Invalidity dossier
US 6009469
Graphic user interface for internet telephony application
Current assignee: Straight Path IP Group Inc
Added 9/21/2026, 10:42:38 AM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview — US 6009469A
Title: Graphic user interface for internet telephony application
Patent number / application: US 6009469A; application US08/721,316; filed 1996-09-25; published 1999-12-28.
Priority date: 1995-09-25 (as listed; the source notes this is an assumption supplied by the listing, not a legal conclusion).
Inventors: Shane D. Mattaway, Glenn W. Hutton, Craig B. Strickland.
Assignee: Original assignee NetSpeak Corp; current assignee listed as Straight Path IP Group Inc (the source states listed assignees may be inaccurate and that no legal analysis was performed).
Status: Expired – Lifetime (described as an assumption, not a legal conclusion).
Purpose and plain-language scope: The supplied text identifies this as a "graphic user interface for internet telephony application" and lists "webphone" among its prior-art keywords, indicating the subject matter concerns a graphical interface for placing or handling telephone-style calls over the internet. Beyond that, the excerpt does not reproduce any claim language, abstract, or detailed description. This overview therefore cannot state the specific elements of any claim, the components of the interface, or how a webphone, server, caller, or callee are configured or connected.
What the excerpt does not establish:
- No claim text, abstract, or specification content is included, so the precise scope of coverage cannot be determined from the excerpt.
- No legal conclusions about validity, enforceability, patentability, or claim construction can be drawn, and none are made here.
- Dates and assignee listings are expressly flagged in the source as assumptions or potentially inaccurate.
- The excerpt does not establish the content, outcome, or merits of any listed proceeding, nor does it establish any ownership transfer. Consistent with your instruction, litigation, ownership transfers, validity, and prior art were not researched or analyzed.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6009469](/patent/US6009469)/en (fetched 2026-09-21).
Generated 10/1/2026, 10:01:11 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 6009469. 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.