Invalidity dossier
US 5241537
Conventional base station interface architecture for RF trunking multisite switch
Current assignee: Pine Valley Investments Inc
Added 9/23/2026, 8:35:52 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
US 5,241,537 — Patent Overview
Title: Conventional base station interface architecture for RF trunking multisite switch
Patent number: US 5,241,537 A
Application number: US 07/709,987
Inventors: Philip C. Gulliford, Charles P. Brame, Wim A. Imron
Original assignee: Ericsson GE Mobile Communications Inc.
Current assignee (per source listing): Pine Valley Investments Inc
Priority/filing date: 1991-06-04
Publication (grant) date: 1993-08-31
Legal status: Expired – Lifetime; anticipated expiration 2011-06-04
Classification (as listed): H04W84/08 (trunked mobile radio systems), H04W4/06, H04W4/10 (push-to-talk), H04W76/00, among others.
Purpose / plain-language scope (based only on the supplied text):
The patent relates to an interface architecture connecting conventional base stations to an RF trunking multisite switch. The supplied excerpt identifies the subject matter at a high level—an interface arrangement for linking base stations into a multisite trunked radio switching system—and lists recurring concepts in the disclosure: audio, trunked channel, call, message, audio pathway, signaling, sound signal, response, and coupling. These suggest the architecture handles audio routing and signaling between base stations and the switch, but the excerpt does not describe the actual structure or operation.
What the supplied excerpt does not establish:
- No claims text, abstract, or detailed description is included; the specific claimed scope is therefore not ascertainable from this excerpt.
- The listed "prior art keywords" and concept-frequency terms are index metadata, not findings about prior art or patentability.
- No technical detail is provided on bus arrangements, channel assignment, signaling protocols, or how the interface differs from conventional base station interfaces.
- The status/assignee entries are explicitly flagged in the source as assumptions, not legal conclusions.
- No litigation, validity, or ownership-transfer analysis is presented here, and none should be inferred.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:41:18 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 5241537. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.