction, appointment scheduling, resuming abandoned journeys); UI rendered in a mobile browser; send/receive typing indicators; authorizing the RCS sender and, on failure, sending an SMS warning; and actions to transact, select a suggested response, return to a prior browsing session, or return to a prior application session.

Litigation status

• District court (found): IQX Corp. v. Intuit Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00351 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Division), assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap (Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne), nature of suit 830 (Patent), cause 35 U.S.C. § 271, jury demand. The accused instrumentality is alleged to be Intuit's MailChimp text-message marketing system. The complaint (filed April 30, 2026 per the docket; the docket also lists a separate '924 patent in the same case) asserts the '799 patent.

  • Google Patents' "Family has litigation" entry links to this same Texas Eastern District case number (2:26-cv-00351) and a Darts-IP "first worldwide family litigation" family ID (94175196).
  • Date discrepancy to flag: the docket reports a filing date of April 30, 2026, which is after the current-date instruction of April 26, 2026 in this request. I am reporting the docket as retrieved rather than adjusting it.

• CAFC (2026): I found no Federal Circuit appeal, petition, or docket entry associated with US 12,368,799. The case appears to be at the district-court pleading stage as of the latest docket data ("Last Updated ~3 days ago" relative to retrieval). If you need a definitive CAFC check, the CM/ECF docket for the Federal Circuit should be queried directly for "IQX."

Explicit uncertainties

1. Claim language: I could not retrieve the verbatim granted claims (1, 6, 18, and the system/CRM independents). The overviews above are paraphrases derived from the patent's Summary and a third-party complaint analysis; verify against the grant document.
2. Claim numbering: The identification of claim 1, claim 6, and claim 18 as independent claims is inferential. Claim 6 comes only from a non-authoritative complaint analysis.
3. No CAFC activity confirmed for this patent as of the retrieval date — absence of results is not proof of absence.
4. The 2026 docket details come from third-party aggregators (Justia, PacerMonitor, GAEFLEX staging, Ex Parte AI analysis); the authoritative source is the E.D. Tex. CM/ECF docket.

I'll search litigation databases for this specific patent number. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me dig deeper into the docket details, other defendants, PTAB proceedings, and any appellate activity.

Litigation involving US 12,368,799

I searched litigation-specific sources (Justia dockets, PacerMonitor, Docket Alarm, Unified Patents' litigation portal, Ex Parte AI complaint analyses, Law360 dockets, Dockets.Justia). Two district-court cases brought by the patent owner appear in the record. No Federal Circuit appeal and no PTAB proceeding involving the '799 patent were found.

Case 1 — IQX Corp. v. Intuit Inc. (the case flagged by the patent record itself)

Confirmation that this case involves the '799 patent — two independent corroborations:

1. The Google Patents record for US 12,368,799 itself carries a "Family has litigation" flag linking to "Texas Eastern District Court / case/2:26-cv-00351" (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation), plus a Darts-IP "first worldwide family litigation" link with family ID 94175196.
2. The Ex Parte complaint analysis for 2:26-cv-00351 analyzes U.S. Patent No. 12,368,799 – "Automated silent network authentication protocol", identifying asserted independent claim 18 and noting the complaint's reference to "independent claim 6," with a claim chart attached as Exhibit 4 (not filed publicly). Source: ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:26-cv-00351/doc/analysis/1.

Infringement theories alleged (from the complaint analysis, non-authoritative): direct infringement and induced infringement under § 271(b) via Intuit's user manuals/instructional materials; willful infringement with a request for enhanced damages under § 284. Plainitff's counsel identified as Russ August & Kabat (per the third-party analysis) and Reza Mirzaie (per the docket signature block). Venue pleaded on the basis that Intuit resides in the district, has committed acts of infringement there, and maintains a regular and established place of business there.

Case 2 — IQX Corp. v. Salesforce, Inc. (possible second assertion of the same family — '799 assertion not confirmed)

Sources: PacerMonitor case page; Ex Parte AI case page; Patexia case list. Treat this as a possible related assertion pending verification of the asserted patents.

What was not found

• No CAFC appeal / petition naming IQX Corp. or US 12,368,799. Absence of results is not proof of absence; a direct CM/ECF query for "IQX" on the Federal Circuit docket would be definitive.
• No PTAB proceeding (no IPR, PGR, or CBM) against the '799 patent. The only PTAB hits were unrelated (Unified Patents v. Flexiworld, Bradium, etc.).
• No ITC Section 337 investigation and no other district-court defendant associated with the '799 patent beyond the two above.

⚠️ Date discrepancies to flag explicitly

1. The task prompt states the current date is April 26, 2026, but the retrieved docket record contains events dated after that: the Intuit complaint (April 30, 2026), the Salesforce complaint (May 28, 2026), and the stipulation to extend contentions deadlines (July 9, 2026). I am reporting the dockets as retrieved rather than adjusting them, but the dates cannot all be reconciled with an April 26, 2026 "today." The system-provided date for this session is September 25, 2026, which is consistent with all retrieved docket entries.
2. This matches the discrepancy already flagged in the previously generated section, which noted the April 30, 2026 filing date postdating the April 26, 2026 instruction. No contradiction with the earlier section — the case number, court, judge, accused product, and patents asserted all align.
3. Prior generated sections listed the case as IQX Corp. v. Intuit Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00351, E.D. Tex. (Judge Gilstrap), accusing MailChimp and asserting the '799 and '924 patents. All of that is corroborated here, with the addition that the case is in the Marshall Division and remains at the contentions stage.

Verification caveat

All docket content above is drawn from third-party aggregators (PacerMonitor, Justia, Docket Alarm/GAEFLEX, Ex Parte AI, Law360) rather than the E.D. Tex. and W.D. Tex. CM/ECF dockets directly. The authoritative sources are the courts' PACER/CM-ECF dockets and, for claim-scope questions, the USPTO PatentCenter record for US 12,368,799.

I'll research the PTAB proceeding on this patent to fill in the details.

Let me search for more specific PTAB records and related proceedings.

Let me run additional targeted searches to corroborate the proceeding details.

Proceedings overview

The canonical USPTO Open Data Portal set lists exactly one AIA trial proceeding involving US 12,368,799: IPR2026-00475, filed 2026-09-24 by Salesforce, Inc. — status Pending. There are zero proceedings in which claims have been invalidated, zero in which claims have been sustained by a Final Written Decision, zero settlements, and zero institution denials. Bottom line defensive posture for a defendant today: the '799 patent is untested and un-narrowed at the PTAB — all of its claims stand exactly as granted, and no estoppel or cancellation benefit is available yet. The single meaningful signal is that a well-resourced, commercially motivated defendant has pulled the trigger, but the petition is one day old as of 2026-09-25, so no panel, no grounds digest, and no institution decision exist on the public record.

⚠️ Cross-reference note: The previously generated Litigation summary section stated that "No PTAB proceeding (no IPR, PGR, or CBM) against the '799 patent" was found. That statement is now superseded, not contradicted — the Salesforce petition was filed 2026-09-24, after the retrieval behind that section, and the canonical structured block (which controls) now shows IPR2026-00475. Treat the earlier "no PTAB activity" finding as time-stamped stale.

IPR2026-00475 — Salesforce, Inc. v. IQX Corp.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (IPR) — 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319
• Filed: 2026-09-24 (record last modified 2026-09-24)
• Status: Pending (verbatim from the structured data). Plain-English gloss: petition filed; Patent Owner preliminary response period and the § 314(b) institution decision are still ahead. Nothing has been instituted, and no trial exists yet.
• Judge panel: Not public. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.4, the panel is not assigned/announced until the institution decision. No APJs, no Board contacts on the record.
• Petition grounds: Not public in the indexed data I could retrieve. Consistent with § 311(b), any grounds will be limited to §§ 102/103 over patents or printed publications. I will not speculate as to challenged claims or references. What can be said from the patent record: the two likeliest targets are the ML-scheduled RCS independent claims (method/system/CRM family, per the previously generated Plain-language overview, ~claims 1/6) and the SNAP independent claim (~18) that is already the centerpiece of the co-pending district-court pleadings (per the Litigation summary cross-reference).
• Institution decision: None yet. Statutory clock: § 314(b) requires the Board to decide whether to institute within 6 months of the later of (i) the petition filing date or (ii) the date of the Patent Owner's preliminary response. With a 2026-09-24 filing, an institution decision is therefore due on or before roughly 2027-03-24 (and later if the Patent Owner's POPR deadline runs long, e.g., by stipulation).
• Final Written Decision: None. No FWD exists. Consequently no independent claim, and no dependent claim, of US 12,368,799 has been canceled or sustained at the PTAB.
• Settlement / termination: None on the record. (With Intuit and Salesforce both being sued in parallel, a global settlement is a plausible but purely speculative future event; nothing supports it today.)
• Appeal: None. No FWD to appeal. No CAFC docket number exists for this proceeding (consistent with the earlier Litigation summary finding of no CAFC activity).
• Real party in interest / privity: The structured record names only Salesforce, Inc. I found no indication of a defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) as petitioner or RPI — this reads as a defendant-driven petition, matching Salesforce's posture as the defendant in IQX Corp. v. Salesforce, Inc., No. 7:26-cv-00213 (W.D. Tex., filed 2026-05-28), per the previously generated Litigation summary. If Salesforce served the W.D. Tex. complaint on or around 2026-05-28, the § 315(b) one-year bar date lands near 2027-05-28, so the 2026-09-24 petition is comfortably timely.
• Defensive value: Because nothing has been decided, no claim is dead and no estoppel has attached. For any other defendant facing an IQX demand letter today, IPR2026-00475 is a coordination asset, not a defense: it puts the PTAB validity question in motion, but § 315(e)(2) estoppel will only bind Salesforce and its privies — and only if and when an FWD issues. A separate defendant that wants PTAB cover must file (or be joined to) its own petition within its own § 315(b) window.

Strategic summary

Canceled vs. sustained vs. untested. The claim-level scoreboard is empty: no claims of US 12,368,799 are canceled; none have been adjudicated valid. All claims are UNTESTED at the Board. That matters tactically — the earlier-generated overview flags that the asserted theory in E.D. Tex. centers on a SNAP claim (~18) and references an "independent claim 6" system claim. Those claims are live and enforceable as written. Any defendant that tries to argue "the PTAB already killed this claim" is wrong on the current record.

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e)(2) estoppel is triggered only by a final written decision in an instituted IPR. Since no trial has been instituted, no estoppel has attached to anyone. Practically, this cuts both ways for a new defendant: (1) you are free to run §§ 102/103 grounds in district court, subject only to the ordinary Sotera-type duplication and § 315(b) timing concerns; and (2) you should note that Salesforce's eventual FWD, if it comes, will not estop you, but the same prior art Salesforce used remains available to you in court regardless.

Pattern signals. One petitioner, one patent, one petition — Salesforce appears in only a single proceeding on this patent (no multi-petition campaign on the '799 as of the canonical snapshot). No defensive aggregator is in the chain. The Patent Owner has not had to defend a PTAB appeal yet, so there is no evidence of aggressive PO-side appellate strategy. The one structural feature worth watching is the family: the '799 is a continuation whose specification and claims overlap family members such as US 12,438,978B2 (from application 19/192,732) and US 12,647,506B2 (filed 2025-09-10, published 2026-06-02) — a petitioner's FWD on the '799's shared disclosure could have read-across value for those sibling patents, and vice versa.

Adverse-development watch item. The only public docket activity about the '799 in 2026 that a defendant should track is the § 101 skirmish in the Intuit case (IQX Corp. v. Intuit Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00351, E.D. Tex.). Per the retrieved record, a stipulated corrected motion to extend P.R. 3-1/3-2/3-3/3-4 and subject-matter-eligibility contention deadlines was filed 2026-07-09, which tells you eligibility is squarely in play. A second case, IQX Corp. v. Salesforce, Inc., No. 7:26-cv-00213 (W.D. Tex., filed 2026-05-28), remains at pleading stage with no judge assignment reported — but note that the patent-assertion defendants in those cases are not the same as the IPR petitioner posture for the Intuit case (the record shows no Intuit IPR on the '799).

Recommended next steps

1. Treat IPR2026-00475 as pending & amorphous. Because it was filed 2026-09-24 (one day before this writing), the petition, its grounds, and any claim-by-claim challenge are not yet reliable in third-party indexes. Pull the authoritative petition from USPTO PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) for proceeding IPR2026-00475 and confirm (a) the challenged claims, (b) the statutory grounds, and (c) whether a Sotera/Sotera-Plus stipulation was filed — that stipulation is what would neutralize duplication concerns with the W.D. Tex. case.
2. Calendar the institution deadline. PTAB's § 314(b) clock requires an institution decision by roughly 2027-03-24 (subject to POPR extensions). If the petition is denied, the patent emerges unchanged and your district-court invalidity case carries the load; if instituted, the PTAB trial must finish with an FWD within 12 months of institution (§ 316(a)(11)), i.e., roughly early-to-mid 2028 if institution lands on time.
3. If you are a separate defendant: do not rely on Salesforce's petition for estoppel or cancellation benefit. Confirm your own § 315(b) bar date (one year from service of the complaint alleging infringement of the '799) and, if you intend to file, note the current environment — the Director's 2026 Magnolia/settled-expectations line of precedential decisions (e.g., Magnolia Med. Techs. v. Kurin, IPR2026-00097, institution denied; and the Fintiv-successor discretionary-denial framework reflected in the Director's 2026 notices) makes discretionary denial a live risk, particularly where parallel litigation overlaps.
4. Track the family and the § 101 fight. Monitor IQX v. Intuit (No. 2:26-cv-00351) for any eligibility ruling on the '799's claims; per Director Squires' 2026 practice (discussed in the retrieved Akin alert), a district-court finding that renders the challenged claims invalid can trigger sua sponte Director Review and vacation of institution in a parallel IPR — so the litigation outcome is a first-order input to the PTAB proceeding's fate, not a side show.

Verification caveat. The count, proceeding number, filing date, status, and petitioner come verbatim from the canonical structured PTAB block supplied in the prompt. Everything else (panel, grounds, claim-level outcome, settlement, appeal) is either expressly "not yet public" per that data or drawn from third-party aggregators (Ex Parte AI analysis, Justia/PacerMonitor, PTAB decision excerpts), not from a direct PTAB E2E pull for IPR2026-00475. I did not locate any FWD, institution decision, or CAFC docket for this proceeding, and I have not invented one.

I'll research the ownership chain for US 12,368,799, focusing on the assignment record and any NPE indicators.

Let me dig into the assignment record specifics and IQX Corp's corporate history.

I have useful corporate-history leads. Now let me try to pull the actual assignment record (reel/frame) and correspondent data.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 12,368,799 B2

"Automated silent network authentication protocol" · Assignee of record: IQX Corp

Source note / verification caveat (read first). I was unable to complete a direct, record-by-record pull of the USPTO Patent Assignment Center for this patent (the search tooling hit its step limit before returning an Assignment Center result page). The assignment facts below are drawn from the Google Patents legal-events record for US 12,368,799, which republishes USPTO assignment/reassignment events, supplemented by USPTO face-of-patent data and third-party sources. I could not confirm the reel/frame number, the executed date, or the correspondent of record (recording attorney/agent). Those three fields are the ones the task flags as most diagnostic, so they remain open. Verify directly at assignmentcenter.uspto.gov or assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html before relying on the negative findings.

Inventors

Pattern note (inventor set). The '799 names only two inventors — Spindler and Wright. Sibling family members (e.g., US 11,876,924; US 12,126,752; and the pending 18/483,670 line) additionally name Andrew Lewin. So the '799 carries a narrower inventorship than its siblings — a drafting choice worth noting, since it means any assignment executed by Lewin on the siblings need not appear on the '799's chain.

Employer at filing. All named inventors were associated with iQX Corp (Spindler as founder/CEO; the applications were filed with iQX Corp as applicant/assignee from the PCT stage forward, per US 11,765,262 which lists "IQX CORP., Beverly Hills, CA" as assignee). No evidence of inventors departing the assignee within 12 months of filing — there is a single assignor→assignee assignment and no subsequent inventor-signed transfers.

Original assignee

IQX Corp (also stylized "iQX Corp.") — the entity named on the issued '799 patent, and also the current assignee.

• Primary line of business: a software-as-a-service text-marketing / direct-text sales platform. A January 5, 2017 company release (Seattle, WA dateline) announced "iQX Amplify," described as a cloud-based direct-text marketing and sales platform integrating with WooCommerce, and naming Sacha Spindler as Founder and CEO. The patent specification itself is built around this product ("the communication technique… is sometimes referred to as 'Amplify'"; "ADDP," "UEMWEB," "CSC input," "Amplify Decision Delivery Processor"). So the claims map onto the assignee's own shipped product concept.
• Address history visible in the record: Seattle, WA (2017 release) → Beverly Hills, CA (face of US 11,765,262) → Carson City, NV ("iQX Corp., 6 Carson City, NV," per patent-profile aggregators for a later family application). Address churn is common for small private companies and is not, by itself, evidence of a shell — see signals below.
• Current status: Not established. I found no dissolution, bankruptcy, acquisition, or wind-down record. The company's continued assertion activity (two 2026 district-court suits) is evidence it at least remains a functioning litigant. Whether it currently ships a product embodying the '799 claims is unverified.

⚠️ Do not conflate with "iQX Limited." Multiple search hits for "IQX Limited" (ACN 155 518 380), an Australian NSX-listed life-sciences investment/funds-management group (Dr George Syrmalis; iQ Group Global) are a different entity in a different industry. There is no evidence linking it to US 12,368,799. The patent owner is the US text-marketing company founded by Spindler.

Assignment timeline

The Google Patents legal-events record for US 12,368,799 shows exactly one assignment/reassignment event:

• Executed: not shown in the retrieved record / Recorded 2024-12-18 — Reel/Frame: not retrieved
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (original assignment; "SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS")
  • Assignor: SPINDLER, Sacha; WRIGHT, Aidan
  • Assignee: IQX CORP.
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved. (The recording attorney/agent of record is the single most diagnostic field for shell-LLC chains; it must be pulled from Assignment Center directly.)
  • Context: Original inventor-to-company assignment — the founders' conveyance of rights to their own operating company, recorded one day after the continuation application was filed (application filed 2024-12-17; assignment recorded 2024-12-18). This is a routine "assignment-on-filing," not a third-party transfer.

No other assignments are on the record for this patent. In particular, there is no evidence of:

• a transfer to any licensing/"IP"/"Holdings" entity;
• a second or later assignment of any kind;
• a security interest, license, merger, change-of-name, or release recorded against the '799.

Related family context (not assignments of the '799, but relevant to the chain): the Google Patents legal events show the '799's priority relationships (PCT/US2019/052847, 2019-09-25; the 18/896,197 parent; later filings 19/192,732 → US 12,438,978B2 and 19/324,477 → US 20260012531A1). These reflect continuation/priority filings, not ownership transfers.

If the Assignment Center, on a direct query, returns additional post-issuance records (e.g., a 2025–2026 assignment to a litigation vehicle), that would materially change the analysis below.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 12368799
    2017 : iQX Corp launches Amplify platform
    2018 : Provisional application filed
    2019 : PCT application filed
    2024 : Continuation filed
         : Inventors assign rights to iQX Corp
    2025 : Patent issued to iQX Corp
    2026 : Infringement suits filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Operating-company assertion — with a flagged caveat.

Justification (2–3 sentences). US 12,368,799 has stayed with its original operating-company owner: the single recorded assignment (recorded 2024-12-18, executed on/by the 2024-12-17 filing) is an inventor→IQX Corp. original assignment, and no transfer to any shell, licensing vehicle, known NPE, or defensive aggregator exists on the record — so 7 of the 8 troll-pattern signals are affirmatively not present. IQX Corp is a real operating entity that developed and marketed the accused-product category itself ("iQX Amplify," a direct-text marketing SaaS platform launched in 2017, with inventor Spindler as founder/CEO), and it is now asserting the '799 against commercial messaging-platform operators it competes with (IQX Corp. v. Intuit Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00351, E.D. Tex., filed 2026-04-30; IQX Corp. v. Salesforce, Inc., No. 7:26-cv-00213, W.D. Tex., filed 2026-05-28). Caveat: this is a small, apparently non-practicing-at-present operating company, and I could not verify that IQX Corp currently ships products embodying the '799 claims (which issued only in 2025) — if it has ceased operations and is monetizing solely through litigation, the correct label would shift toward an NPE characterization, and the single most important open item is the Assignment Center correspondent of record, which I was unable to retrieve.

Verification link: USPTO Patent Assignment Center — search "12368799" (mirror: assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html)

Open items to close before this verdict is final

1. Pull the reel/frame and the executed date for the 2024-12-18 assignment directly from Assignment Center (my retrieval failed).
2. Capture the correspondent of record (recording attorney/agent + firm + address) and check whether that name recurs across IQX Corp's other family patents (US 11,765,262 / 11,876,924 / 11,949,806 / 12,041,197 / 12,126,752 / 12,438,978) — a single repeat player across the family is the highest-value tell here.
3. Confirm IQX Corp's corporate status and current product posture (NV/CA/WY secretary-of-state registry; any wind-down, assignment-for-benefit-of-creditors, or litigation-funding arrangement).
4. Check for any 2025–2026 post-issuance assignment recorded after the '799 granted (2025-07-22) — none appears in the Google Patents legal events, but Assignment Center is authoritative.

All factual assertions above are sourced from the authoritative patent record supplied (inventors, assignee, 2024-12-18 reassignment event, filing/grant dates), US 11,765,262's face data, and the cited public sources. No assignment, reel/frame, or correspondent was invented; where a field was not retrieved, it is marked "not retrieved."

I'll search for the prior-art citations associated with this patent number, being careful to target the exact number.

Let me try more targeted searches for the citation data.

I found a lead — sibling patent citation data. Let me pull the actual citation lists for the '799 and its family.

Prior-Art / Citation Analysis — US 12,368,799 B2

"Automated silent network authentication protocol" (IQX Corp.)

⚠️ Up-front honesty on what I could and could not retrieve

I was not able to retrieve the verbatim "(56) References Cited" list for US 12,368,799. Two independent problems:

1. The authoritative fetched record supplied to me is truncated. The Google Patents text at https://patents.google.com/patent/US12368799/en that was supplied cuts off inside the Detailed Description (mid-paragraph, at "In some embodiments, when a client"). It does not include the "Citations," "Cited By," or "Similar Documents" tables. So the authoritative source in my possession has no citation data for the '799 at all.
2. Web search did not surface the '799's own citation table. My searches returned citation tables for other patents (unrelated ones), not for the '799. Under the step budget I could not complete a direct pull of the '799's citation list.

Therefore I cannot honestly give you "each patent citation for 12,368,799" as an enumerated, verified list. Anyone who gives you that list without the (56) block in hand is guessing. What follows is (a) the citation set that is on the public record for a same-family sibling (a legitimate proxy, clearly labeled), (b) a forward-citation data point that does name the '799, and (c) a substantive § 102 gap analysis. The definitive list must be pulled from USPTO PatentCenter / the grant PDF's front page (item 56) or Google Patents' "Citations" tab.

0. A number-collision you must not confuse with this patent (per the "no similar numbers" rule)

A search for the literal string 12368799 returned an unrelated hit: EP 1001459 A2 lists a priority document rendered as "US 12368799 P 19990310" (a 1999 provisional/application identifier). That is a different instrument with a coincidentally colliding digit string — an integrated-circuit capacitor case — and has nothing to do with US Patent 12,368,799. Excluded, as instructed. (Source: https://data.epo.org/gpi/EP1001459A2)

1. Family-shared citation set (PROXY — labeled, not confirmed for the '799 itself)

Same-family sibling US 12,647,506 B2, "Systems and methods for performing silent network authentication protocols for mobile devices" (IQX Corp., pub. 2026-06-02) — which shares the '799's specification — is publicly indexed with the following patent citations:

Source: https://eureka.patsnap.com/patent/[US12647506B2](/patent/US12647506B2) (Patsnap Eureka "Citation Information → Patent Citations" for US 12,647,506 B2).

* Dates marked "approx." are derived from the US patent-number issuance series, not read from the documents. They are reliable to a few weeks but must be verified. I did not verify assignee/inventor for items 1–5 in this session; do not attribute them without pulling the front pages.

⚠️ Critical caveat on this table

• These are the sibling's citations. Because the '799 shares the sibling's specification, the citations are likely — but not confirmed — to overlap. Treat the table as a lead list, not as the '799's (56) block.
• A second, family-sibling publication (US 2025/0016262, "…security, verification, and access control for cellular handheld devices") is also indexed with the same specification (https://www.patents-review.com/a/20250016262-automated-silent-network-authentication-protocol-security.html).

2. Forward citation that explicitly names the '799

Reading: because US 2018/0103004 A1 published before the '799's 2018-09-27 priority date, it is § 102(a)(1) prior art and is a cited reference (backward citation) of the '799 — it is squarely relevant to the abandoned/resumed-journey dependent claims ("return to a prior browsing session," "resuming at least one abandoned user journey"). This is the one '799-side citation I could confirm by name.

3. § 102 mapping — what each reference can and cannot reach

Legal framing (be disciplined here): a reference appearing in a patent's (56) block is not an admission that it anticipates. Under AIA § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) (the '799 is post-AIA — first effective filing 2018), a reference anticipates only if it discloses every element of the claim as arranged in the claim. Given the '799's independent claims recite a specific ordered pipeline, most cited references will be § 103 art, not § 102 art. My assess

Bottom line of § 102 exposure: on the reference set I could surface, the broad, RCS-plus-ML-scheduling independent claims are unlikely to be § 102-anticipated by any one listed reference; the realistic attack is § 103 (e.g., "texted payment link" + "integrated messaging" + "customized web pages" + a send-time/ML scheduler). The SNAP independent claim (~claim 12 per the Salesforce complaint analysis, or ~18 per the Intuit analysis — see the conflict note below) will likely not be reached by any of these five references, because none discloses the security code packet carrying a subscriber network credential plus a client device carrier identifier being passed to a carrier-side authentication provider.

4. Prior-art classes the listed citations almost certainly do not cover (where the real § 102/§ 103 art lives)

Because the '799's distinguishing claim limitations (RCS + ML-scheduled delivery; SNAP carrier verification) were added in the 2023–2024 CIP chain, the cited references above likely predate and omit them. A serious validity search should target:

1. Silent Network Authentication (SNA). The commercial SNA/phone-number-verification space (e.g., carrier-identity "silent verification" vendors) is a dense patent thicket predating 2018. I am not naming specific patent numbers because I have not verified them for this session — do not rely on any number I have not sourced. This is the single highest-value search area for the SNAP claim.
2. RCS messaging with interactive carousels / typing indicators / read receipts. Standardized RCS Universal Profile features (buttons, carousels, suggested replies) are pre-2018 public disclosures — potentially § 102(a)(1) "public use/printed publication" art against the RCS-content dependent claims.
3. ML/algorithmic send-time optimization ("send-time optimization," "just-in-time messaging"). Notably, the accused product here is Intuit/MailChimp's text-messaging system (per the previously generated Litigation summary), and send-time-optimization is a well-published technique. This is the most promising § 103 field against the "scheduling, using a machine learning model … based on the determined classification" limitation.
4. Abandoned-cart / session-resumption messaging — see US 2018/0103004 A1 above.
5. Subscriber classification / tiering ("tier 1 buyers / tier 2 link-clickers / tier 3" in the spec, FIG. 10) — engagement-tiering art.

5. Conflicts and discrepancies to flag explicitly

1. Asserted-claim number conflict (new). A third-party complaint analysis for IQX Corp. v. Salesforce, Inc., No. 7:26-cv-00213 (W.D. Tex.) states the '799's "Asserted Claims: independent claim 12" ('799 Patent, Compl. ¶37). This conflicts with the earlier generated sections, which identified claim 6 (Intuit analysis) and claim 18 (title-matching SNAP claim). Source: https://ai-lab-cl-prod.azurewebsites.net/case/dct/txwd/7:26-cv-00213/doc/analysis/1. All three figures come from non-authoritative third-party analyses; the granted claim set must be pulled from PatentCenter. I am not auto-correcting any of them.
2. Date discrepancy (carried forward). This task states April 26, 2026; the session date is September 25, 2026; and retrieved docket records contain events dated April 30, 2026 – July 9, 2026, after the April 26 date. This repeats the discrepancy already flagged in the previously generated Litigation and PTAB sections. No contradiction — just the same unreconciled gap.
3. Consistency with earlier sections: the earlier sections listed no PTAB activity (later superseded by IPR2026-00475, filed 2026-09-24) and the same Intuit/Salesforce district-court cases. Nothing in this citation search contradicts those sections.

6. Verification caveats (read before relying on anything above)

• The '799's own (56) References Cited list was NOT obtained. Everything in § 1–§ 3 is inferred from (a) a sibling patent's citation list and (b) one forward citation naming the '799. Do not represent the § 1 table as the '799's citation list.
• Approximate issue dates were derived from patent-number series, not read from the documents.
• Assignees/inventors for US 10,122,824; US 10,298,739; US 10,699,264; US 11,158,009; and CN 101553038 were not verified in this session.
• Definitive next step: open the '799's grant PDF front page (item 56) or Google Patents → "Citations" tab, and cross-check the examiner's cited art against the prosecution file wrapper (PatentCenter) for the parent 17/279,188 and the CIP 18/483,670 — post-2023 RCS/ML art, if any, will appear there rather than on the '799's face.

Grounding URLs used: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12368799/en (authoritative record, truncated) · https://eureka.patsnap.com/patent/US12647506B2 (sibling citations) · https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180103004A1#17 (forward citation naming the '799) · https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2025/0119493.html · https://www.patents-review.com/a/20250119493-automated-silent-network-authentication-protocol.html · https://ai-lab-cl-prod.azurewebsites.net/case/dct/txwd/7:26-cv-00213/doc/analysis/1

I'll start by noting what the "Prior Art" section of this record actually contains, then research real references to ground a § 103 analysis.

Good grounding results. Let me search for a few more specifics — the face-of-patent references and carrier-auth/messaging combinations.

Obviousness Analysis — US 12,368,799 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. What the "Prior Art" section of this record actually contains — and why that matters

Before any analysis, a threshold disclosure. The "Prior Art" section of the authoritative record supplied for US 12,368,799 contains no cited references. It contains only:

• Prior art keywords: user, message, document, link, subscriber
• Prior art date: 2018-09-27

There is no examiner-cited reference list, no IDS bibliography, no "References Cited" table, and no face-of-patent patent list in the material I was given, and my retrieval attempts for the face-of-patent references did not return a usable list. So I cannot tell you "the examiner combined X with Y." What I can do — and what this section does — is:

1. Use the keyword set (user, message, document, link, subscriber) as a signal of the search space the Office worked in (messaging + linked/inline documents + subscriber identity);
2. Reconstruct the claim elements from the patent's own Summary (which mirrors the independent claims nearly verbatim); and
3. Map real, dated, citable references from the same field onto those elements, and give the KSR motivations.

⚠️ Cross-reference with the earlier sections. The earlier Plain-language overview expressly flagged that verbatim claim text was not retrieved and that claim numbering is "probable, not confirmed." Nothing in this section cures that. I therefore refer to claims functionally ("the RCS/ML-scheduling independent method claim," "the SNAP independent claim") and avoid asserting a specific number where the record does not supply one. The previous sections' identification of a SNAP claim (~18) and a system claim (~6) is used only as a cross-reference, not as verified fact.

1. The single most important § 103 fact on this record: the priority-date fork

This is not a detail. It decides which references are available.

The '799 specification states its chain as:

"a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 18/896,197, filed Sep. 25, 2024, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application Ser. No. 18/483,670, filed Oct. 10, 2023, which is a continuation of … 17/279,188 … which is a U.S. National Stage Entry of PCT/US19/52847 … that claims the priority benefit of U.S. Provisional … 62/737,315, filed Sep. 27, 2018."

The 2018 provisional and the 2019 PCT disclosure is built around "Amplify," the "ADDP," "UEMWEB," "CSC input," and dynamically generated personalized webpages. The RCS / AMDA / ML-AI-cluster / SNAP-layer subject matter — the subject matter the '799 claims recite — is not in that 2018-2019 disclosure on its face; it appears as new matter introduced via the continuation-in-part (18/483,670, filed 2023-10-10) and the 18/896,197 (filed 2024-09-25) parent.

Consequence. For the claim family reciting RCS message generation + recipient classification + ML-model scheduling (the method/system/CRM independents per the earlier overview), the effective filing date is, at the earliest, 2023-10-10 (CIP) — and plausibly 2024-09-25 for the specific RCS/ML limitations. Under post-AIA § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) and § 103, that makes the entire 2018–2023 RCS-business-messaging and ML-send-time-optimization literature available as prior art.

The patent owner will argue entitlement to 2018-09-27. That argument only works for claims limited to the 2018-disclosed subject matter (dynamic customized webpage + link + hosted-field capture + cookie-based auth). It is much weaker for RCS carousels, AMDA tiering, and ML-scheduled delivery. A defendant should therefore run the § 103 analysis on both branches:

• Branch A (owner's best case, 2018-09-27 priority): only pre-2018 art is available.
• Branch B (realistic, 2023-10-10 or 2024-09-25 priority): 2018–2023 art is also available.

Branch B gives you far more ammunition, and the strength of the priority challenge is itself a first-order question for the parallel § 101/validity fight flagged in the earlier Strategic summary (the P.R. 3-1/3-2/3-3/3-4 and eligibility-contention extension in IQX v. Intuit, No. 2:26-cv-00351).

2. Framework

Under Graham v. John Deere and KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, obviousness asks: (1) scope/content of the prior art; (2) differences between the art and the claims; (3) level of ordinary skill (here, a POSITA in mobile/telecom messaging with carrier-integration experience, ~2-3 years, or a software engineer plus a telecom engineer); and (4) objective indicia. A claim is obvious where the differences are such that "the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious," including where the combination is "a predictable variation" using "a known technique … to improve similar devices in the same way," or a "predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions."

The '799's own specification supplies an admission that helps: the Background states that "many webpages or websites have largely static content" and that "conventional text and/or RCS messaging systems … may include customized addresses or name salutations, but do not customize multiple items representing specific interactive content." That framing concedes that RCS messaging, personalization at the salutation level, and short-message campaigns were all conventional — which narrows the question to whether the specific combination was nonobvious.

3. Claim-element chart (the independent claims, per the Summary)

Dependent subject matter (from the Summary): carousel of selectable options; UI in a mobile browser; send/receive typing indicators; authorize the RCS sender and, on failure, deliver an SMS warning; actions to transact, select a suggested response, return to a prior browsing session/application session.

4. Candidate references (real, dated, citable)

R1 — Carrier-based silent authentication (maps to D, E, L, M)

Note on Branch A: all of the above Payfone/Prove family carry 2011–2015 priority for the core silent-authentication concepts (see the EP register entry for "Secure and efficient login and transaction authentication using iPhones and other smart mobile communication devices," Payfone, priority 2010-2011). They are prior art under either branch.

R2 — RCS business messaging / rich-card + scheduled RBM agent (maps to B, C, G)

⚠️ Family-member warning. US 2025/0274544 A1, "Systems and methods for resuming online abandoned journeys," recites the same SNAP + RCS + abandoned-journey combination and names the same inventors/field — it appears to be an IQX-family continuation, not prior art. Do not cite it against the '799. Its claims include: "selection of the secure link … triggers a silent network authentication protocol," "performed by a third party … accessed through a mobile device carrier," and RCS UI elements for abandoned carts. (Justia). This is a self-disclosure/commonly-owned issue under § 102(b)(2)(C) and must be excluded from any ground.

R3 — ML-based send-time optimization (maps to F, H)

Branch caution: US 11,431,663 (2019), US 11,625,751 (2020), US 2024/0054013, US 11,936,606, and EP 4,672,253 are all post-2018. They are only available under Branch B.

R4 — Dynamic personalized webpage + link + cart/recovery (maps to A, B, C, I, J)

5. Proposed § 103 grounds

Ground 1 — The RCS/ML-scheduling independent claims (A–H) are obvious over R2 + R3 + R1 (Branch B), or R2 + R1 with the ML element supplied by a known STO reference

Where the art differs before combination. No single reference found discloses the entire chain. R2 (RBM agent, US 2021/0304150) gives B, C, G and rule-based scheduling; R3 (US 11,431,663 / US 11,625,751 / EP 4,672,253) gives H as an ML model that predicts a personalized send time; R1 (Payfone/Prove) gives D, E (and the classification input for F). The only "gap" is the sequencing — gate the RCS send on a silent carrier check, and pick the send time with an ML model keyed to the recipient's classification.

Why a POSITA would combine them (KSR rationales):

1. Same field, same problem, same actors. R1, R2 and R3 all address the identical technical problem the '799 concedes: high-value, personalized mobile messages that must (i) reach the right subscriber, (ii) be authenticated to that subscriber's device, and (iii) be delivered when the subscriber will engage. Payfone's own disclosures frame the trigger as "a subscriber attempting to initiate a financial transaction, initiate accessing of privileged content" — i.e., the same event that generates the '799's message. That is the classic "our own prior work plus the standard improvement in the field" posture.

2. Predictable use of known elements per their established functions. Using a carrier/network identity check to authorize a link-click (R1) before delivering a richer message is the established function of those elements; using an ML model to choose send times (R3) is likewise established. KSR permits combining references where each does no more than its known function.

3. Explicit combinatorial teaching in the art. Twilio's US 11,625,751 expressly pairs send-time optimization with communication-channel selection in a single system. Once a POSITA has a system that selects a channel and a send time per recipient, applying it to the then-new RCS channel is a predictable variation, not an invention.

4. The '799's own stated technical problem ("determining how and when to present content … to a user or subscriber") is the same problem R2 and R3 were built to solve — evidence of a known, shared design objective that supplies the "reason to combine."

Claim-by-claim result. Elements A–C (R4/R2), D–E (R1), F (R1 reputation/tier data; R3 per-subscriber modeling), G (R2), H (R3) — taught or suggested. Any of the three independent claim formats (method / "automated messaging subscription and distribution system" / CRM) rises and falls together because the Summary renders them as the same pipeline in different statutory clothing.

Ground 2 — The SNAP independent claim (I–M) is obvious over R4 + R1 (Branch A or B)

This is the strongest ground because it needs no post-2018 art.

• I, J — dynamically generate a customized webpage with transaction info and send its link by message: Teeter (2005), US 2012/0330780, US 2014/0122246, each expressly teaching a per-recipient link to resume/complete a transaction. (This is also the subject matter of IQX's own 2018-disclosed "Amplify" specification — but that is the patent's own disclosure, not prior art to itself; the point is that Teeter et al. cover it independently.)
• K — receive a request to perform the transaction via the link: inherent in any link-click commerce system (R4; also US 2022/0383310).
• L — the three-step "silent" carrier check: generating a security code packet containing the subscriber network credential + the client device carrier identifier; sending it to an authentication service provider; receiving a match/fail indication — is the core of the Payfone/Prove family. US 2022/0272158 describes exactly this: the device transmits a carrier-identifying indicator, the identity verifier formulates a session identifier/"one-time-use token," directs the device to read SIM/hardware parameters, and compares them against a data store to authenticate. US 11,223,948 B2 and US 2021/0204116 A1 (compare returned parameters for matches) reinforce the "receive an indication of match/fail against existing records" step.
• M — perform the transaction on a match; on failure, fall back to an alternate channel. The fallback (PIN/OTP by SMS, non-cellular/Wi-Fi path) is expressly taught in the same family: Payfone's "transitioning to an exclusively text-based communications scheme" with two-way SMS (US 2024/0314556 A1) and the risk-event/OTP lineage. This maps onto the '799's own alternate-authentication passage.

Motivation. R4 supplies the commercial/technical incentive (recovering an abandoned cart or completing a purchase over a link), and the '799's Background states the reason — fraud constrains willingness to transact. R1 supplies the known solution to that exact problem (silently prove the clicker possesses the claimed phone). Combining a personalized link with a carrier-side possession check is the predictable use of a known fraud-prevention technique with a known e-commerce mechanism, producing no more than the expected result.

Ground 3 — Dependent claims (carousel; browser UI; typing indicators; SMS warning on failed sender authorization)

These dependents add no independent inventive concept once the independents fall; each is a predictable arrangement of standardized RCS primitives and known commerce flows.

6. Anticipation vs. obviousness — a nuance worth preserving

No single reference in the set I found anticipates all eight elements A–H simultaneously. The realistic attack is a § 103 combination, and I would resist dressing one reference up as an anticipatory "single reference." The closest single-reference analogue to A–H is US 2021/0304150 (RBM agent: template → transmission object → scheduled send → carousel/rich card → SMS/MMS fallback), which lacks the silent carrier authentication (D/E) and the ML-based scheduler (H) — hence the need for R1 and R3.

7. Anticipated Patent-Owner rebuttals (and how to pre-empt them)

1. "Priority to 2018-09-27." Pre-empt with the CIP analysis (§1). The RCS/AMDA/SNAP-layer text and the ML-scheduling limitations are not in the 2018 provisional or the 2019 PCT; they are new matter. Compel the owner to produce the 2018/2019 specifications and identify written-description support for each RCS/ML limitation. If support is absent, the 2019–2023 references (R3 in full, US 2021/0304150, US 2022/0150206) come in.
2. "Teaching away / bodily incorporation." The RCS-fallback reference (US 2021/0304150) and the ML STO references are designed to interoperate with SMS/messaging platforms; combining them is not a bodily-incorporation problem.
3. "Nonobvious because of the specific sequence: link-click → silent auth → classify → RCS → ML-scheduled." This is the strongest owner argument, and it must be met head-on: the sequence is the logical ordering dictated by the components' functions (you authenticate before you serve privileged content; you classify before you schedule; you schedule before you send), which KSR treats as an obvious arrangement.
4. Objective indicia. The record I was given contains no evidence of unexpected results, commercial success, licensing, or long-felt need. The § 101 skirmish in IQX v. Intuit (the contentions-deadline extension noted in the earlier Litigation summary) may later bear on secondary considerations, but nothing in this record supports them now.
5. Own-family references. As noted, exclude US 2025/0274544 A1 (apparent IQX continuation) from every ground — it is a § 102(b)(2)(C) self-disclosure trap, not a weapon.

8. Bottom line

• Strongest ground (needs no priority win): the SNAP independent claim over R4 (dynamic personalized link/cart-recovery art) + R1 (Payfone/Prove silent carrier authentication), with alternate-channel fallback (PIN/OTP/SMS) also taught in R1 — motivation supplied by the patent's own admitted fraud problem.
• Strong ground if the RCS/ML claims are properly dated to the 2023 CIP: the RCS/ML-scheduling independents over R2 (RCS Business Messaging / RBM agent) + R3 (ML send-time optimization) + R1 (silent carrier auth), with Twilio's US 11,625,751 supplying the explicit send-time-plus-channel-selection combination teaching.
• Dependents (carousel, browser UI, typing indicators, sender-authorization-with-SMS-warning) fall to standardized RCS features (GSMA specs, US 2022/0150206) and known fallback messaging.
• The decisive threshold issue is the priority date of the RCS/ML limitations. Resolve it by pulling the 18/483,670 (2023) and 18/896,197 (2024) specifications and comparing their disclosures against the 2018 provisional / 2019 PCT. Whoever wins that issue wins the § 103 fight.

Verification caveats. (i) The record's "Prior Art" section contains only the keywords user, message, document, link, subscriber and the date 2018-09-27 — no cited references — so the reference combinations above are constructed from the field, not from the Office's citations. (ii) Verbatim granted claim text and claim numbering remain unverified (see the earlier Plain-language overview disclaimer); elements are keyed to the patent's Summary and FIG. 17/18. (iii) All reference numbers, dates and assignees are reproduced as found in the cited third-party sources; confirm against the USPTO PatentCenter / the primary documents before filing. (iv) The ML and RCS references dated 2019–2023 are prior art only under the Branch-B priority analysis; under a 2018 effective date they drop out and Ground 1 weakens materially.