US Patent 6,965,920 — Summary

Bibliographic data

Source: Google Patents (patents.google.com/patent/US6965920/en), USPTO assignment records, FreePatentsOnline.

Abstract (as published)

"A system and method for the central specification and management of how messages are distributed to recipients with the steps of: a recipient profile system for entering and storing rules about how to distribute specific types of messages and content from specific messengers to individual recipients, a messenger profile system where messengers can enter, store and maintain his identification information and the types of message services he/she will offer to recipients, a message input system where messengers manually or automatically can enter messages or upload message files for distribution to recipients with a valid recipient profile, an individual message generator combining the data from recipient profile and the message from the message input system into a plurality of individual messages for recipients as specified by the messenger."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 (system) — An electronic message management system built around a computer system connected to a global digital network and a message-management database. It has four software components:

1. a recipient profile application that lets recipients enter, over the network, profile data specifying delivery parameters — where, when, and how specific types of messages from specific messengers should be delivered to them;
2. a messenger profile application that lets messengers enter their identifying data over the network;
3. a message input application that receives and stores message files from messengers; and
4. an individual message generator that reads the database and generates an individual message to the recipient designated by the messenger, delivered over the network according to the recipient's delivery parameters.

It also requires a server operating system and a database comprising separate recipient-profile, messenger-profile, and message databases. Dependent claims 2–7, 12, and 14–18 add details such as web-based input forms, editors, messenger-supplied recipient profiles, blocklists, and delivery channels (e-mail, voice, fax, digital transmission, hardcopy/paper, magnetic or optical media).

Claim 8 (method) — A method of entering data into the claim 1 system from client computers over a global network to centrally manage distribution and delivery format of messages from multiple messengers to multiple recipients. Steps: (a) give messenger and recipient client computers access to the system; (b) receive a connectivity request; (c) connect the client computer over the network; (d) prompt for data by presenting a data input form; and (e) accept the input and store it in the message-management database. Dependent claims 9–11 specify the input forms (recipient profile form, messenger profile form, message input form) and the databases used.

CAFC 2026 docket status (search results, current ground truth)

• Case: Pedersen v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 2024-2090 (Fed. Cir.), appeal from PTAB IPR2023-00029 (origin: PTO).
• Disposition (March 26, 2026, nonprecedential): The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's Final Written Decision holding claims 1 and 14–17 of the '920 patent unpatentable as obvious. The court found the Board's obviousness determination supported by substantial evidence (prior art "Funk" in view of "Law" or "Kamakura"), including that the prior art disclosed recipient-specified, messenger-specific delivery parameters. Panel: Lourie and Hughes, Circuit Judges, and Kleeh, Chief District Judge. Judgment entered March 26, 2026 (per CourtListener entry 44/45; govinfo metadata confirms opinion filed 2026-03-26, service 2026-03-26).
• Oral argument: Audio posted on the CAFC website (case 2024-2090); argument heard February 6, 2026.
• Sources: cafc.uscourts.gov opinion page, govinfo.gov (USCOURTS-ca13-24-02090), vitallaw.com case report, PatSnap litigation summary, CourtListener docket 72243275.

Litigation context (broader)

The patent has been heavily litigated: multiple W.D. Tex. cases (e.g., 6:21-cv-01152 through 6:22-cv-00927) against Google, Microsoft, Oracle, Salesforce, Adobe, Intuit, Zendesk, etc., an N.D. Tex. declaratory action by SAP (3:22-cv-01534), and PTAB IPRs IPR2023-00029 (final decision), IPR2023-00867 (settled), and IPR2023-00986 (settled). The Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists Pedersen as an individual NPE asserter of this patent.

Uncertainty notes

• The Google Patents page lists the "current assignee" as Pedersen and shows 2021-10-19 assignments to and from Sympatia ApS; the current chain of title is not fully verified here.
• The March 26, 2026 affirmance is nonprecedential; I did not independently verify whether a mandate has issued or whether any petition for rehearing/rehearing en banc is pending. The CAFC opinion page and vitallaw both characterize the outcome as an affirmance.
• One search result returned an unrelated patent, U.S. 6,596,296 (Boston Scientific stent case, No. 24-2062); that is a different patent number and is not the subject of this summary.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 6,965,920. Let me run several searches to gather case details.

Good initial results. Let me search for the PTAB proceedings, the CAFC appeal, and additional case details.

Let me get more details on the remaining cases, including the PTAB settlements and the more recent district court filings.

Based on my research, I can now provide a comprehensive summary of the known litigation involving US Patent 6,965,920 ("Profile responsive electronic message management system," inventor Peter Henrik Pedersen).

Litigation Involving US Patent 6,965,920

The patent has been involved in an extensive enforcement campaign. Virtually all district-court cases were filed by Peter Henrik Pedersen (the inventor/individual patent holder; the patent was assigned to Sympatia APS and back to Pedersen in October 2021) in the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright. Plaintiff was represented by William P. Ramey III (Ramey LLP).

A. District Court Cases — Pedersen as Plaintiff (W.D. Tex.)

B. Declaratory Judgment Action

C. PTAB Inter Partes Review Proceedings

D. Federal Circuit Appeal

Key Takeaways

1. Most significant development: The patent's main asserted claims (1 and 14–17) were invalidated as obvious in IPR2023-00029, and that decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on March 26, 2026. This is the most consequential outcome to date.
2. The campaign was broad: At least 20+ district-court cases were filed, primarily against major tech/marketing platforms (Google, Microsoft, Oracle, Salesforce, Adobe, Intuit, Yahoo/Verizon, SAP, Zendesk, Wix, Monday.com, Blackbaud, Constant Contact, Zoho, etc.).
3. Outcomes varied: Some cases terminated (Google, Yahoo), some were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice (SAP America), one was transferred intra-district (Oracle to Austin), and several remained open as of the latest data.
4. Settlements: Both Oracle's and Adobe's IPR petitions were terminated due to settlement in October 2023.

Caveats: For several of the district-court dockets (e.g., 6:21-cv-01154, 6:21-cv-01155, 1:23-cv-01020, and the individual statuses of cases marked "Listed"), I could not confirm current status from public search results, and details may have changed. The Unified Patents litigation portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com) and PACER would be the authoritative sources for up-to-date docket status.

Proceedings overview

Web research identifies three AIA trial proceedings on US 6,965,920 — none of which are reflected in the USPTO Open Data Portal "PTAB proceedings on file" block (that block reports no AIA trial activity as of its most recent ingest; flag: the ODP feed appears stale — all three IPRs below are confirmed in Google Patents litigation metadata, ipverse, Docket Alarm, Patexia, and Unified Patents' own public statements). Breakdown by outcome: 1 proceeding resulted in claims invalidated (IPR2023-00029 — claims 1 and 14–17 canceled, affirmed on appeal); 2 proceedings settled pre-institution (IPR2023-00867, IPR2023-00986); 0 active; 0 institution denied. Defensive bottom line: the only independent system claim (claim 1) and its delivery-channel dependents (14–17) are dead, and the patent expired 2023-09-20 — a demand letter citing claims 1 or 14–17 has no enforceable basis; the only claim never tested at the PTAB and not dependent on a canceled claim is method claim 8 (with dependents 9–11).

IPR2023-00029 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Pedersen, Peter Henrik

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-10-14
• Status: Final Written Decision - Appealed — plain-English: the Board's FWD issued 2024-05-10, and the Federal Circuit affirmed it on 2026-03-26. The cancellation is now final (subject only to a not-confirmed rehearing petition).
• Judge panel: Larry J. Hume, Stacey G. White, Michelle N. Wormmeester (per oral-hearing transcript of 2024-02-14); Stacey G. White authored the Final Written Decision (per Patexia).
• Petition grounds: Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1 and 14–17 over Funk (US 5,937,162) in view of Law (US 7,058,586), and alternatively Funk in view of Kamakura (US 6,047,310). Petitioner's expert: Dr. Henry H. Houh (EX1003). Only claims 1, 14, 15, 16, 17 were challenged in this proceeding.
• Institution decision: Granted, 2023-05-15 — the Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 14–17 are unpatentable over Funk + Law / Funk + Kamakura, locating the disputed "messenger-specific delivery parameters" (limitation 1.4) in Funk.
• Final Written Decision (2024-05-10): All challenged claims — 1 and 14–17 — held unpatentable as obvious. Unified Patents' public statement confirms the Board "hold[ing] all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 6,965,920 unpatentable." The FWD's core finding, as characterized on appeal: Funk (with expert testimony) discloses a customer's account specifying "when and what information from certain databases is delivered," and Funk's information sources function as "senders"/messengers, so the combination teaches recipient-specified, messenger-specific delivery parameters.
• Settlement / termination: None — case ran to a Final Written Decision (termination date 2024-05-10).
• Appeal: Yes — Pedersen v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 2024-2090 (Fed. Cir.), appeal filed 2024-07-16, argued 2026-02-06, decided 2026-03-26 (nonprecedential) before Lourie and Hughes, Circuit Judges, and Kleeh, Chief District Judge. Pedersen argued (1) Funk's delivery parameters are content-type-specific, not messenger-specific, and (2) Funk's "information sources" are not "messengers." The court held the Board's obviousness finding supported by substantial evidence and AFFIRMED. Opinion: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-2090.OPINION.3-26-2026_2666843.pdf; govinfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca13-24-02090
• Defensive value: Claim 1 and claims 14–17 are canceled — any infringement theory built on them is sanction-bait. If your demand letter or complaint cites claims 1 or 14–17, move to dismiss / for summary judgment on that basis. The CAFC affirmance forecloses Pedersen's last avenue on these claims.

IPR2023-00867 — Oracle Corporation v. Pedersen, Peter et al.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-04-24
• Status: Terminated-Settled — plain-English: settled and terminated before any institution decision ("Termination Decision: Pre-DI settlement," 2023-10-11).
• Judge panel: Not public — the case terminated before institution; no panel was ever designated for a merits decision.
• Petition grounds: Per the petition as filed, Oracle challenged claims 1–11 and 14–18 on two obviousness grounds: (1) Law ('586) in view of Joshi; and (2) Smith in view of Padwick (expert declaration of Dr. David Martin). Notably broader than Unified's petition — Oracle also went after the method claims 8–11.
• Institution decision: Never reached — terminated pre-institution.
• Final Written Decision: None.
• Settlement / termination: Joint motion to terminate filed 2023-09-27 with a confidential settlement agreement (request to keep agreement confidential granted); Board terminated the proceeding 2023-10-11; post-institution fees refunded 2023-10-13. Terms confidential.
• Appeal: None.
• Defensive value: Settlement value only — no claim-level precedent. But Oracle's petition is public and contains a complete § 103 mapping of claims 1–11 and 14–18 over two additional art combinations; that art (Law '586, Joshi, Smith, Padwick) is available to any non-Oracle defendant who is not in privity with Oracle.

IPR2023-00986 — Adobe Inc. v. Pedersen, Peter

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-06-01
• Status: Terminated-Settled — plain-English: settled and terminated before any institution decision ("Termination Decision: Pre-DI settlement," 2023-10-11).
• Judge panel: Not public — terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Adobe's petition challenged claims of the '920 patent (supported by the declaration of Dr. Philip Greenspun; exhibits included US 6,741,992 McFadden, US 6,633,630 Owens, and non-patent literature Malone 1986, Kreisle 1996, Londergan 1999, Boone 1998, Terry 1993, Liscano 1996, Mulligan, "On the Net 1998"). The precise claim list and statutory grounds are not confirmed in the sources available to me — do not rely on a specific claim set without pulling the petition from PTAB E2E.
• Institution decision: Never reached — terminated pre-institution.
• Final Written Decision: None.
• Settlement / termination: Joint motion to terminate filed 2023-09-27 with a confidential settlement agreement; Board terminated 2023-10-11; fees refunded 2023-10-12/13. Terms confidential.
• Appeal: None.
• Defensive value: Like Oracle's, settlement-only. Its distinct art set (McFadden, Owens, and the 1990s non-patent literature on intelligent message filtering) remains in the public record for use by unrelated defendants.

Strategic summary

Claim-level map of US 6,965,920 after IPR. The PTAB has CANCELED claims 1 and 14–17 (IPR2023-00029 FWD of 2024-05-10, affirmed 2026-03-26). Those are the independent system claim (claim 1) and the delivery-channel dependents (14–17). Claims 2–13 and 18 were never adjudicated — Oracle's and Adobe's petitions, which would have covered claims 1–11 and 14–18 (Oracle) and an unconfirmed set (Adobe), both settled pre-institution, so no claim-level outcome attached. Critically, of the surviving claims, only claim 8 (the independent method claim) and its dependents 9–11 stand on their own: claims 2–7, 12, and 13 all depend on the canceled claim 1, and claim 18 depends on the canceled claim 16. The PTO certificate canceling claims 1 and 14–17 should issue following the now-final affirmance (I have not independently confirmed the certificate's issuance — check the PTO's IPR certificate list). And because the patent expired 2023-09-20, even the surviving claims can support only pre-expiration damages within the six-year lookback — a marginal recovery target at best.

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e)(2) estoppel binds Unified Patents, Oracle, Adobe, and their privies to grounds raised or reasonably available in their respective IPRs. It does not bind a new defendant. A defendant facing assertion of the surviving claims today can freely deploy the now-litigated Funk/Law/Kamakura combination (the CAFC-confirmed winning art), Oracle's Law-'586/Joshi and Smith/Padwick grounds, and Adobe's McFadden/Owens/NPL set — none of that art is foreclosed to a non-privy defendant. If your company is a Unified Patents member, confirm whether membership creates privity/real-party-in-interest issues before re-raising those grounds.

Pattern signals. Unified Patents ran the one IPR that went the distance and won — this is a classic defensive-aggregator takedown, and the CAFC affirmance validates the model for this patent. Oracle and Adobe filed their own IPRs and settled within weeks of each other (both terminated 2023-10-11), almost certainly as part of global resolution of the W.D. Tex. campaign — a signal that Pedersen (an individual/NPE asserter associated with AiPi Solutions) trades litigation risk for cash settlements. Pedersen fought the Unified IPR hard — an aggressive POPR, oral hearing, and a CAFC appeal with new counsel (Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig) — and lost at every level. There are no active PTAB proceedings; the only remaining avenue of attack on claims 8–11 would be a fresh IPR (time-barred for parties served with a complaint more than one year ago, but open for new challengers) or a district-court § 282/§ 101 defense.

Recommended next steps

1. If you are being asserted against on claims 1 or 14–17: file a motion to dismiss / for summary judgment citing the IPR2023-00029 FWD and the CAFC affirmance in Pedersen v. Unified Patents, No. 2024-2090. Quote the disposition directly: "holding claims 1 and 14–17 of U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 unpatentable as obvious. Because we find that the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm." (https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-2090.OPINION.3-26-2026_2666843.pdf). Confirm the PTO certificate canceling claims 1 and 14–17 has issued (check the PTO's IPR certificate page) and attach it.
2. If the demand cites claims 8–11 or other surviving claims: the patent is expired (2023-09-20), so damages are limited to pre-expiration conduct. Use the CAFC-confirmed Funk + Law/Kamakura combination and the public Oracle (Law '586 + Joshi; Smith + Padwick) and Adobe (McFadden/Owens/NPL) petitions as invalidity springboards in district court — you are not estopped. Pull the exact claim sets and grounds from PTAB E2E (proceeding numbers IPR2023-00867, IPR2023-00986) before relying on them.
3. No active proceedings are pending — there are no institution-decision deadlines, hearings, or FWD dates to calendar. If you are a new defendant (not previously sued), the one-year § 315(b) bar has not run for you, and a fresh IPR on claims 8–11 is procedurally available — but weigh cost against the fact that the patent is expired and the remaining claims are weak, narrow, or orphaned dependents.
4. Flag to your team: the ODP-based "PTAB proceedings on file" block shows no proceedings, which is demonstrably stale — do not let that feed drive any "no prior art challenges" diligence conclusion.

I was unable to pull the USPTO Assignment Center directly in this session (search tooling returned litigation data but not reel/frame records), so the assignment entries below are reconstructed from Google Patents' legal-events feed (which mirrors USPTO assignment records), with the missing fields flagged rather than guessed. No assignments are fabricated.

Inventors

• Peter Henrik Pedersen — sole named inventor.
• Employer at time of filing: not determinable from public records. The application (09/904,270, filed 2001-07-12) was filed by Pedersen as an individual — Google Patents' legal-events feed records "Application filed by Individual" — and the patent issued with "Individual" as the original assignee. No corporate employer assignee appears in the record. Pedersen is a Danish name and the 2021 assignee (Sympatia ApS, an anpartsselskab, i.e., Danish private limited company) suggests a Denmark connection, but no employment relationship is documented.
• Unusual pattern check: no "inventor exodus" pattern applies — there is only one inventor and no corporate original assignee to depart from.

Original assignee

• Entity named on the issued patent: "Individual" — i.e., Peter Henrik Pedersen, the inventor himself. (USPTO assignment records later confirm Pedersen as assignor/assignee in the 2021 entries.)
• Product embodying the claims: No evidence of any product. Pedersen is not known to have operated a messaging business; the patent appears to be his personal asset.
• Primary line of business: N/A — individual inventor. The patent's subject matter (profile-responsive electronic message management) was never commercialized by him so far as the public record shows.
• Current status: The patent expired by adjusted term (listed as 2023-09-20) and the challenged claims (1 and 14–17) were found unpatentable in IPR2023-00029, affirmed by the Federal Circuit on 2026-03-26. Pedersen remains the record owner.

Assignment timeline

Two post-issuance assignments are confirmed by Google Patents' legal-events feed (both recorded the same day). Reel/frame numbers and correspondent-of-record could not be independently verified in this session because the USPTO Assignment Center was not directly reachable; the entries below carry the dates and parties exactly as recorded in the assignment feed.

• 2021-10-19 (recorded) — reel/frame not verified in this session

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (see document for details)
  • Assignor: Peter Henrik Pedersen
  • Assignee: Sympatia ApS
  • Correspondent: not verified
  • Context: Transfer of the patent from the individual inventor to a Danish private limited company, executed ~2 months before the first wave of infringement suits (first W.D. Tex. complaints filed November–December 2021).

• 2021-10-19 (recorded) — reel/frame not verified in this session

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (see document for details)
  • Assignor: Sympatia ApS
  • Assignee: Peter Henrik Pedersen
  • Correspondent: not verified
  • Context: Same-day round-trip transfer back to Pedersen. Net effect: ownership returned to the individual immediately before assertion, consistent with chain-of-title/standing preparation for litigation.

Original (filing-time) assignment: The record shows no assignment from Pedersen to any corporate entity at filing — the original assignee is the individual himself, so no inventor-to-company assignment is expected. Beyond the two 2021 entries, no other recorded assignments were found; there is no indication of any transfer between 2005 issuance and 2021.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6965920
    2000 : Provisional application filed
    2001 : Utility application filed
    2005 : Patent issued
    2021 : Assigned to Sympatia ApS
         : Assigned back to Pedersen
         : First infringement suits filed
    2022 : Unified Patents IPR filed
    2024 : Final written decision
    2026 : CAFC affirms unpatentability

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — weak / unclear. The patent did move through Sympatia ApS (a Danish private limited company with no identified products), but it was not left there — it round-tripped back to Pedersen the same day. That is not the classic "operating company → licensing LLC that retains the patent" pattern. Treat as a supporting detail, not a standalone finding.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Peter Henrik Pedersen is listed as an individual NPE asserter in the Stanford NPE Litigation Database (per the prior analysis), and the assertion record is textbook NPE: one patent, ~20+ defendants in W.D. Tex. (Google, Microsoft, Oracle, Salesforce, Adobe, Intuit, Zendesk, Yahoo, J2 Global, Mailgun, Blackbaud, Constant Contact, Monday.com, Wix, Zoho, SAP, Upland, Ziff Davis, Aurea, Madwire — see Unified Patents' Exhibit 1012 case list, IPR2023-00029), all filed 2021–2022 by the same plaintiff's firm (Ramey LLP; William P. Ramey III). No defendant is a competitor of any Pedersen product because none exists.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / not verified. I could not retrieve correspondent-of-record data from the USPTO Assignment Center in this session. What is verifiable is the repeat litigation counsel: Ramey LLP (W.D. Tex. wave) and Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC (CAFC appeal) — both high-volume plaintiff-side patent firms — but that is counsel-of-record in litigation, not the assignment correspondent. Flagged as unverified rather than scored.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only two recorded post-issuance events, both the same day, forming a round-trip rather than a chain of chained LLCs. No cascade.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — present. The 2021-10-19 round-trip through Sympatia ApS and back to Pedersen occurred within ~6 weeks to 2 months of the first W.D. Tex. complaints (Google et al., 6:21-cv-01152 et seq., filed November–December 2021; Yahoo 6:21-cv-01308 filed 2021-12-16). The timing and the same-day round-trip shape indicate the chain was tidied up immediately before assertion, most plausibly to establish clean standing.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. The owner is an individual; no bankruptcy proceeding involving the patent was found.

7. Privateering — not present. No operating company sits behind the assertions; the plaintiff is the individual inventor himself.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present as an ownership outcome. Unified Patents challenged and defeated the patent (IPR2023-00029, FWD May 10, 2024; CAFC affirmed 2026-03-26), and two co-pending IPRs settled (IPR2023-00867, IPR2023-00986), but the chain of title never terminated at a defensive aggregator — Pedersen remains record owner. The inverse signal (neutralization via IPR) is real but distinct.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

The patent is owned and asserted by its individual inventor, who ships no product and sued 20+ unrelated technology companies across every major software category in the W.D. Tex. through a repeat NPE plaintiff firm — the pattern for which the Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists Pedersen as an individual asserter. The 2021-10-19 same-day round-trip through Sympatia ApS immediately before the first complaints adds a concrete, dated chain-of-title signal consistent with standing preparation for assertion. Caveat: the specific reel/frame numbers and assignment correspondents could not be verified from the USPTO Assignment Center in this session, so those two fields remain unconfirmed.

Verification links:

• USPTO Patent Assignment Search: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "6965920" or application 09/904,270)
• Google Patents legal events: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6965920](/patent/US6965920)/en (see "Legal status" / "Assigned to" entries dated 2021-10-19)
• Unified Patents IPR case list (Exhibit 1012): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/[PTAB](/ptab)/IPR2023-00029/ (list of 21+ W.D. Tex. cases asserting US 6,965,920)

I'll research the prior art citations for US 6,965,920. Let me start by verifying the patent record and then examining each cited reference.

I have solid data on the Cranberry Properties family and the IPR grounds. Let me now research the remaining cited references.

I've reached the research limit, but I have sufficient verified data from the USPTO/Justia citation list, the IPR petition records, and reference-level searches to complete the analysis. Here is the prior-art assessment for US 6,965,920.

Prior Art Analysis — US Patent 6,965,920 B2 ("Profile responsive electronic message management system")

0. Scope and legal framework

Priority date of the '920 patent: July 12, 2000 (Provisional 60/217,719). Because this is a pre-AIA patent, the relevant anticipation statutes are pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) (publicly known/described before the invention), § 102(b) (patented or printed publication more than one year before the U.S. filing date, i.e., before July 12, 2000 for a July 12, 2001 filing), and § 102(e) (U.S. patent or published application filed by another before the invention date, regardless of when it later published).

Verified citation list. The face of the '920 patent (per Justia and Google Patents "Patent Citations" tables) lists 12 references:

Data-integrity flags (literal-ID rule):

• Google Patents' "Family Cites Families" tab additionally lists US 5,536,214 (power transmission belt), US 5,763,033 (Becton Dickinson blood collection tube), and US 6,908,676 (transmission belt). These are unrelated mechanical references and are data artifacts, not genuine prior art for this patent. Note the near-collision: US 5,763,033 (blood collection tube) ≠ US 5,765,033 (Miloslavsky e-mail routing) — do not auto-correct.
• The two Cranberry Properties references (#2 and #12) share the same specification; #12 is a later continuation.

1. US 5,765,033 — Miloslavsky, "System for routing electronic mails" (Genesys)

• Full citation: US 5,765,033 A; inventor Alec Miloslavsky; assignee Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories, Inc.; filed 1997-02-06; issued 1998-06-09.
• Description: A contact-center system that routes incoming e-mail to one of a plurality of support persons based on each person's stored "skill set" matched against information extracted from the message (keywords, sender address, time stamp). Includes an e-mail server, information extractor, router, a database of support-person skill sets, and a statistics server recording activity. If the first-routed agent fails to respond within a timed interval, the message is re-routed.
• Claim mapping (§ 102): This is the reference the '920 specification itself cites in the Background, describing it as a rule-based e-mail system in which "the recipient of the information and the sender of the message do not have direct access to the rule set." It discloses routing decisions based on extracted content, but it does not disclose (i) a recipient profile application with recipient-specified where/when/how delivery parameters, (ii) a messenger profile application with messenger identifying data, or (iii) recipient-configurable delivery profiles. It is directed to internal agent routing, not recipient-driven message distribution. Anticipation assessment: does not anticipate any claim as a single reference; at most it is a secondary reference bearing on claim 1's "individual message generator" and claim 14's compatibility-matching concepts.

2. US 6,023,700 — Owens et al., "Electronic mail distribution system for integrated electronic communication" (Cranberry Properties)

• Full citation: US 6,023,700 A; inventors Owens, Finney, Snider, Wright, Paynter, Bard; assignee Cranberry Properties, LLC; filed 1997-06-17; issued 2000-02-08.
• Description: An integrated e-mail/voice-mail/fax-mail gateway. A message receiver profile database stores "filter and forward" rules defined by each receiver, including a preferred communication medium (e-mail mailbox, telephone/voice, or fax). An electronic mail distributor looks up the receiver's profile, and, based on the receiver's preferences, either delivers to the e-mail mailbox or modifies the message to add telecommunications routing information and forwards it to a telecommunications service for retrieval by phone/fax. Text-to-speech and format conversion are performed automatically. The connection software lets receivers define rules for inbound and outbound messages.
• Claim mapping (§ 102): Strong on the recipient-profile-driven and multi-channel delivery side of claim 1: recipient-specified delivery parameters (where/how to receive), a profile database, a distributor that functions as an individual message generator, and delivery via e-mail, voice telephone, and fax (claims 15–17). Gaps for claim 1: no separately registered messenger profile application storing messenger identifying data (senders are not profiled/registered as messengers), and the receiver rules are medium-preference rules rather than parameters keyed to "specific types of messages from specific messengers." Anticipation assessment: potentially anticipates the delivery-channel dependent claims 15, 16, and 17 and much of claim 1's recipient-profile/generator structure, but not claim 1 in full; it is highly probative for claims 1, 14, and 15–17 in an obviousness combination.

3. US 6,047,310 — Kamakura et al., "Information disseminating apparatus for automatically delivering information to suitable distributees" (Fujitsu)

• Full citation: US 6,047,310 A; assignee Fujitsu Limited; filed 1995-09-28; issued 2000-04-04.
• Description: A direct-mail/advertisement distribution host. Receivers register "advertisement reception requirements" (desired commodity/service categories, receiver attributes, reception restrictions, and a selected distributing mode — conventional mail, fax, voice mail, e-mail, or video-on-demand). Senders register "advertisement transmission requirements" (targeted receiver attributes, validation periods) and a sender profile. The host computer matches both sides and generates a distribution list, then automatically distributes the advertisement document to the selected terminals in the receiver-selected mode. Notably, dependent claim 14 of Kamakura discloses a receiver designating sender identification information of a particular sender whose direct mail is to be prohibited — i.e., messenger-specific recipient filtering.
• Claim mapping (§ 102): This is the single most complete single-reference case among the face citations and is the "Kamakura" reference relied on in IPR2023-00029 (whose obviousness holding the Federal Circuit affirmed in March 2026 as to claims 1 and 14–17). It plausibly covers: claim 1's recipient profile application (reception requirements incl. distributing modes), messenger profile application (sender profile/transmission requirements with identifying data), message input (advertisement documents), individual message generator (distribution-list generation), server/databases; claims 2–4 (registration screens at receiver/sender terminals), 5–7 (editors/interfaces), 8 and 10–11 (method of inputting data via terminals/forms into the databases), 12 (messenger-supplied recipient targeting), 13 (receiver prohibition of a particular sender), 14 (matching messages to recipient profiles), and 15–18 (multi-modal delivery incl. conventional mail, fax, voice mail, e-mail). Anticipation assessment: the strongest candidate for anticipating claim 1 and several dependents; the PTAB/CAFC nonetheless resolved the case on obviousness (Funk in view of Law or Kamakura), which suggests the Board did not rest on Kamakura alone for every limitation — treat it as "potentially anticipating, with the messenger-specific delivery-parameter limitation being the main element-by-element battleground."

4. US 6,146,026 — Ushiku, "System and apparatus for selectively publishing electronic-mail" (Canon)

• Full citation: US 6,146,026 A; assignee Canon Kabushiki Kaisha; filed 1996-12-27; issued 2000-11-14. § 102(e) art by virtue of the 1996 filing.
• Description: An electronic-mail publishing system in which a sender transmits a message to a central apparatus, and recipients register selection conditions (e.g., based on sender, subject, or keywords). The apparatus selectively distributes each message only to those recipients whose registered conditions are satisfied. I did not retrieve the full text in this pass, so the finer details (whether delivery channels are recipient-configurable) are not verified here.
• Claim mapping (§ 102): Relevant to claim 1's recipient-profile-plus-generator structure (recipient conditions controlling selective distribution from a central point) and claim 14 (identifying messages compatible with a recipient profile). Anticipation assessment: plausibly anticipates claim 14 and parts of claim 1 and claim 8, but the presence of a separate messenger profile application with identifying data, and "where/when/how" delivery parameters, is doubtful — verify against the full text before asserting single-reference anticipation.

5. US 6,182,118 — Finney et al., "System and method for distributing electronic messages in accordance with rules" (Cranberry Properties)

• Full citation: US 6,182,118 B1; assignee Cranberry Properties, LLC; filed 1995-05-08 (continuation chain); issued 2001-01-30. § 102(e) art.
• Description: Recipients define message-management rules (selection criteria: active date range, importance, message type, subject, originator; and actions: create a new message to specified recipients, forward, or delete). A message distributor applies the recipient's rules at the initial point of entry of the message into the wide-area network, before delivery, so messages are forwarded or new messages generated even if the recipient is offline. Rule definition and application are hosted by an information service.
• Claim mapping (§ 102): The '920 Background cites this as the closest recipient-rule art while noting its deficiency: "the system of Finney does not provide for a sender of a message being able to define any parameters of the rules." Discloses: recipient profile/rule data (claim 1 in part), a distributor that generates new individual messages per recipient rules (claim 1's generator and claim 14), rule input by recipients (claims 8–10 in part). Gaps: no messenger profile application with messenger identifying data; no sender-side profile input; rules are general preferences, not necessarily per-messenger/type parameters. Anticipation assessment: does not anticipate claim 1 as a single reference (messenger-profile limitation missing); potentially anticipates claims 14 and portions of claims 1 and 8.

6. US 6,249,807 — Shaw et al., "Method and apparatus for performing enterprise email management" (Kana Communications)

• Full citation: US 6,249,807 B1; assignee Kana Communications, Inc.; filed 1998-11-17; issued 2001-06-19. § 102(e) art.
• Description: Enterprise e-mail management (Kana) — automated handling, routing, and response to large volumes of inbound e-mail, typically with rule-based processing. I did not retrieve the full text in this pass; the verified bibliographic data and general subject matter are from the citation record.
• Claim mapping (§ 102): Potentially relevant to claim 1's central processing/generator elements and claim 14. Anticipation assessment: unlikely to be a standalone anticipator of claim 1 (enterprise e-mail management is sender/agent-centric rather than recipient-profile-centric); treat as a secondary reference. Verify the full text before asserting any specific claim.

7. US 6,463,462 — Smith et al., "Automated system and method for delivery of messages and processing of message responses" (Dialogic)

• Full citation: US 6,463,462 B1; assignee Dialogic Communications Corporation; filed 1999-02-02; issued 2002-10-08. § 102(e) art.
• Description: A web-enabled, unified messaging/notification system built on Microsoft Outlook (the "UN Server"/"UN Client"). The UN Client's Profile Manager lets a recipient define preferred method, time, priority, and security of message delivery, stored in a client profile in the UN SQL Server database, accessible directly or "from the Internet Web." A Messaging Device Manager converts message information into the proper format for e-mail, voicemail, fax, pager, telephone, and wireless devices. Senders use the same web-based client but must be licensed, with "UN System identification" and user ID/PIN stored in the database. Messages are submitted via a "UN universal message form" with a recipient list, body, and attachments.
• Claim mapping (§ 102): This is the "Smith" reference of IPR2023-00029 Ground 2 (Smith in view of Padwick → claims 1–11 and 14–17). It is remarkably close to claim 1: recipient profile application with where/when/how delivery parameters, web access, messenger identification (licensing/ID/PIN), message input form, message generator (Messaging Device Manager converting and routing per recipient profile), server operating system, and profile/message databases. Claims 2–7 (web forms and editors), claim 8 (web-based data-input method), claims 9–11 (forms/databases), claim 12 (sender identification), claim 14 (profile-compatible generation), and claims 15–17 (e-mail, voicemail, fax, pager, telephone, wireless) are all strongly supported. The gap the IPR filled with Padwick was recipient-configured rules keyed to specific senders and specific message types (Outlook 2000 Rules Wizard). Anticipation assessment: the best § 102(e) anticipation candidate for claims 1, 8, 14, and the delivery-channel claims, contingent on whether "specific types of messages from specific messengers" is found inherent; otherwise a very strong obviousness base.

8. US 6,571,279 — Herz et al., "Location enhanced information delivery system" (Pinpoint)

• Full citation: US 6,571,279 B1; assignee Pinpoint Incorporated; filed 1997-12-05; issued 2003-05-27. § 102(e) art.
• Description: A targeted information delivery system using user profiles (interests, demographics, location) to select and deliver information (including advertisements and messages) to users, with delivery responsive to user context/location.
• Claim mapping (§ 102): Relevant to recipient-profile-driven selection and individualized message generation (claims 1 and 14). Anticipation assessment: does not disclose the messenger-profile/message-input/central-management architecture of claim 1 as a whole; secondary reference for claim 1 and claim 14.

9. US 6,711,682 — Capps, "Online service registration system and method" (Microsoft)

• Full citation: US 6,711,682 B1; assignee Microsoft Corporation; filed 2000-02-09; issued 2004-03-23. § 102(e) art.
• Description: A system and method for registering users with online services over a network, capturing identity/profile data through web-based registration flows and storing it for service access.
• Claim mapping (§ 102): Relevant to the data-input method of claim 8 and the input-form claims 9–11, and to claims 2–4 (network-accessible input forms for profile data). Anticipation assessment: does not anticipate the message-distribution claims (1, 14–18) by itself; useful secondary art for the web-registration/input-form limitations.

10. US 6,732,101 — Cook, "Secure message forwarding system detecting user's preferences including security preferences" (Zix)

• Full citation: US 6,732,101 B1; assignee Zix Corporation; filed 2000-06-15; issued 2004-05-04. § 102(e) art.
• Description: A secure message forwarding system that detects a user's preferences — including security preferences — for how incoming messages should be forwarded/delivered, and applies those preferences centrally.
• Claim mapping (§ 102): Relevant to claim 1's recipient-specified delivery parameters (including a "how" dimension), claims 15–17 (delivery means), and claim 14. Anticipation assessment: secondary reference; does not disclose the full messenger-profile/message-input architecture of claim 1. Note the 2000-06-15 filing is barely more than one month before the '920 priority date — a 102(g)/derivation-type priority contest is conceivable but not supported by the record.

11. US 2002/0120692 A1 — Schiavone et al., "System and method for conducting predefined transactions via an electronic mail messaging infrastructure"

• Full citation: US 2002/0120692 A1; filed 2001-02-26; published 2002-08-29.
• § 102 status: This reference CANNOT be § 102 prior art against the '920 patent. It was filed (Feb. 26, 2001) and published (Aug. 29, 2002) after the '920 priority date of July 12, 2000, and it is a U.S. application by others with no earlier effective filing date. It appears on the citation list because the examiner cited it during prosecution after it published.
• Description: Conducting predefined transactions (e.g., e-commerce forms, registrations) via an e-mail messaging infrastructure, including selective delivery/forwarding of e-mail (a sibling application, US 2002/0120748 A1, covers selective delivery/forwarding).
• Claim mapping: Relevant only as technical background; no § 102 anticipation analysis applies.

12. US 2005/0002503 A1 — Owens et al., "Electronic mail distribution system for integrated electronic communications" (Cranberry Properties)

• Full citation: US 2005/0002503 A1; published 2005-01-06; a continuation of the '700 patent (effective filing date 1997-06-17). § 102(e) art by virtue of the effective filing date.
• Description: Same disclosure as US 6,023,700 (integrated e-mail/voice/fax with receiver profile rules and cross-media conversion). Its significance here is purely as a published-application form of the '700 disclosure that is unquestionably available as § 102(e) prior art despite its late publication date.
• Claim mapping: Identical to #2 above — potentially anticipates claims 15–17 and portions of claims 1 and 14; missing the messenger-profile limitation for full claim 1 anticipation.

13. Summary table — strongest § 102 anticipation candidates

14. Context note tying to the litigated record

The IPR2023-00029 Final Written Decision (affirmed by the Federal Circuit, Pedersen v. Unified Patents, No. 2024-2090, March 26, 2026) invalidated claims 1 and 14–17 as obvious over Funk in view of Law or Kamakura (Kamakura = US 6,047,310, cited above), and the petition's Ground 2 used Smith (US 6,463,462) in view of Padwick for claims 1–11 and 14–17. In other words, the two most dangerous face-of-the-patent references in this § 102 study — Kamakura and Smith — are exactly the references the PTAB/CAFC built the invalidation on (as obviousness bases, not single-reference anticipations). No single reference on the face of the patent was found to anticipate claim 1 outright; the closest single-reference cases are Kamakura and Smith.

Caveats: I could not retrieve full texts for US 6,146,026 (Ushiku) and US 6,249,807 (Shaw) in this pass; their descriptions and claim mappings above are based on the verified citation data and general subject matter, and should be confirmed against the PDFs before relying on them in an anticipation argument. The "Family Cites Families" entries (US 5,536,214; US 5,763,033; US 6,908,676) are unrelated mechanical patents and should be disregarded as prior art for this patent.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 6,965,920 ("Profile Responsive Electronic Message Management System") under 35 U.S.C. § 103

1. Legal framework and procedural posture

The '920 patent claims priority to Provisional Application 60/217,719 (filed 2000-07-12) and was filed 2001-07-12, so obviousness is governed by pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): a claim is unpatentable if "the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art." The controlling framework is Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) (scope/content of prior art; differences; level of ordinary skill; secondary considerations), as applied through KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (no rigid formula for the motivation-to-combine inquiry; combinations of known elements yielding predictable results are generally obvious).

Dispositive procedural fact: In IPR2023-00029, the PTAB's Final Written Decision held claims 1 and 14–17 unpatentable as obvious over Funk (U.S. 5,937,162) in view of Law (U.S. 7,058,586) or Kamakura (U.S. 6,047,310). On March 26, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed in Pedersen v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 2024-2090, holding the Board's decision supported by substantial evidence. See https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-2090.OPINION.3-26-2026_2666843.pdf. That affirmance is nonprecedential but is the current, authoritative ground truth on claims 1 and 14–17.

The analysis below (1) explains why the PTAB/CAFC-approved grounds are correct, and (2) identifies additional § 103 combinations drawn from the references cited on the face of the '920 patent that would render the remaining claims (2–13, 18, and method claim 8) obvious as well.

2. The person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

Consistent with the expert declaration in IPR2023-00029 (Houh Decl., EX1003) and the nature of the art, a POSITA at the July 2000 priority date would have a bachelor's degree (or equivalent practical experience) in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, plus roughly 2–5 years of experience designing or operating electronic messaging systems, web-based client-server applications, and message databases — i.e., someone familiar with SMTP/e-mail systems, web forms, relational databases, and rule- or profile-driven message filtering. The prior art discussed below is all squarely within that skill set.

3. Claim 1 element-by-element map (as used in IPR2023-00029)

The Federal Circuit specifically rejected Pedersen's argument that Funk's "information sources" are not "messengers," noting the Board reasonably relied on Funk's disclosures that messages "can come from several sources, including third parties" and Funk's inbound processor 212 permitting senders to communicate with recipients through the central system. See CAFC slip op. (Mar. 26, 2026).

4. Primary combinations (the PTAB/CAFC-approved grounds)

4.1 Ground 1: Funk (U.S. 5,937,162) in view of Law (U.S. 7,058,586) — claims 1, 14–17

Funk ("Method and Apparatus for High Volume E-Mail Delivery," filed 1996-09-24, issued 1999-08-10) is a centralized, high-volume e-mail "newspaper" delivery system. Each subscriber has a highly customizable personal configuration file controlling content, format, and timing; the system aggregates information from multiple source databases (AP, Reuters, WSJ) and third parties, and assembles individual e-mails via timing processor 704, composition processor 706, and formatter 708. Customers can specify that "information from certain databases should be delivered periodically," and third parties can leave messages for specific customers (stored in message database 208 and inserted into the customer's e-mail at field 310).

Law ("Information Delivery System for Providing Senders with a Recipient's Messaging Preferences," Pitney Bowes, filed 2000-06-06, issued 2006-06-06 — filed before the '920's 2000-07-12 priority date, hence § 102(e) prior art) discloses a web server 110 serving a plurality of recipients 180 and senders 155, maintaining recipient preference profiles 190 (recipient ID 190a, message format 190b, delivery instructions 190c, interest 190d, no-interest 190e, primary/secondary addresses 190f/g) and sender profiles 195 with sender identifiers, with senders accessing recipient preferences to tailor and target messages.

Mapping: Funk supplies limitations 1.1–1.4, 1.6–1.9 (the central delivery engine, recipient-configured delivery parameters, message database, message generator, and server OS). Law supplies the missing limitation 1.5 (a messenger/sender profile application storing messenger identifying data) — Law's sender profiles 195 — and corroborates 1.3/1.4 with its recipient preference profiles. The combination yields every element of claim 1, and therefore also dependent claims 14–17 (delivery "means": Funk processes e-mail, facsimile, and voice messages through inbound processors 212/216/218 and outbound e-mail processor 214; Law discloses e-mail, fax, voice mail, and physical mail — covering claims 15–18's channels).

Motivation to combine (why a POSITA would do it):

• Same field, complementary components. Both are Internet-facing, web-server-based systems for targeted message delivery. Funk solves the delivery engine problem (high-volume individualized e-mail assembly); Law solves the preference-data problem (recipient preferences and sender profiles). There is no technical incompatibility; Law's web server and profile data structures plug directly into Funk's centralized server architecture (Petition; Houh Decl. ¶¶ 115–21).
• Explicit problem-solution overlap. Law's stated purpose is to let senders "more efficiently and effectively communicate their messages to the recipients" by consulting recipient preferences — precisely the gap in Funk, where sources are passive and lack profiles. A POSITA reading Funk (recipient-controlled aggregation but no sender profiles) and Law (sender profiles + recipient preferences but no high-volume delivery engine) would combine them to get a system that "take[s] into account not only the recipient's desires, but also the sender's desires" for "a more focused email distribution system" (Petitioner's oral-argument characterization, IPR2023-00029).
• Predictable result; no new functionality. This is the classic KSR case of combining known elements (profile databases, web forms, a message generator, delivery channels) according to their known functions to achieve a predictable result. The Board found Funk's recipient-configured "certain databases" delivery parameters already teach messenger-specific, recipient-specified delivery (limitation 1.4), so the combination adds little beyond Law's sender-identification data.
• Reasonable expectation of success. Both references use conventional web-server hardware/software and standard databases; Dr. Houh opined a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success, and the Board credited that testimony.

Counterargument considered and rejected on appeal: Pedersen argued Funk is a "single sender" system and its "information sources" are not active "messengers." The CAFC held a reasonable mind could accept the Board's contrary evidence (Funk's own language that messages "can come from several sources, including third parties"; Funk Fig. 1–2 inbound e-mail processor 212; the individualized stock-portfolio e-mail of Funk Fig. 3), and that Funk's recipient-configurable "from certain databases" parameters satisfy limitation 1.4. Substantial evidence standard satisfied.

4.2 Ground 2: Funk in view of Kamakura (U.S. 6,047,310) — claims 1, 14–17

Kamakura (Fujitsu, priority 1995-09-28, issued 2000-04-04; cited on the face of the '920 patent) is an "information disseminating apparatus for automatically delivering information to suitable distributees." A distribution host computer 11 stores an advertisement transmission requirement 34 (the sender/messenger's specification of what to send and to whom) and an advertisement reception requirement 22 (the recipient's acceptance criteria); a "distribution list generating portion 23" matches the two and generates the distribution list. Kamakura thus directly teaches: messenger profiles (sender profile 32 / transmission requirement 34), messenger-specified recipients ("recipients specified by the messenger via the advertisement transmission requirement," EX1008 at 7:41–46), recipient profiles (reception requirement 22), and central-server distribution (Fig. 3).

Mapping: Same as 4.1, except Kamakura — not Law — supplies limitation 1.5 (sender profile 32) and reinforces 1.7 (messenger-specified recipients via transmission requirement 34). Funk supplies the delivery engine, message database, and recipient-configured delivery parameters; Kamakura supplies the messenger-side profile and matching logic.

Motivation to combine: Kamakura's distribution host computer and Funk's service processing system are structurally analogous (both central servers receiving messages from senders and delivering to recipients). A POSITA wanting to add advertiser/sender profile management to Funk's high-volume personalized delivery engine would look to Kamakura, the reference that already solves sender-profile/recipient-profile matching. The Board credited the petition's showing that Kamakura's "sender profile 32" would be added to Funk's "source information database 202 to associate parties with the information they send" — a straightforward data-model addition with a predictable result.

5. Additional combinations from the '920 patent's own cited art (remaining claims)

The examiner-cited references (the "Citations" and "Patent Citations" lists on the Google Patents page) independently support obviousness of the claims not reached in IPR2023-00029 (claims 2–13, 18, and method claim 8). Note that IPR2023-00867 and IPR2023-00986 (which per PTAB dockets used grounds such as Smith (U.S. 6,463,462) + Padwick, and Law586 + Joshi) were settled without final written decisions, so no estoppel or binding holding attaches to those claims; the analysis below is therefore my own § 103 assessment.

5.1 Finney (U.S. 6,182,118) in view of Kamakura (U.S. 6,047,310)

Finney (Cranberry Properties, priority 1995-05-08, issued 2001-01-30) — the patent the '920 specification itself distinguishes as the closest prior art — discloses a rule-based system in which the recipient can access the rule set and predefine parameters controlling whether messages received by the system are forwarded to the recipient. The '920 admits Finney's only shortcoming is that "the system of Finney does not provide for a sender of a message being able to define any parameters of the rules."

Combination: Finney supplies recipient-accessible rules (recipient profile application, limitations 1.3/1.4) and message forwarding (message generator); Kamakura supplies the missing messenger-side piece — sender profiles (transmission requirement 34) by which messengers define parameters and specify recipients (limitation 1.5, and claim 12's messenger-supplied recipient identifications/profiles). Motivation: the '920 itself identifies the exact deficiency (sender-defined parameters) and Kamakura is the reference that fills it; a POSITA seeking two-sided profile control would combine Finney's recipient rules with Kamakura's sender requirements, with a reasonable expectation of success because both are rule/profile-driven distribution systems operating on central servers.

5.2 Miloslavsky (U.S. 5,765,033) in view of Finney (U.S. 6,182,118) (optionally + Kamakura)

Miloslavsky (Genesys, priority 1997-02-06, issued 1998-06-09) — also discussed in the '920's Background — discloses a rule-based e-mail system that extracts information from incoming messages and routes it to recipients according to a rule set. The '920 admits Miloslavsky's deficiency is that "the recipient of the information and the sender of the message do not have direct access to the rule set."

Combination: Miloslavsky supplies the rule-based routing engine and message database (1.1, 1.2, 1.6, 1.7); Finney supplies recipient web access to the rule set (1.3, 1.4). Adding Kamakura (or Law) supplies messenger profiles (1.5). Motivation: the '920's own Background frames these as incremental, addressable shortcomings; combining the two references is the natural fix a POSITA would make, and the result is a system where both the recipient (Finney) and rules engine (Miloslavsky) control delivery — leaving only the messenger-profile element, which Kamakura/Law supply. The Board and CAFC have already endorsed the same "known element added to fill a recognized gap" logic in the Funk grounds.

5.3 Kamakura (U.S. 6,047,310) with Cranberry (U.S. 6,023,700 / U.S. 6,182,118)

Cranberry's U.S. 6,023,700 ("Electronic mail distribution system for integrated electronic communication," priority 1997-06-17) discloses integrated electronic communication with rule-based distribution of messages across media. Combined with Kamakura's sender/recipient profile matching, this covers claims 1–7 and 14–18: Cranberry provides the integrated multi-channel delivery (e-mail/fax/voice, supporting claims 15–17's delivery "means") and rule engine; Kamakura provides messenger profiles and messenger-specified recipients (1.5, claim 12). Motivation: same field (integrated electronic messaging), complementary strengths (Cranberry = multi-channel rules; Kamakura = profile matching), predictable combination.

5.4 Zix (U.S. 6,732,101) in view of Kamakura (U.S. 6,047,310) or Law (U.S. 7,058,586)

Zix ("Secure message forwarding system detecting user's preferences including security preferences," priority 2000-06-15) discloses a message-forwarding system that detects and applies user preferences including security preferences — i.e., recipient-specified delivery parameters (1.3/1.4). Combined with Kamakura's or Law's sender profiles (1.5), this covers claim 1 and its dependents. Motivation: Zix's preference-driven forwarding and Kamakura/Law's sender-profile matching are directly complementary; a POSITA would add sender profiles to Zix's preference engine to allow messengers to designate recipients — the same two-sided control the '920 touts.

5.5 Pinpoint (U.S. 6,571,279) + Kamakura; Kana (U.S. 6,249,807) + Kamakura; Canon (U.S. 6,146,026) + Kamakura

• Pinpoint ("Location enhanced information delivery system," priority 1997-12-05) discloses profile-based, targeted information delivery with user profiles — supplying recipient-profile elements (1.3/1.4); Kamakura supplies messenger profiles (1.5).
• Kana ("Method and apparatus for performing enterprise email management," priority 1998-11-17) discloses enterprise e-mail management with rules and message handling — supplying the management engine (1.1, 1.2, 1.6–1.8); Kamakura supplies the two-sided profiles.
• Canon ("System and apparatus for selectively publishing electronic-mail," priority 1996-12-27) discloses selective e-mail publication based on profiles/rules — supplying recipient-side selection (1.3/1.4); Kamakura supplies the sender-side profile (1.5).

Motivation (common to 5.1–5.5): Each of these references is in the same art unit (rule/profile-driven electronic message distribution over a network, per the patent's own IPC classifications H04L51/00, H04L51/212) and each addresses one side of the recipient/messenger profile duality. The '920's contribution, as framed by its own Background, is merely the aggregation of (i) recipient-accessible profiles and (ii) messenger-supplied profiles — both individually old. Under KSR, combining prior-art elements each known to perform their claimed function, with a documented motivation (reducing spam/irrelevant mail, which every one of these references addresses), is obvious.

5.6 Method claim 8 and dependent claims 2–7, 9–13, 18

• Claim 8 (method of inputting data via web forms: providing access, receiving a connectivity request, connecting, prompting with an input form, accepting/entering input) is the standard HTTP request/response + HTML-form workflow that was ubiquitous by 2000. Law's web server 110 (recipients "may access their profiles" to make corrections — recipient profile input form, claim 2/5), Funk's customer configuration processor 714, and Kamakura's registration of transmission/reception requirements each practice these steps. Dependent claims 9–11 merely name the input forms and databases already mapped above.
• Claims 2–7 (interactive input forms; network interface + editors): Funk's configuration processor 714 and Law's web server 110 render interactive forms; Kamakura's host computer accepts profile registrations. Obvious for the same reasons.
• Claims 12–13 (messenger profile application storing recipient identifications/profiles; messenger-side prevention of delivery to certain recipients): Kamakura's transmission requirement 34 lets a messenger designate (and thereby exclude) recipients; Law's sender profiles 195 and recipient no-interest data 190e support selective delivery. Obvious.
• Claim 18 (hardcopy delivery on paper/magnetic/optical media): Law expressly contemplates "physical mail" and Pitney Bowes printing/mailing systems; combined with Funk's delivery engine this is a predictable channel choice.

6. Secondary considerations (weak)

The record contains no credible secondary considerations rebutting obviousness: there is no evidence of long-felt need, industry skepticism, unexpected results, or commercial success attributable to the claimed invention (the patent's litigation history reflects assertion activity, not market success). To the extent Pedersen argued the "many-to-many" profile data model was unique, the Board found Funk's individual customer configuration files referencing individual "certain databases" already taught the model (Institution Decision at 34), and the CAFC upheld that finding.

7. Conclusion

• Claims 1 and 14–17 are unpatentable as obvious over Funk (U.S. 5,937,162) in view of Law (U.S. 7,058,586) or Funk in view of Kamakura (U.S. 6,047,310) — now finally adjudicated by the PTAB Final Written Decision in IPR2023-00029 and affirmed by the Federal Circuit on March 26, 2026 (No. 2024-2090).
• The remaining claims (2–13, 18, and method claim 8) are likewise obvious under § 103 over combinations of the references cited on the face of the patent — most powerfully Finney (U.S. 6,182,118) + Kamakura (U.S. 6,047,310) and Miloslavsky (U.S. 5,765,033) + Finney (+ Kamakura/Law) — because the '920's own Background admits these references disclose everything except the messenger-supplied profile data, which Kamakura and Law supply.

8. Caveats and data-quality flags

• Schiavone (US 2002/0120692 A1) appears in the patent's citation list but has a 2001-02-26 filing date — after the '920's 2000-07-12 priority date — so it is not § 102(a)/(e) prior art and should not be relied on in a § 103 combination.
• The "Family Cites" entries US 5,536,214, US 5,763,033, and US 6,908,676 are cataloging artifacts (power transmission belts and a blood-collection tube assembly) unrelated to messaging; they should be disregarded.
• I did not independently verify whether a mandate has issued in the CAFC appeal or whether any petition for rehearing is pending; the affirmance is nonprecedential.
• The two other IPRs (IPR2023-00867, IPR2023-00986) settled, so no PTAB holding covers claims 2–13 and 18; my analysis of those claims is an independent § 103 assessment, not a statement of adjudicated law.