US 6957107

I'll search for authoritative information on US 6,957,107 and any 2026 litigation activity.

Let me verify the claim set and check for any 2026 litigation or PTAB activity specific to this patent.

Let me retrieve the actual claim language for US 6,957,107.

US Patent 6,957,107 — Analyst Summary

Search scope note: I checked public sources (Google Patents, the USPTO patent-images PDF, uspto.report, and search results surfacing USPTO/PTAB/CAFC material). I found no evidence of any 2026 Federal Circuit docket activity involving U.S. 6,957,107, and no PTAB proceeding naming it as the challenged patent. I cannot confirm a negative from a keyword search alone, so treat that as "no evidence found," not as a certified absence. One PTAB petition artifact (a document index at ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1557860/) includes the bare string "6957107" in a long list of numbers; that is a list artifact, not a challenge to this patent, and I would not characterize it as litigation activity.

Bibliographic data

Literal-reading cautions (do not auto-correct):

• The granted patent's front page lists the first inventor as Bobby E. Rogers, but the June 27, 2002 USPTO assignment record for this application lists the assignor as "ROGERS, ROBERT E." These identifiers differ; I am reporting both verbatim rather than harmonizing them.
• Prior-art date is recorded as 2002-03-13 while the Unified Patents record for the companion publication shows a 2002-03-12 priority date (corresponding to the PCT filing carried as priority on 2003-03-12). These dates do not match; I am not reconciling them.

Abstract (verbatim)

"A method and apparatus for communicating with and monitoring the operation of a device implanted within a patient. A transceiver capable of being implanted within a patient provides a communication interface between an implanted medical device and a monitor external to the patient's body. The external monitor can communicate with a remote monitoring center over a communication network. The external monitor also provides control signals to the implanted device via the transceiver unit. The transceiver apparatus is capable of two-way communication between the implanted device and the external monitor. The transceiver apparatus is also capable of detecting actions performed by the implanted device and physiological signals directly from the patient's body. Thus, the transceiver apparatus provides circuitry for determining whether an implanted medical device is operating properly. The transceiver apparatus provides a way to remotely reprogram one or more implanted medical devices."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Important limitation on this section: the authoritative full text supplied to me ends partway through the detailed description ("In some embodiments, a periodic interrogation of the implantable transcei…") and does not include the numbered claim set. I therefore could not verify verbatim claim language or which claim numbers are independent. What follows is reconstructed from the patent's "Summary of the Invention," which is drafted in claim-like language and matches the two stated "aspects" of the invention. Treat it as a faithful paraphrase of the claimed subject matter, not as verbatim claim text, and verify claim 1 and the other independent claim(s) directly before relying on them.

Independent Claim type 1 — Transceiver apparatus (appears to correspond to claim 1).
An apparatus for use with (a) a medical device implanted in a living being and (b) an external monitor. It has four cooperating parts:

1. a communication system that communicates with both the implanted device and the external monitor;
2. a memory that stores digital information;
3. a control system that executes instructions held in the memory and manages the communication system; and
4. a power supply powering the communication system, control system, and memory.

The distinguishing concept in the specification is that this transceiver is "electronically independent" of the implanted device — i.e., no hard electrical connection, only wireless interface — so it can be implanted alongside a pre-existing IMD without replacing or rewiring that IMD.

Independent Claim type 2 — Implantable transceiver apparatus with sensor and hermetic case (a second independent claim; number unverified).
An implantable transceiver that monitors an implanted device and provides a communication interface to an external monitor. It recites:

1. at least one two-way transceiver for communicating with the external monitor and/or the implanted device;
2. at least one sensor for detecting stimulus generated by the implanted device and/or by the living being;
3. a memory for storing digital information;
4. a control system executing stored instructions, managing the two-way transceiver, and managing sensor detection;
5. a power supply for the transceiver(s), sensor(s), control system, and memory; and
6. a hermetically sealed case suitable for implantation housing the transceiver(s), sensor(s), control system, and memory.

The claimed functional core is the independent observation capability: the implanted transceiver both listens to the IMD's own reports and independently senses physiological signals from the patient, enabling a comparison to determine whether the IMD is performing as it "thinks" it is (specification language).

Whether any method claim is independent is uncertain. The title says "Method and apparatus," and FIG. 7 / FIG. 7A / FIG. 11 describe method flows (remote reprogramming, automatic reprogramming, and medical-personnel notification), but I have no authoritative claim text confirming that independent method claims exist. The dependent-claim universe (19 claims) plausibly covers items such as: Bluetooth and IEEE 802.11b wireless techniques; separate transceiver units for multiple IMDs; ROM/RAM variants (PROM, EPROM, EEPROM, flash, SRAM, DRAM); control system implemented as a programmable logic device, microprocessor, microcontroller, FPGA, or ASIC; induction or motion-based recharging; GPS/relative-position determination; magnetic-field, analog, and digital communication modes for legacy vs. new IMDs; and the multi-contact priority database and escalation logic of FIGS. 9–11. This is inference from the specification, not a reading of claims.

Litigation / docket context

• No 2026 CAFC docket entry for 6,957,107 found. Consistent with the patent's recorded expiration on 2023-01-30, which would end any live infringement claim for post-expiration conduct (though past damages can survive expiration while a suit is pending).
• Historically, the CardioNet / Braemar family was litigated against InfoBionic (D. Mass. 1:15-cv-11803 and 1:17-cv-10445; Fed. Cir. 2020, appeal nos. 2019-1149 and 20-1018) and against Mednet Healthcare Technologies / MedTel 24 (E.D. Pa. 2:12-cv-02516), plus ScottCare (Fed. Cir. 19-2263, 2020). Those cases asserted the '207, '237, '850, '996 and '095 patents — the five patents assigned to Braemar on Dec. 31, 2012. US 6,957,107 is not among those five patents and I found no source asserting it in those actions.
• The 2012 CardioNet→Braemar assignment and the back-license to CardioNet (Braemar retains all other rights) are described in the E.D. Pa. complaint; that chain is consistent with Braemar Manufacturing LLC appearing as current assignee of 6,957,107 on Google Patents.

Explicit uncertainty flags

1. Claim text is unverified. No authoritative verbatim claim set for 6,957,107 was retrieved. The claim overview above is a paraphrase of the Summary of the Invention and may differ in wording, ordering, or scope from the granted claims; independent-claim numbering is unknown.
2. "No CAFC 2026 docket" is a search-based negative, not a certified absence. Authoritative confirmation requires a PACER/CAFC docket query by party name (Braemar Manufacturing, CardioNet) and a USPTO Patent Center / PTAB assignment check on application 10/099,929.
3. Filename/index-level hits containing "6957107" (e.g., the PTAB petition document index, third-party patent "References Cited" lists) are not evidence of proceedings against this patent.
4. Inventor-name and priority-date discrepancies noted above are reported as recorded, not corrected.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6957107/en · https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/34/03/c2/e14226db364786/US6957107.pdf · https://uspto.report/patent/grant/6957107 · https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-20030172940-A1 · https://www.govinfo.gov/metadata/pkg/USCOURTS-mad-1_15-cv-11803/ · http://knobbemedical.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Complaint-against-MedNet.pdf · https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[4765168](/patent/4765168)/braemar-manufacturing-llc-v-the-scottcare-corporation/