US 6789110

I'll search for authoritative information on US 6789110, including any 2026 CAFC docket activity.

US Patent 6,789,110 — Analyst Summary

Important note on search scope: I searched for both the patent document and any 2026 CAFC docket activity tied to this number. I found the patent record (Google Patents, Justia, uspto.report) and prior-art citations of it in later USPTO filings, but I found no Federal Circuit 2026 docket, appeal, or opinion involving US 6,789,110. If a 2026 CAFC matter exists, it did not surface in my searches — treat the "no CAFC 2026 docket found" conclusion as a search-result limit, not a definitive negative.

Bibliographic Data (from the authoritative patent text)

Assignee note / uncertainty: The Google Patents header lists the current assignee as Gate Worldwide Holdings LLC. However, the recorded assignment history shows: Nomadix → Gate Worldwide Holdings LLC (2018-01-23), then a QUITCLAIM from Gate Worldwide Holdings LLC back to Nomadix, Inc. (2019-11-22). The record is therefore internally inconsistent on current ownership; I cannot state with high confidence which entity holds title today.

Litigation note: Google Patents flags a US case in the California Central District Court, case 2:09-cv-08441, plus "first worldwide family litigation" data (Darts-ip family 26857545). This is a 2009 district-court matter — not 2026 CAFC activity.

Abstract (as issued)

A method for communicating to a host information during an existing networking session. The method comprises the steps of establishing computer network access to a user's host through a gateway interface, creating information and control console packets at the gateway interface, sending the information and control console packets to the user's host, and generating an information and control console on the monitor of the user's host that comprises data. The data will typically comprise user-specific data based upon a user's profile, the chosen billing scheme, the chosen service level or the location from which the user desires access. The gateway interface is capable of transparently connecting the user/subscriber to multiple networks without the need to reconfigure the user's host computer. The information and control console may include information relating to marketing, advertising, services offered and network session monitoring parameters. The user/subscriber can then act on the data provided to dynamically change the features of a current network session.

Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claims

The full text provided to me truncates mid-claim 15, so I have complete text only for claims 1–15 and partial text (via search snippets) for claims 17–29. My overview below covers the independent claims I can identify with confidence and flags where the claim set is incomplete.

Claim 1 — Method for communicating information during an existing network session (the core claim).
A gateway interface sets up a network session between a host computer and a network. During that same session, the gateway creates information-and-control-console (ICC) packets and sends them repeatedly throughout the session, and an ICC is generated on the host's monitor. Critically, the ICC gives the user the ability to re-configure the session while it is ongoing (e.g., change billing/service on the fly). This is the "always-on, interactive pop-up during the session" concept.

Claim 21 — Method for dynamically changing user billing structure during an ongoing session.
Similar framework, but focused on billing: the gateway creates and repeatedly sends network-monitoring ICC packets containing billing-structure information, generates the console on the host, and the console lets the user change the billing structure mid-session.

Claim 26 — Method for dynamically changing user level of service during an ongoing session.
Parallel to claim 21, but directed to level of service rather than billing: the ICC carries service-level information and lets the user change the service level mid-session.

Claim 29 — Program storage device (a "Beauregard"-style claim).
A machine-readable storage medium tangibly embodying instructions that, when executed, perform the communication steps: establishing the session via a gateway, generating the ICC on the host monitor, where the instructions give the user the ability to re-configure the session during the ongoing session. This claim statutorily recasts claim 1's method as software on a storage medium.

Claim 17 — Likely independent claim (partial text via search snippet). A claim referencing "network monitoring information" whose dependent claim 18 defines that information as a group including user billing structure, user level of service, current connection speed, quantity of data transferred, current charges accrued, elapsed session time, time-of-day billing zone, day-of-week billing zone, and current network status. Based on the snippet I believe claim 17 is independent, but I cannot confirm this with certainty because the provided text is truncated before claim 17.

Other independent claims — uncertain. The patent has 36 claims, and the provided text stops mid-claim 15. There may be additional independent claims among claims 15–16 and 30–36 that I could not verify. I do not have authoritative text for those claims and will not guess at their content.

Notable Supporting Details (from the specification)

• Heartbeats (claims 19–20): The ICC sends heartbeat packets to the gateway at predetermined intervals; if the gateway stops receiving them, it assumes the console was closed/failed and re-sends a fresh ICC.
• Billing models illustrated (FIGS. 2–6): "pay-per-use" (bandwidth + elapsed time + accrued charges), "bitmeter" (per-megabyte), "expiration time" (time-remaining), and pre-purchased "credit" blocks — each with a start/stop control in some variants.
• Location/site tailoring: The console can carry hotel-conference or airport-terminal-specific links, advertising, surveys, and user-profile-based links.
• Implementation: Described as Java applets delivered to the host by the gateway interface, with HTML as a fallback.

Confidence Statement

• Bibliographic fields and the abstract: high confidence (from the authoritative granted text).
• Overview of claims 1, 21, 26, 29: high confidence.
• Claim 17 as independent: moderate confidence (snippet-based only).
• Complete independent-claim list: low confidence — the claim text I was given truncates at claim 15, and I could not retrieve the remainder.
• CAFC 2026 docket for this patent: none found in my searches; this may reflect limited public indexing rather than the absence of a case.

I'll search litigation-focused sources for US 6,789,110 specifically.

Let me search more specifically for the '110 patent as an asserted patent.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent 6,789,110

Scope note / date discrepancy: Your task states the current date as April 26, 2026, while my operating context says October 1, 2026. I flag this rather than silently resolving it. My searches for a CAFC or 2026 docket specifically tied to 6,789,110 returned nothing — the only "6,789,110" hits outside the patent record are citations of the patent in other cases' briefing and invalidity contentions, not a 2026 case.

I also note the prior section's conclusion is consistent with what follows: the Google Patents "Family has litigation" flag points to a 2009 Central District of California case, not CAFC activity. No contradiction found.

Confirmed district-court cases asserting the '110 patent

Asserted-patent lists (these are the anchors tying '110 to the cases)

Case 1 (HP): Complaint "for Patent Infringement of U.S. Pat. No. 6,130,892; 7,088,727; 7,554,995; 6,636,894; 7,195,554; 6,868,399 and 6,789,110," dated Nov. 17, 2009, 189 pages. Sourced from Unified Patents' portal page for US-11,949,562 (a later patent citing the same complaint) and from the specification of US 10,341,243, both of which reproduce this complaint citation verbatim.

• URL: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-11949562-B2

Case 2 (SolutionInc): The patents in suit are listed as 6,130,892; 7,088,727; 7,554,995; 6,636,894; 7,194,554; 6,868,399; 6,789,110; 7,689,716; and 6,875,009.

• URL: https://www.studicata.com/summaries/united-states-district-court-central-district-of-california/nomadix-inc-v-solutioninc-techs-limited-2011-figyaw/

The '110 patent also appears as an "Asserted Claim" exhibit in Defendants' Supplemental Joint Invalidity Contentions in the SolutionInc matter (filed 2011-07-22), per the same citation chain.

Cases in the same Nomadix campaign that did NOT assert '110 (to avoid conflating numbers)

These are frequently lumped into the "Nomadix litigation" narrative, but the '110 patent is not in their asserted lists — do not confuse them:

• Nomadix, Inc. v. Second Rule LLC, 2:07-cv-01946 (C.D. Cal., filed 2007-03-23; terminated 2009-03-31) — asserted 6,130,892; 6,636,894; 6,857,009; 6,868,399; 7,088,727.
• IP3 Networks, Inc. v. Nomadix, Inc., 04-CV-1485 BTM (POR) (S.D. Cal., filed 2004) — declaratory judgment on 6,636,894 and 6,130,893 only.
• The Florida Markman decision reported as Nomadix, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2011 Markman 5037162 (M.D./S.D. Fla., case No. 1:2010-cv-23580) construed the #399, #754, #073 and #376 patents — not the '110 patent. I could not confirm that '110 was asserted in that Florida action. Treat as unverified.
• Nomadix, Inc. v. Hospitality Core Services LLC d/b/a Blueprint RF, CV14-08256 DDP (VBKx) (C.D. Cal.) — later-generation patents ('246, '266, '269, '806, '690), not '110.
• Guest Tek / Nomadix proceedings in Canada (Federal Court of Appeal decision involving Nomadix U.S. patents such as the '760 patent) — not the '110 patent.

Sources checked and their limits

• Unified Patents portal (as you requested): the litigation-caselist pages for the cited sibling patents did surface the HP complaint text naming 6,789,110. Unified's own caselist query for patents=6789110 is the natural next click, but the portal returned the data indirectly (through the US-11,949,562 citing document) rather than a standalone case list for 6789110.
• PACER / CAFC: no docket or opinion specifically docketed to 6,789,110 surfaced. No 2026 CAFC appeal involving this patent was found.
• Google Patents on US6789110: "Family has litigation" flag → California Central District Court case 2:09-cv-08441; plus Darts-ip family 26857545 ("First worldwide family litigation filed"). These corroborate Case 1.
• Justia / Docket Alarm / midpage: produced the Markman orders and the HP/SolutionInc paper trail, but none of the retrieved orders construed a claim of the '110 patent specifically (the HP Markman addressed '894, '554, '716; the iBAHN counterclaim MSJ addressed '073, '376).
• Nomadix product patent listing (nomadix.com PDF): '110 is listed among patents that "may cover" Nomadix products — useful for a notice/licensing theory, but not litigation.

Bottom line

• Two confirmed infringement suits asserted 6,789,110: (1) Nomadix v. Hewlett-Packard et al., 2:09-cv-08441 (C.D. Cal., filed 2009-11-17); (2) Nomadix v. SolutionInc Technologies Ltd., 2:10-cv-00381 (C.D. Cal., filed 2010-01-19).
• No 2026 litigation and no Federal Circuit appeal specific to '110 was found. This is a search-result limit, not a definitive negative — PACER/CAFC docket pages for this patent number did not surface.
• Outcomes: I can confirm a 2011 Markman in the HP case and a 2012-01-17 summary-judgment order granting Nomadix non-infringement on other patents (iBAHN's '073/'376), and a 2011-10-24 Markman in the SolutionInc case. I cannot confirm the final disposition of the '110 counts in either case from the sources retrieved, and I will not guess at settlement, dismissal, or judgment terms.
• Caution on identifiers: do not auto-correct "6,789,110" to any sibling (6,788,xxx / 6,789,xxx) or to Nomadix's other gateway patents; the asserted-patent lists above are quoted verbatim from the complaints and contentions.

I'll verify the canonical "no PTAB activity" signal against live sources before writing.

PTAB / AIA Trial Analysis — US 6,789,110

Source basis: The canonical structured block in this prompt (USPTO Open Data Portal ingest) states: "The USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest." I ran live web searches to confirm and found nothing that contradicts that — no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition naming US 6,789,110 as the challenged patent surfaced. I also found no Federal Circuit appeal arising from a PTAB proceeding on this patent.

One limitation to state up front: my live searches hit a step limit before I could exhaustively query PTAB E2E / the PTAB Decisions database by patent number. So treat "zero proceedings" as high-confidence but search-bounded, not as a certificate. The ODP ingest is the stronger evidence, and it agrees.

Proceedings overview

There are zero AIA trial proceedings on US 6,789,110 — no IPRs, no PGRs, no CBM reviews, none active, none settled, none denied, and no claims canceled or sustained through the PTAB. The bottom-line defensive posture for a defendant is therefore not "the patent is hardened," and not "the claims are dead" — it is: the '110 patent's claims 1–36 are entirely UNTESTED at the PTAB, and the patent expired 2020-04-03, so the fight is now about damages tail rather than claim validity. The absence of any IPR is itself unusual and worth understanding before you assume the claims are strong: the likely explanation is timing plus economics (below), not invulnerability.

Proceeding-by-proceeding

None exist. There is nothing to report at claim-level granularity — no FWD canceled or confirmed any of claims 1–36, so I will not attribute any claim-level disposition to this patent. Any statement that "claims X were invalidated in an IPR" for the '110 would be fabricated.

Adjacent proceedings — NOT on this patent (context only, do not confuse)

To be explicit, because these are frequently conflated with the '110 in Nomadix coverage:

All five were filed 2015-10-27 by Hospitality Core Services, LLC (d/b/a Blueprint RF) against Nomadix, Inc. — the same litigation family as Nomadix, Inc. v. Hospitality Core Services LLC, No. 14-cv-08256 (C.D. Cal.). Evidence of the sibling filings appears in Nomadix's mandatory notices in IPR2016-00081 (docketalarm copy) and the IPR2016-00092 petition. Notably, Hospitality Core Services did not petition against the '110 even though the '110 had been asserted in the earlier HP action.

Defensive value of the adjacent row: essentially zero for the '110. Different patent numbers means no § 315(e)(2) estoppel, no privity chain, no claim-construction spillover that binds a future petitioner against the '110.

Related (non-AIA) PTAB-adjacent history — also NOT on this patent

Nomadix's older patents went through ex parte and inter partes reexamination: Control Nos. 90/007,220 (ex parte) and 95/001,831 (inter partes request) — but the record ties those to the '894 patent, not the '110 (see Nomadix's mandatory notices, above). I found no reexamination record for the '110 either. If you find one in the file wrapper, treat this paragraph as corrected — I could not verify it.

Strategic summary

Claim status of the '110. All 36 claims are UNTESTED — no PTAB panel has ever construed or ruled on claims 1–36. That cuts both ways for a defendant: you get no free invalidity roadmap from a prior FWD, but you also carry none of the estoppel baggage that a prior petitioner would have imposed on itself. The claims were, however, narrowed by ordinary prosecution and were litigated at the district-court level: the '110 was one of seven patents asserted in Nomadix, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 09-cv-08441 (C.D. Cal., complaint dated 2009-11-17), and that case's Markman orders construed terms (e.g., "administrator," "physical location," "network location of the user host device") across the Nomadix family — but I could not verify from my searches which constructions were expressly applied to '110 claims, so do not import the HP constructions into a '110 chart without checking the orders. Flagging explicitly: my earlier summary section cites these Markman rulings as family-level context only.

Estoppel landscape. Because there are no AIA proceedings on the '110, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to anyone with respect to this patent's claims. Every art ground — § 102, § 103, § 112 — remains fully available to a defendant filing today. The only procedural levers that are gone are: (a) CBM review, which sunset on 2020-09-16 under AIA § 18 (and would arguably have been the best vehicle here — the '110's H04L 12/14 "Charging, metering or billing" classification and its "pay-per-use"/"bitmeter" billing-reconfiguration claims are classic CBM subject matter); and (b) meaningful PTAB amendment prospects, because the patent expired 2020-04-03. An IPR on an expired patent is still legally possible, but the Board applies Phillips claim construction and there is no opportunity to amend the claims back to life — which materially reduces the return on filing.

Pattern signals. (1) The same petitioner, Hospitality Core Services, filed five IPRs against Nomadix siblings on a single day and skipped the '110 — suggesting the '110 was not the commercially exposed patent in the 2014–2016 disputes. (2) I found no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) in the chain for the '110. (3) The patent owner (Nomadix) had no PTAB appeal to pursue on this patent because it was never a party to a PTAB trial on it. (4) Ownership is murky: the assignment record shows Nomadix → Gate Worldwide Holdings LLC (2018-01-23) and then a QUITCLAIM back to Nomadix, Inc. (2019-11-22), while Google Patents still lists Gate Worldwide Holdings LLC as current assignee. If you are evaluating a demand letter on the '110, verify standing/chain of title before anything else — a real party in interest with a quitclaimed-out patent is a live Article III issue, independent of validity.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not rely on PTAB invalidity. There is nothing on file to cite. If opposing counsel represents that the '110 claims were "already invalidated," demand the FWD — there isn't one for this patent. Conversely, if you are the patent owner's target, don't assume the claims have been tested; they haven't.

2. Reframe the defense around expiration, not invalidity. The '110 expired 2020-04-03 (20 years from the 2000-04-03 filing; the face of the record shows "Anticipated expiration 2020-04-03" / "Expired – Lifetime"). Under 35 U.S.C. § 286, recoverable damages are capped at the six years preceding suit. Any post-2020-04-03 accused conduct is outside the patent term. That, plus § 287 marking/notice and laches-adjacent equities on a 1999-priority patent asserted in 2026, is a cheaper and cleaner defense than an IPR.

3. If you do file at the PTAB, file an IPR, not a CBM. CBM is unavailable (sunset 2020-09-16). An IPR on an expired patent is permitted but expect Phillips construction and no amendment. Check institution-deadline mechanics: 6 months to a preliminary response, 3 months to institution, and the statutory 1-year FWD deadline from institution (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)) — though on an expired patent the Board sometimes moves faster.

4. Mine the family prior art, not the PTAB record. The WO 01/31883 A2 publication (the '110's own PCT, published 2001-05-03) and the reexamination art used against the sibling '894 patent are the productive hunting grounds. Note that the EPO search report in WO 2005/029769A1 cites WO 01/31883 A as X-category art against claims 1–10 of another application — evidence that the '110's disclosure, once published, was itself treated as anticipatory art, which tells you something about the crowdedness of this space.

5. Verify via primary sources before filing anything. I could not exhaustively query by patent number and hit a search-step limit. Confirm independently at PTAB E2E / PTAB Center (https://ptab.uspto.gov) and the USPTO Open Data Portal for AIA trials, and the Patent Public Search file wrapper for any reexamination of the '110. Also check CourtListener for any Federal Circuit appeal referencing 6,789,110 — I found none, but my appeals search was not exhaustive.

Explicit uncertainty statement: I am asserting, with high confidence, that no AIA trial proceeding has ever been instituted or even requested against US 6,789,110. I am not asserting that no proceeding exists somewhere — my searches were bounded and I could not complete a patent-number-indexed sweep of PTAB E2E. If a proceeding exists, it did not surface, and none of the proceeding numbers in this report should be read as belonging to the '110.

I'll research the assignment chain, the litigation, and the corporate entities involved before drafting.

I hit the tool step limit before finishing the RPX/Unified Patents lookups, so I'll flag those as gaps rather than guess. Here's the reconstruction based on the authoritative patent record plus the sources I did retrieve.

Important sourcing caveat (read first)

The USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) and its index (https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) expose reel/frame numbers and the correspondent of record on each recording. My searches did not return those fields for this patent, and I will not invent them. The assignment chain below is reconstructed from the Google Patents legal-events record for US 6,789,110 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6789110/en), which mirrors the underlying USPTO assignment data but does not publish reel/frame or correspondent. Treat every reel/frame and correspondent field as "not retrieved — must be pulled directly from Assignment Center." The conveyance types, parties, and dates below are grounded in the authoritative record.

Second caveat: this is a corporate-chain case, not a classic serial-LLC NPE chain. Several entries are security interests and releases, not ownership transfers — I separate those.

Inventors

Per the issued patent and the 2000-08-14 assignment (assignors named individually):

Pattern note: All four assigned to Nomadix, Inc. on 2000-08-14, roughly four months after the 2000-04-03 filing — a normal, clean employee-assignment record. I found no evidence of inventor departures within 12 months of filing, no pre-filing breakup, and no inventor-side re-assignment. This does not show the "inventors flee, then fire-sale" pattern. (I could not verify each inventor's later employment; that is a gap.)

Original assignee

Nomadix, Inc. — founded 1998; headquarters Westlake Village, California; founder cited as Leonard Kleinrock (UCLA networking pioneer). Primary line of business: public-access network gateways — the Nomadix Service Engine (NSE) software licensed to OEMs, physical Access Gateways, and bandwidth-management/traffic-optimizer products. The Nomadix_Service_Engine_NSS data sheet describes them as "the public access Gateway technology leader" selling Access Gateways and licensing NSE.

Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Yes — high confidence. The patent's own specification describes the gateway interface as physically embodied (controller + memory, embedded in an access controller/router, or on a PCMCIA card), and the company literature confirms commercial Access Gateway products. This is the Nomadix gateway product line, not a paper patent.

Current status: Operating subsidiary inside a distressed-acquisition holding structure, not dissolved:

• ~2015: Nomadix (and InterTouch Pte) acquired by InterTouch Holdings, LLC, a holding company formed by "Moorer."
• Financing: InterTouch Holdings executed a promissory note held by NTT Docomo (~$50M), with equity in InterTouch and Nomadix pledged as collateral (Koliner v. …, S.D. Ohio No. 2:19-cv-01999, Dkt. 27).
• 2017-09: default declared; 2018 NY state court action; court-supervised sale in fall 2018 in which Gate Worldwide Holdings (GWH) was the sole bidder; InterTouch holding companies filed Chapter 11 (dismissed 2019-01-10), after which the sale to GWH was confirmed.
• Today: Gate Worldwide Holdings LLC → GWHSPV, LLC → Nomadix, Inc., per Nomadix's own Certificate of Interested Parties filed in Nomadix, Inc. v. SIA Mikrotikls et al., No. 2:19-cv-10202 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2019). That filing identifies "GWHSPV, LLC, Parent Company of Nomadix, Inc.; and Gate Worldwide Holdings LLC, Parent Company of GWHSPV, LLC."

Assignment timeline

Chronological events from the Google Patents legal-events record (post-issuance and pre-issuance), matching USPTO assignment data. Reel/frame and correspondent not retrieved (see caveat).

• 2000-04-03 / filed 2000-04-03 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Application filing (not an assignment)
  • Assignor: n/a
  • Assignee: Nomadix, Inc. (applicant)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Original filing; priority to provisional 60/161,139 (1999-10-22).

• 2000-08-14 (executed) / recorded 2000-08-14 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Goldstein, Josh J.; Robbins, Barry R.; Short, Joel E.; Wandler, Andrew P. (individually)
  • Assignee: Nomadix, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Standard inventor-to-employer assignment (initial ownership).

• 2000-11-22 / recorded 2000-11-22 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: Nomadix, Inc.
  • Assignee: Comerica Bank-California
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization — venture debt / secured lending collateral, not a title transfer.

• 2003-11-10 / recorded 2003-11-10 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Reassignment and Release of Security Interest
  • Assignor: Comerica Bank, successor by merger to Comerica Bank-California
  • Assignee: Nomadix, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Release — Comerica's lien discharged; title never left Nomadix.

• 2004-09-07 — Issue/publication of US 6,789,110 B1 (not an assignment).

• 2015-09-30 / recorded 2015-09-30 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: Nomadix, Inc.
  • Assignee: NTT Docomo, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization tied to the 2015 InterTouch/Nomadix acquisition financing (the ~$50M Docomo promissory note); Docomo took collateral, not title.

• 2017-08-29 / recorded 2017-08-29 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Modification to Patent Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Nomadix, Inc.
  • Assignee: NTT Docomo, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization amendment — coincides with the September 2017 default declaration on the Docomo note.

• 2018-01-23 / recorded 2018-01-23 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Nomadix, Inc.
  • Assignee: Gate Worldwide Holdings LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Distressed acquisition — GWH took the patent assets (and, via the equity chain, the company) as sole bidder in the court-supervised InterTouch sale.

• 2018-01-23 / recorded 2018-01-23 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Patent Security Agreement
  • Assignor: NTT Docomo, Inc.
  • Assignee: Gate Worldwide Holdings LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization cleanup — Docomo's collateral position assigned to GWH (mirrors the assignment to GWH of the promissory note itself, described in Koliner).

• 2019-03-20 / recorded 2019-03-20 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: Nomadix, Inc.
  • Assignee: Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization — law-firm lien on patent rights (typically securing unpaid legal fees). Knobbe Martens is also the dominant prosecution firm on the Nomadix portfolio (53 applications per GreyB).

• 2019-05-28 / recorded 2019-05-28 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
  • Assignee: Nomadix, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Release — Knobbe lien discharged two months later.

• 2019-11-22 / recorded 2019-11-22 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Quitclaim
  • Assignor: Gate Worldwide Holdings LLC
  • Assignee: Nomadix, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Transfer-back of patent title to the operating entity — 10 days before Nomadix filed a new infringement action (see signal 5).

• 2020-04-03 — Anticipated expiration (not an assignment). Patent status: Expired – Lifetime.

No Assignment Center records found? Records do exist (the chain above), but I could not retrieve reel/frame or correspondent from my sources. A direct search at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ by patent number 6,789,110 is required to populate those two fields.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6789110
    1999 : Provisional filed Oct 22
    2000 : Application filed Apr 3
         : Inventors assign to Nomadix
         : Comerica security interest
    2003 : Comerica releases security interest
    2004 : Patent issued Sep 7
    2015 : NTT Docomo security interest
    2017 : Docomo security interest modified
    2018 : Assigned to Gate Worldwide Holdings
         : Docomo security deal assigned to GWH
    2019 : Knobbe Martens security interest
         : Knobbe releases security interest
         : Quitclaim back to Nomadix
         : Nomadix sues Mikrotikls Dec 2
    2020 : Anticipated expiration

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Reconciliation flag first: The earlier summary noted an "internally inconsistent" ownership record (Google Patents header says Gate Worldwide Holdings; a 2019-11-22 quitclaim runs to Nomadix). These are not actually contradictory: title to the patent was quitclaimed back to Nomadix, Inc., while equity ownership of Nomadix remained under GWHSPV, LLC → Gate Worldwide Holdings LLC (per the 2019 Mikrotikls Certificate of Interested Parties). So the owner of record is Nomadix; the corporate parent is GWH. I'm treating that as resolved, not a contradiction.

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear / partial. The patent did move from operating assignee Nomadix, Inc. to Gate Worldwide Holdings LLC, described in litigation as "a privately-held investment company based in New York" (Koliner, S.D. Ohio 2:19-cv-01999) — a "Holdings" suffix plus a non-operating address profile. But two facts cut against a pure shell finding: (a) GWH also acquired the operating company itself (Nomadix/InterTouch) as sole bidder in a court-supervised sale, not merely patents; and (b) GWH quitclaimed the patent back to Nomadix on 2019-11-22. Concrete evidence exists for the "investment-company assignee" fact but not for a licensing-only single-purpose shell. Call: unclear.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present (with a lookup gap). None of the named entities — Nomadix, Comerica Bank-California, NTT Docomo, Gate Worldwide Holdings, Knobbe Martens — matches the public NPE lists named in the brief (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, DGC, Spangenberg entities). Gap: I could not complete the Unified Patents / RPX high-frequency-plaintiff lookups (tool limit). Note Unified Patents' portal does index this family (e.g. US-8266269, US-9160674 list Gate Worldwide Holdings as assignee), which is where RPX/Unified would flag it if it were a tracked asserter.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / data not available. Correspondent-of-record is exactly the field I could not retrieve. The functional repeat player is Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, which appears twice in the chain (2019-03-20 as secured party and 2019-05-28 as releasor) and is the dominant prosecution firm on the Nomadix portfolio (53 applications per GreyB) — but a law firm appearing as secured creditor/prosecutor is not the same as the shell-LLC-running correspondent the brief targets. No finding without reel-level correspondent data.

4. Cascading transfers through chained LLCs in <24 months — not present. The 2018–2019 activity is a distressed-acquisition cleanup (assignment to GWH, assignment of Docomo's security agreement, two Knobbe lien events, and a quitclaim back), not a string of successively-named LLCs. No evidence of shared single-purpose-LLC ownership.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — present (notable). The quitclaim from Gate Worldwide Holdings to Nomadix, Inc. was recorded 2019-11-22, and *Nomadix filed Nomadix, Inc. v. SIA Mikrotikls et al., No. 2:19-cv-10202 (C.D. Cal.), on 2019-12-02* — 10 days later. This "tidy the title record, then assert" sequence is the classic standing/venue-cleanup tell. (Dates from the Google Patents legal-events and the Justia docket; confirm execution vs. recording dates at Assignment Center.) The chain was also later used in the 2009 HP/iBAHN campaign and 2010 Solutionic campaign (same patent family, different patents-in-suit).

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — present. The acquisition that moved this patent to GWH arose from a loan default and bankruptcy: InterTouch Holdings/InterTouch Topco filed Chapter 11 in Delaware (dismissed 2019-01-10), Exceptional Innovation, Inc. went to Chapter 7 in Feb 2019, and Quadriga Worldwide entered UK insolvency — all per Koliner (S.D. Ohio 2:19-cv-01999). The Nomadix equity was pledged collateral on the ~$50M NTT Docomo note; GWH was the sole bidder at the court-supervised sale. This is a genuine distressed-acquisition origin — though note the bankrupt entities are the holding parents, and the patent's assignee of record was the operating Nomadix.

7. Privateering — not present. No evidence surfaced that GWH (or Docomo) is asserting this patent on behalf of a competitor. The 2019 plaintiff of record is Nomadix itself.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at Nomadix, Inc., which is an active litigant.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The current owner of record is Nomadix, Inc. (via the 2019-11-22 quitclaim from Gate Worldwide Holdings), and Nomadix is a product company that sells/licensed Access Gateway products and NSE software embodying this gateway-interface technology — it filed infringement actions against actual competitors (HP/iBAHN, 2009; Solutionic, 2010; SIA Mikrotikls, 2019), which is operating-company assertion rather than patent-only monetization. That said, the record carries two genuine stress signals that keep this out of the "clean operating company" bin: (i) a bankruptcy fire-sale origin (the 2018 court-supervised sale to GWH as sole bidder after the Docomo default and InterTouch Chapter 11, per Koliner, S.D. Ohio 2:19-cv-01999), and (ii) a pre-litigation title cleanup — quitclaim to Nomadix recorded 2019-11-22, new suit filed 2019-12-02. Because those signals attach to a distressed corporate parent, not to an anonymous licensing LLC, I stop short of "NPE — moderate."

If, on a direct Assignment Center pull, the reel/frame correspondent turns out to be a single repeat NPE-recording attorney across the 2018 and 2019 links, the verdict should be upgraded to NPE — moderate confidence. That is the one determinative field I could not retrieve.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 6,789,110) — and cross-check the 2019-12-02 docket at https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/2:2019cv10202/[766115](/patent/766115).

I'll research the prior art cited against US 6,789,110, searching for its citation records.

Let me find the actual "References Cited" / citations section of the patent itself.

I found the "Referenced Cited" section. Let me get the complete list from the Justia and Google Patents pages.

Retrieval Note

I located the citation record for US 6,789,110 B1 through USPTO-derived public databases — Justia Patents (https://patents.justia.com/patent/6789110, "Referenced Cited" section) and Google Patents (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6789110/en). The Google Patents record and the authoritative full text provided in the task do not reproduce the "References Cited" front-page section (the fetched text jumps from the abstract/description straight into the claims), so the Justia front-page citation list is my primary source below. I did not log directly into USPTO PatentCenter; if the prosecution-era citation list differs from the issued front page, this is a search-result limit, not a definitive negative.

I also want to be explicit about scope: the search budget did not allow me to pull the full specification text of each individual cited reference. Where I describe a reference's content, I flag whether it is verified from the record or an inference from the citation metadata (number/title/inventor/date) that I could not fully verify. I will not invent claim-mapping facts.

Complete Citation List for US 6,789,110 B1 (as retrieved)

A. U.S. Patent Documents

B. Foreign Patent Document

C. Other References / Non-Patent Literature

Note on completeness: Justia's "Referenced Cited" list returned to me contains these entries. The list I could retrieve appears shorter than a typical Nomadix front page (which usually also cites Nomadix's own earlier applications by serial number — e.g., Ser. Nos. 08/816,174 and 09/458,602, which appear in the specification text). Those cross-references appear in the body of the patent (see the "CROSS-REFERENCE" and background sections of the authoritative text provided to you), but I could not confirm they appear on the front-page citation list. Treat the front-page list above as complete-as-retrieved but not independently re-verified against the physical issued patent.

Per-Reference Analysis (35 U.S.C. § 102)

Critical framing for § 102 analysis. The application US 09/541,877 was filed 2000-04-03, claiming priority to provisional US 60/161,139, dated 1999-10-22. The critical date for § 102(a)/§ 102(b)/§ 102(e) analysis is therefore on/around 1999-10-22 to 2000-04-03. Two consequences:

1. Several cited published applications (US 2001/0047392; US 2002/0152311; US 2003/0061619) published after the critical date. They can only be § 102(e) art (as of their own earlier U.S. filing dates), and only if their filing dates precede the critical date. Whether they qualify as prior art at all depends on filing dates I could not retrieve.
2. Because the patent's independent claims (per the previously generated summary: claims 1, 17 (likely), 21, 26, 29) are directed to a dynamic, interactive, in-session information-and-control console delivered by a gateway, most of the cited references are unlikely to be true single-reference anticipators. They are more plausibly § 103 (obviousness) combinations. I flag that rather than force § 102 labels.

Bottom Line

• Strongest § 102 candidates (date-wise): the pre-critical-date references — Edell et al. (1995), Fujino et al. (1997), and WO 99/65183 (Dec. 1999). Of these, Edell is the most substantively relevant because it maps onto the dynamic billing concepts of claims 21/26 — but it is a pricing paper, not a gateway-console disclosure, so it is best cast as § 103 art.
• The U.S. patents (Ginzboorg, Parsons, Itakura, Van Horne, Sitaraman ×2, Nixon): date-qualified as prior art, but based on their citation metadata none appears to disclose the combination of (a) gateway-delivered console packets, (b) sent repeatedly during an existing session, and (c) enabling the user to reconfigure the session/billing/service mid-session that defines independent claims 1, 21, 26, and 29. I found no single-reference § 102 anticipator on the retrieved record; the realistic attack vector is § 103.
• The 2001–2003 published applications are, on their face, too late to be § 102(a)/(b) art and qualify at most under § 102(e) if their filing dates precede the critical date — which I could not verify.

Confidence & Cross-Reference

• Citation list and dates: moderate-to-high confidence (from Justia's front-page "Referenced Cited" section; the Google Patents text I retrieved did not include the front-page citations, so I could not independently cross-confirm every entry).
• Descriptions of references 1–10: low confidence — flagged above as inferred, not verified from full text. I deliberately did not fabricate element-by-element disclosures.
• § 102 claim mapping: analytical, not verified. No confirmed single-reference anticipator identified.

Consistency check with prior sections: No contradiction, but one caveat — the previously generated summary established that the claim text supplied truncates at claim 15, so my mapping relies on independent claims 1, 17 (likely), 21, 26, 29. If fuller claim text later reveals additional independent claims among 15–16 or 30–36, the § 102 mapping above would need to be extended, since those claims were not available for element-by-element comparison.

I'll gather the prior-art record for US 6,789,110 before analyzing. Let me search for the cited references and any validity challenges.

Let me pull the specific prior-art references of record and any PTAB challenges.

Let me try to retrieve the patent's front-page "References Cited" list directly.

Obviousness Analysis — US 6,789,110 B1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Threshold caveat on the "Prior Art section"

I do not have the "Prior Art section" you referenced. The patent text supplied to me contains the Google Patents header, classification block, definition transcript, description, and abstract, but the front-page "References Cited" / "Cited By" listings were not included in the extraction and my searches did not retrieve them (my attempts to pull the front-page citation list and were cut off at the tool limit).

Rather than invent a citation list, I did the next best thing: I recovered the prior-art record that is actually on file in the Nomadix litigation/PTAB docket, which is where the real §103 fights over this family occurred. Everything below is labeled by source and confidence. Anything marked "[record-verified]" comes from a source I actually retrieved; anything marked "[domain knowledge — unverified]" is my own recollection and should be independently checked before being relied on.

This matters because the strongest §103 case against the '110 patent is not built from the gateway/redirection art the examiner already had; it is built by adding the client-side pop-up/banner art that the examiner apparently never considered.

1. Legal framework applied

• Pre-AIA § 103(a) governs. The '110 patent has a priority date of 1999-10-22 and was filed 2000-04-03, so the AIA's § 102/103 do not apply. The critical date for prior art is therefore 1999-10-22 (with a possible § 102(b) critical date of 1998-10-22 for printed publications if the provisional's priority is defeated on any claim).
• § 102(e) references. Several of the references below issued after the critical date (e.g., U.S. 6,226,677 issued 2001-05-01; U.S. 6,321,336 issued 2001-11-20; U.S. 6,182,139 issued 2001-01-30). They are nonetheless available as prior art if their U.S. filing dates (including provisionals) precede 1999-10-22 and they are "by another." I have not verified each filing date, and that is the single most important thing to verify before relying on any ground below.
• KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Applicable to evaluating any 2004-issued patent. Combines: (i) known technique improving a similar device; (ii) simple substitution of a known element to obtain predictable results; (iii) use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement; (iv) design incentives / market forces.
• Graham v. John Deere factors — scope and content of prior art, differences, PHOSITA level, secondary considerations.
• Claim construction note that cuts against the patent: In Nomadix, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. CV-09-08441 DDP (VBKx) (C.D. Cal.), the court rejected the defendants' proposed requirement that the claimed method steps be performed in the recited order, holding the patent "anticipates multiple requests and flexibility in the order of claim steps" (retrieved at https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/2:2009cv08441/[459068/458](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=459068-0458)/0.pdf). That broad reading makes the "during the established network session" limitations easier to meet with prior art, which helps an obviousness challenger.

2. Limitation decomposition of the independent claims

Building on the earlier section (which I do not repeat), the independent claims reduce to these elements:

The only limitation that is arguably novel against the gateway/portal art is the combination of E3+E4+E5 — a persistent, repeatedly refreshed, interactive, session-reconfiguring console delivered by the gateway. E1, E2 and E6–E9 are all squarely in the prior art.

3. Prior art available on the record I retrieved

3a. Record-verified references (Nomadix litigation / PTAB)

These were retrieved from the Nomadix docket and are confirmed to exist and to have been asserted against this patent family:

Two important consequences:

1. IPR2016-00092 established that Slemmer alone was close to anticipating the family's redirection claims. The Board instituted on Slemmer + Vu under § 103(a) for claims 1–20 of U.S. 8,364,806, a later continuation in the same specification family (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2016-00092/.../Decision_Granting_Institution). Nomadix's Preliminary Response argued that the PTO had already considered all five references (Slemmer, Vu, both IPORT papers, Applegate) during prosecution — which is a double-edged fact: it establishes these are of-record prior art for the family (helpful to a challenger's § 103 reasonable-expectation-to-succeed argument) but also supports Nomadix's § 325(d) redundancy defense.
2. The '110 specification itself incorporates the "Nomadic Router" work by reference (Ser. No. 08/816,174, filed 1997-03-12, and 08/816,714). The corresponding WO 98/40990 published in September 1998 — more than one year before the 1999-10-22 priority date. If that publication date is confirmed, WO 98/40990 is § 102(b) prior art as a printed publication regardless of common inventorship or assignment (the "by another" requirement applies only to § 102(e)/(f)/(g), not to printed publications under § 102(a)/(b)). This is the most dangerous single reference for the '110 patent because it discloses the transparent gateway, the packet translation, and the portal/redirect architecture — i.e., E1 and E2. [Confidence: moderate — I have the publication reference from a litigation filing and the incorporation-by-reference from the specification, but I have not verified the WO's exact publication date.]

3b. Field-level references I identify from domain knowledge — not verified as of record

Flag: I did not confirm that these were before the examiner or in the litigation record. They are the references I would expect a competent § 103 petitioner to run down, and I state their expected teachings with a confidence caveat rather than as verified fact:

• U.S. 5,572,643 (Judson) — "Web browser with dynamic display of information objects during linking." Expected teaching: a server-supplied information object displayed in a window on the client's monitor during a browsing session, while the browser is otherwise occupied — i.e., E3/E4.
• U.S. 5,933,811 (Angles) — "System and method for delivering customized advertisements within interactive communication systems." Expected teaching: user-profile-based targeting of delivered content — i.e., E4/E7, claims 4, 10, 11.
• U.S. 5,948,061 (Merriman / DoubleClick) — delivery, targeting and measuring of advertising over networks.
• U.S. 5,796,967 (Filepp et al.) — server-side substitution/injection of executable content (applets) into web pages — i.e., the gateway-applet delivery mechanism recited in the '110 specification ("applets take the form of the information and control consoles").
• The 1998–1999 commercial "free ISP" client (NetZero / Juno / similar) — a persistent, always-visible client-side banner showing session time remaining and usage against a prepaid allowance, refreshed continuously, alongside advertising. This is the closest commercial analogue to FIGS. 2–6 and I would expect corresponding patents; I cannot give you a patent number with confidence and will not guess one.

Reference-by-reference caveat: Judson and Angles are pre-1997/1999 references whose general subject matter I am confident about, but I am not confident about their precise claim-level disclosures, and their publication dates and § 102 status should be independently verified.

4. Proposed § 103 grounds

Ground 1 — Slemmer in view of the IPORT papers, optionally with Vu

Targets claims 1, 17, 21, 26, 29 (E1, E2, E6).

• Slemmer supplies E1: a hospitality-establishment gateway that intercepts a guest's network request and redirects the unconfigured guest computer to a locally served page, with no client-side reconfiguration. Vu supplies the authenticated-access-control layer (E1's authorization step). IPORT supplies a commercial, pre-critical-date (Nov. 1998) hotel internet-access system with web-based sign-up and selectable service/billing tiers — i.e., E2 and much of E5's subject matter (service selection), though not yet E5's mid-session mechanism.
• Motivation: all three are in the identical field of endeavor (guest/hotel broadband access gateways), address the same problem (authenticating and monetizing transient users without touching their laptops), and the Board itself found the combination of Slemmer and a secondary reference sufficient to institute trial. KSR rationale (i): known technique (web-based tiered provisioning) applied to a known device (a redirection gateway) ready for improvement.
• Residual gap: E3 ("repeatedly throughout the session") and E5 (mid-session reconfiguration) are not cleanly met. Ground 1 alone is not enough. It is the foundation, not the conclusion.

Ground 2 — Ground 1 + Judson (pop-up information object) + Angles (profile targeting) ← the primary obviousness case

Targets the core limitations E3/E4/E5 and dependent claims 3–16.

This is the ground I would lead with, because it closes exactly the gap the examiner's art left.

• Mapping:
  • E1/E2 → Slemmer + Vu + IPORT (Ground 1).
  • E3 ("sending the ICC packets repeatedly throughout the network session") → Judson's dynamically displayed information object(s), which by design are supplied during browsing rather than once at log-in, plus routine HTTP refresh/keep-alive as taught in RFC 1945.
  • E4 ("generating … on a monitor of the host computer … user-specific data") → Judson (client-window rendering) + Angles (user-profile-derived content).
  • E5 (mid-session reconfiguration) → IPORT's tiered service/billing selection combined with RFC 2139 RADIUS Accounting, which the petitioner already put in the record and which supplies the session-accounting data (elapsed time, bytes) needed to compute and act on mid-session state. The gateway's ability to change a session's authorization mid-stream is the natural RADIUS "session management" extension.
  • E6 (monitoring fields in claim 18) → RFC 2139 (session start/stop, elapsed time, octets in/out, session termination cause) + Slemmer/IPORT billing records.
• Motivation to combine (state it explicitly, because this is the crux):
  1. Same field, same problem. Both the gateway art and the client-window art address the transient, self-provisioning network user. Slemmer/IPORT put the user at a browser; Judson delivers information to that same browser. Combining them requires no change in principle of operation — it is the classic KSR "arrangement of old elements, each performing the function it was known to perform."
  2. The specification's own stated rationale supplies the motivation. The '110 specification expressly states the business problem: the "typical, infrequent gateway interface user will be unfamiliar with billing and service structure," and the administrator "needs to be able to provide the user/subscriber with real-time information pertaining to the network session(s) that the user currently has on-going." That is a recognized problem in the prior art at the critical date, and the asserted solution (push a refreshed information window to the user's browser) is the predictable solution once Judson/Angles are known.
  3. The one-time portal page is an obvious deficiency. Slemmer/IPORT's redirect page is transient by construction; the well-known market incentive to keep guests informed and upsold throughout a paid session supplies the "design incentive" and "market forces" rationale of KSR.
  4. Simple substitution. Substituting a continuously refreshed, interactive client window for a static, one-time portal page is a substitution of a known element (dynamic web content delivery, Judson) to obtain a predictable result (the user sees current information).
• Dependent claims: 3 (physical location — Slemmer/IPORT assign by room/port; and per the C.D. Cal. construction, "physical location" is not limited to a port), 4–6 (profile built by querying the user or logging sites — Angles/Merriman), 7–16 (links to other networks, marketing, advertising, surveys — conventional web UI, per Judson/Angles and the specification's own admission that such links are "infinite possibilities").

Ground 3 — Any of the above in view of the free-ISP persistent usage-meter client

Targets claims 1, 21, 26 and FIGS. 2–6 specifically.

The prepaid-credit / expiration-time / running-charge meter with a persistent on-screen window (E4, E5, E6) is the whole point of FIGS. 2–6, and it was commercialized before the critical date by advertising-supported ISPs. Motivation: the gateway operator's revenue goal (upsell bandwidth; let users "top up") and the "cost-effective networking" concern the specification itself recites. Confidence caveat: I have not verified a specific reference number for this system — this ground needs documentary development (archived client software, press coverage, or the corresponding patents) before it can be relied upon, and it is the ground most vulnerable to a "non-analogous art / different field" rejoinder.

Ground 4 — Heartbeats (claims 19–20)

• E8 is met by ordinary, well-known client-liveness techniques: HTTP session keep-alives (RFC 1945), RADIUS session accounting and interim updates (RFC 2139), and the time-out/re-authenticate logic in Vu and Freund (U.S. 5,987,611, a client-network-access management reference already in the family's record).
• Motivation: the specification gives the reason itself — the operator must know whether the user still has the console open (a) to keep billing correctly and (b) to know when to push a fresh console. That is a routine engineering choice (poll the client; act on absence of a response) with a predictable result. Under KSR this is close to a per-se obviousness case.

Ground 5 — Claim 29 (Beauregard-style storage-medium claim)

• Claim 29 recites the same method as claim 1, re-cast as instructions on a machine-readable medium. It adds no technical limitation and carries no independent patentable weight: once claim 1's method is obvious, claim 29 falls with it (In re Beauregard; In re Abele). No separate combination is needed; Grounds 2 and 3 dispose of it.

5. Where the challenger is weak (and a defendant should expect to lose)

I will not overstate the case. The following are genuine obstacles:

1. The "repeatedly throughout the network session" + "re-configure during the established session" combination is the inventive kernel. Nomadix will argue that none of Slemmer, Vu, IPORT or Applegate discloses a persistent, gateway-served, session-reconfiguring console, and that the pop-up-advertising art is non-analogous (it concerns website monetization, not network access provisioning). The counter is KSR's "same field of endeavor / same problem" framing and the fact that the gateway is itself the web server delivering the portal — but this is a jury question, not a slam dunk.
2. § 325(d). Nomadix successfully argued in IPR2016-00092 that the PTO had already considered the five core references. A petitioner relying primarily on Slemmer/Vu/IPORT/Applegate will face a discretionary-denial argument; the winning petition must lead with art not before the examiner (i.e., the client-side window/targeting art).
3. § 102(e)/§ 102(b) date proof. Slemmer, Applegate, Cohen, Bowker and Brendel all issued after 1999-10-22. Their availability depends on filing/provisional dates I have not verified. If any of those filing dates post-date 1999-10-22, that reference drops out.
4. The "'110's own priority document" problem cuts both ways. The provisional is U.S. 60/161,139 with a 1999-10-22 date. The '110 issued in 2004, well after KSR's precursor case law, and its claims were allowed over the redirection art. If Nomadix can show the console concept was disclosed in the 1999 provisional, that does not defeat § 103 (obviousness is measured at the critical date, not the filing date), but it does foreclose any attempt to knock out the priority date.
5. Secondary considerations. I found no evidence of record of commercial success, long-felt need, copying, or industry praise tied to the '110 claims specifically. The patent expired 2020-04-03 and is now unenforceable-by-expiration, and no IPR is available against an expired patent on these facts — which is why the § 103 question here is largely historical/academic unless it resurfaces in a damages tail or a related-family dispute.
6. My incomplete claim set. As flagged in the earlier section, the claim text I have truncates in claim 15, and I have only snippet-level confidence for claims 17–29 and no verified text for claims 30–36. My analysis therefore cannot be complete for the dependent claims 15–16 and 30–36, and any conclusion about those claims would be speculation.

6. Bottom line

• Most likely-to-succeed combination: Slemmer (U.S. 6,226,677) + Vu (U.S. 5,623,601) + the IPORT Nov. 1998 white papers, further in view of a client-side dynamically displayed information window (Judson-type) and user-profile-targeted content delivery (Angles-type). Ground 1 alone gets you E1/E2/E6; the client-side art is what gets you E3/E4/E5.
• Motivation is well supported by (a) same field of endeavor, (b) the specification's own recitation of the unrecognized-need problem (guest confusion over billing/bandwidth), (c) market/design incentive to keep a paying user informed and upsold throughout a session, and (d) mere substitution of a refreshed interactive window for a one-time static portal page.
• The strongest single independent threat is not a combination at all: it is Nomadix's own WO 98/40990 (Short et al.), cited in the Blueprint inequitable-conduct allegations, which — if its September 1998 publication date is confirmed — is § 102(b) art as against the '110 patent's 1999-10-22 priority date and discloses the transparent gateway and packet-translation architecture. Verify that publication date first.
• Caveats you must not skip: the "References Cited" front-page list for the '110 patent is missing from my materials; several § 102(e) references' filing dates are unverified; and claims 15–16 and 30–36 are not in my possession. I have flagged every such gap rather than fill it.