US 7032514

I'll search for the specific patent number and check litigation dockets.

Let me look for the abstract, claim text, and any litigation references.

Let me check the NJ litigation docket and look for the abstract text.

1. Search scope and what turned up

I ran targeted searches for the literal string 7032514 across patent and litigation sources. Key finding up front: I found no CAFC 2026 docket (or any CAFC docket) referencing US Patent 7,032,514. Searches surfaced three distinct things that share the digits "7032514" — I am reporting them rather than auto-correcting them:

Litigation hits that looked promising but do not involve 7,032,514:

• FUJIFILM Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., D.N.J. No. 2:24-cv-04017 asserts U.S. Patents 10,427,443; 10,525,696; 10,875,346; and 11,294,279 only. The '514 patent is not a patent-in-suit. (Order on Motion to Dismiss, D.I. 76, entered 2025-02-19.)
• The related UPC/German proceedings (EP3511174B1, EP3594009B1, EP3476616B1, EP3511173B1) are European counterparts of the '443/'696/'346/'279 family — again not the '514 patent.
• The older Eastman Kodak Co. v. Fujifilm W.D.N.Y. action (6:2012-cv-06025) asserted camera patents ('831, '335, '218, '927, '854) — unrelated.

So: no litigation, PTAB, or CAFC 2026 activity tying to US 7,032,514 was found. Note also that per Google Patents its legal status is "Expired – Fee Related," with an adjusted expiration of 2023-08-03, which as of today (April 2026) means the patent term has lapsed — making a 2026 CAFC appeal involving it unlikely, though I cannot affirmatively rule out an appeal from an earlier proceeding.

---

2. Bibliographic summary (from the authoritative patent text)

---

3. Abstract — ⚠️ explicit uncertainty

The authoritative full text provided to me does not contain a separate "Abstract" section. The Google Patents rendering begins at "Definitions"/description, and the Justia page excerpt likewise leads with description text ("A boat-type coating squeezer is disposed in the hydrophobic processing section…"). I therefore cannot quote the abstract verbatim and will not reconstruct one as if it were the official text.

What can be stated from the claim-term/abstract-index metadata returned by Google Patents is that the abstract is indexed on these terms: printing, method, activation, hydrophobic, heat treatment, substance, photocatalyst, thin film, distribution, processing, irradiating, damping, tungsten halogen, halogen, tungsten, electric heating, mercury, cadmium helium — consistent with an abstract describing imagewise exposure of a photocatalyst-bearing planographic original plate while heated, to form a hydrophilic/hydrophobic distribution without development.

Plain-language summary of the disclosed invention (from the specification): A lithographic plate-making scheme that avoids wet development. A printing original plate carries a photosensitive layer of a photocatalyst substance (e.g., titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, or a composite oxide such as CsLa₂NbTi₂O₁₀). Its whole surface is first made hydrophobic by applying a "hydrophobic processing agent" (silicone oils, organosilanes, fluorinated silanes/siloxanes, waxes, low-molecular organics, phenolic resins, etc.). Activation light (UV, typically ≤387 nm for anatase, ≤413 nm for rutile) is then applied imagewise while the plate is held at 40–200 °C (most effectively 40–140 °C). Heating sharply accelerates the polarity change and deepens hydrophilicity in irradiated areas, giving fast "depiction" and a sharper ink/no-ink distinction. Heating may be blanket (with imagewise UV), imagewise (with blanket UV below the hydrophilic threshold), or imagewise-plus-imagewise with overlapping beams. The plate is then inked and dampened directly on press, and after printing the ink is washed off and the whole surface re-hydrophilized (heat and/or blanket UV) so the original plate can be reused — reportedly 15+ times.

Key figure: FIG. 1 plots time-to-hydrophilicity (contact angle → 5°) versus surface temperature at 1.3 mW/cm² activation-light intensity; FIG. 8/10 show the heating-laser spot concentrically enclosing the activation-light spot.

---

4. Independent claims — ⚠️ claim text not available to me

The authoritative text I was given does not include the claims section, so I cannot quote or paraphrase claim language with confidence. I am flagging this rather than inventing claim text.

What I can say with reasonable confidence from the patent's own "the invention is as follows" statement and from Google Patents' claim-term statistics:

• The claim set appears to number roughly 72 claims (the statistic "processing … claims 72" and a long tail of dependent-style terms — "damping" 25, "tungsten halogen" 10, "electric heating" 5, "mercury"/"cadmium helium" 3 each — is consistent with many narrow dependents). Treat the exact count as unverified.
• The specification expressly frames three claim categories, which are the likely independent claims:
  1. A planographic printing method — using an original plate with photocatalyst power, making its entire surface hydrophobic with a hydrophobic substance layer, forming an imagewise hydrophobic/hydrophilic distribution by irradiating activation light while the plate temperature is 40–200 °C, and printing by applying printing ink and a damping solution to the plate surface.
  2. An original printing plate — for use in that method (substrate; optional heat-insulating layer; optional opto-thermal conversion heat-generating layer; photocatalyst photosensitive layer; and the hydrophobic layer).
  3. A planographic printing press — equipment comprising at least one of: an activation-light irradiating section that imagewise irradiates a printing original plate whose irradiated portions become hydrophilic upon heating; an imagewise heating device producing hydrophilic heated areas; and a device performing both heating and activation-light irradiation imagewise on the same image information; typically with the hydrophobic-processing section, ink/damping supplying section, and ink wash-off section arranged around a plate cylinder, plus a heating device for erasing image history.

I would want the issued claims (e.g., from USPTO PatentCenter / the patent PDF) before stating claim scope definitively.

---

5. Source-discrepancy and reliability flags

• PatentLeaderboard lists "7032514 | Planographic printing method… | Takashi Nakamura | 2006-04-25" under a page headed "Nobufumi Mori — 46 Patents at Fujitsu Limited." That attribution conflicts with the authoritative record (assignee: Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. → FUJIFILM Corporation). I treat the "Fujitsu Limited" attribution as a secondary-source artifact, not a correction to the patent.
• The Justia page for 7032514 opens with mid-specification text (bow-type coating squeezer / silicone oil KF-99), confirming my search surfaced selected passages rather than a full document with abstract and claims.
• Nothing in any search result contradicts the bibliographic data in the authoritative patent text, and I have not auto-corrected any number: US 7,032,514 ≠ JP 7032514 ≠ KR 10-2013-7032514 ≠ DOI 10.1109/ReConfig.2014.7032514.

---

6. Bottom line

US 7,032,514 is a 2006 Fujifilm (originally Fuji Photo Film) patent to Mori and Nakamura on development-free lithographic plate-making, in which a hydrophobic-coated photocatalyst plate is imagewise exposed to UV while held at 40–200 °C to accelerate the hydrophilic conversion, mounted on-press, and reusable after ink wash-off and re-hydrophilization. It is expired (adjusted expiration 2023-08-03). I found no 2026 CAFC docket and no active litigation naming it. My abstract and independent-claim descriptions above are inferred from the specification and metadata, not quoted — if you need verbatim abstract and claim text, I'd pull the granted patent PDF or PatentCenter record.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 7,032,514. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me search litigation-specific databases and court records more directly.

Answer: No litigation found involving US Patent 7,032,514

After running multiple targeted searches (patent-number-specific queries, patent-litigation aggregators, and litigation-related document repositories), I found no record of any U.S. district court, ITC, or PTAB/post-grant proceeding involving U.S. Patent No. 7,032,514. The searches also surfaced no Unified Patents litigation entry, no Docket Alarm entry, and no RPX Insight entry tied to this patent number.

Summary table

No case table can be completed because no assertion, declaratory-judgment action, ITC investigation, IPR/PGR/CBM, reexamination, or reissue proceeding could be located for this specific patent.

What I did find (and why it is not this patent)

Search results did surface significant Fujifilm v. Kodak printing-plate litigation, but that dispute is European/UPC, not U.S., and it is on different patents:

• Fujifilm Corp. v. Kodak GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, UPC_CFI_359/2023 (Mannheim Local Division) — asserting EP 3 476 616 B1 (Sonora X / XTRA products).
• The companion case asserts EP 3 511 174 ("Planographic printing plate original plate, method for manufacturing planographic printing plate, and planographic printing method") — Mannheim LD found it valid and infringed (April 2025); appeal IDs UPC_CoA_312/2025, UPC_CoA_880/2025, UPC_CoA_333/2025, UPC_CoA_882/2025.
• A third action involved EP 3 594 009 (Düsseldorf LD, revoked January 2025).

These are European patent numbers, not U.S. 7,032,514, and they are UPC proceedings, not U.S. litigation. I am deliberately not conflating them with the U.S. patent you asked about. I also did not treat the similarly numbered Japanese patent JP 7032514 (Mitsubishi Electric, AC rotary machine control) or Korean application 10-2013-7032514 as relevant — those are unrelated and confirm the importance of matching on the exact U.S. number.

Why this absence is plausible

The patent's own record (from the authoritative Google Patents text you provided) shows:

• Assignee: Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. → FUJIFILM Corporation (reassignment 2007-02-15)
• Legal status: Expired – Fee Related, adjusted expiration 2023-08-03
• No reissue, no reexamination, and no litigation entries appear in the bibliographic/"Info" section.

A patent that expired for failure to pay maintenance fees and was never asserted is unlikely to appear in U.S. litigation dockets.

Caveats — please verify independently

1. My searches did not return a direct hit in the litigation-specific portals you named (Unified Patents litigation caselist, PACER, CAFC). I could not retrieve a specific Unified Patents or PACER docket for 7,032,514, so treat this as "no litigation found," not "litigation definitively does not exist."
2. Litigation records for patents litigated only in state courts, foreign courts, or pre-2000 dockets may be incompletely indexed in free web sources.
3. For a conclusive answer, check: PACER (all district courts), Unified Patents Portal (district-court litigation and PTAB tabs), RPX Insight, Docket Navigator, CourtListener/RECAP, and the USPTO Patent Center "Legal Events"/assignment and PTAB records for this patent number.

Bottom line: On the evidence available, there is no known U.S. litigation involving US Patent 7,032,514. If you need a certified litigation history (e.g., for due diligence or an opinion of counsel), I recommend pulling the PACER docket search and the USPTO Patent Center legal-events record for patent 7,032,514 directly, since I cannot confirm a negative from the web sources alone.

I'll verify the structured data with targeted searches before reporting.

Let me run a couple more targeted checks to be thorough.

PTAB Proceedings — U.S. Patent No. 7,032,514

Source of record: The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block in this prompt (USPTO Open Data Portal ingest) returns zero AIA trial proceedings. My independent web checks (Google Patents family page, PTAB/PTABTS document hits, litigation-news and Patent Public Search-adjacent results, and aggregator coverage) surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming US 7,032,514. I am reporting the absence affirmatively rather than inventing a docket.

---

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0 — active: 0 · claims invalidated: 0 · claims sustained: 0 · settled: 0 · institution denied: 0. The bottom-line defensive posture is the unusual one: the patent was never attacked at the PTAB at all, and it is now expired (Google Patents records status "Expired – Fee Related," adjusted expiration 2023-08-03), so a defendant today faces a dead patent with no PTAB record either way — no canceled claims to point to as leverage, but also no FWD findings, no estoppel, and no injunction exposure.

---

No proceeding identified — Petitioner v. Fujifilm Corporation (as successor to Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd.)

• Type: None — no IPR / PGR / CBM on file.
• Filed: N/A
• Status: N/A — the ODP structured data reports no AIA trial proceedings; nothing in the public record contradicts that.
• Judge panel: N/A
• Petition grounds: N/A
• Institution decision: N/A
• Final Written Decision: N/A
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: N/A — there is no FWD, therefore no PTAB-to-Federal Circuit appeal of this patent. (I found no CAFC opinion addressing 7,032,514 in any posture.)
• Defensive value: Because no claim was ever canceled, you cannot hand a demand-letter plaintiff a PTAB disposition and say "your claim is dead." Your invalidity case is instead a fresh district court or IPR argument on the original, unintended claim scope — which is actually a favorable posture in one respect: no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to anyone, so all prior-art grounds remain open.

Disambiguation caution for anyone re-running this search: the string "7032514" collides with unrelated foreign rights — JP Patent No. 7032514 (Mitsubishi Electric, AC rotary-machine control device, registered 2022-02-28) and KR Application No. 10-2013-7032514 (ArcelorMittal steel sheet). Neither relates to this patent. Any future proceeding search must key on US 7,032,514 / application 09/887,334, not the bare number.

---

Strategic summary

What is CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. Nothing is canceled, and nothing is sustained: every claim of 7,032,514 is UNTESTED at the PTAB. The patent issued 2006-04-25 from application 09/887,334 (filed 2001-06-25; priority 2000-06-26) to inventors Nobufumi Mori and Takashi Nakamura, originally assigned to Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. and now held by Fujifilm Corporation. The invention as described in the specification is a simplified planographic (offset) plate-making method that skips development: a hydrophobic processing agent is applied to an original plate bearing a photocatalyst substance (e.g., TiO₂ or ZnO), and the image is then formed by image-wise irradiation of activation light with the plate held at 40–200 °C (a preferred sub-window of 40–140 °C), exploiting the inventors' finding, plotted in Fig. 1, that the polarity-change rate (contact angle → 5°) rises sharply in that thermal band. The specification repeatedly frames the claims around that temperature window and around the hydrophobic-layer-plus-heat combination, which is exactly the kind of numeric-range limitation that attracts § 103 arguments under In re Aller / In re Woodruff — but no petitioner ever made that argument. I did not have the issued claim set in the authoritative text supplied to me, so I am deliberately not attributing specific claim numbers to specific limitations; pull the claims from the '514 patent itself before drafting any invalidity theory.

Estoppel landscape. Because there is no AIA proceeding, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is a null set — no petitioner, and no privy of any petitioner, is barred from raising any § 102/§ 103 ground. A defendant today can freely file an IPR or assert invalidity in litigation on any art it chooses, including art the examiner never cited. The corollary is equally important: you have no estoppel working for you either. There is no prior petitioner whose loss forecloses the patent owner's positions, and no FWD claim construction to lock the owner in.

Pattern signals. No serial petitions, no multiple-petitioner activity, no unified defense. There is no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) in the chain — I checked Unified-adjacent coverage expressly and found nothing. The likely reason is economic rather than substantive: the patent's field (analog planographic plate-making on a printing-press plate cylinder) is narrow, the asserted product ecosystem is press equipment rather than high-volume consumer goods, and the patent has been expired since 2023-08-03. Practically, a patent that is never asserted does not attract IPRs — the absence of PTAB activity here is a signal that the patent was never a meaningful assertion vehicle, not that it survived hostile scrutiny. Note also the continuation line: application US 11/353,970 (published as US 2006/0156941 A1) was filed 2006-02-15 claiming priority to this family, so if you are evaluating a Fujifilm plate-making portfolio, that continuation — not the '514 — may be where the live rights sit.

One more practical point on the expired status: expiration (fee-related) means no injunctive relief is available now. Damages exposure, if any, is limited to acts of infringement within the six-year lookback of 35 U.S.C. § 286 that occurred before expiration — at the outside, 2017-08-03 through 2023-08-03 — subject to any laches/§ 286 analysis and the patent owner's diligence.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Do not represent to a court or adversary that any claim of 7,032,514 has been invalidated. No PTAB proceeding exists, and no FWD, institution decision, or settlement exists to cite. Any statement to the contrary would be a fabrication.
2. Confirm the negative directly in the authoritative systems before relying on it: PTAB E2E / PTABTS (https://ptacts.uspto.gov) and USPTO Patent Center (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov) for application 09/887,334; also check the USPTO Open Data Portal trial-proceedings endpoint and Docket Alarm / CourtListener RECAP for any civil action asserting the '514 that could have spawned a previously unindexed petition. Additional proceeding types to sweep: ex parte reexamination (35 U.S.C. § 302) and supplemental examination (§ 257) — neither is an AIA trial and neither would appear in the structured block, but both could have altered the claims. The Google Patents family page for US7032514B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7032514/en) shows no reexamination certificate and no adverse post-issuance event.
3. If you are being asserted against today, the operative defenses are expiry and § 286, not IPR estoppel. Build the timeline first: date of first notice/demand, date of alleged acts, and the 2023-08-03 expiration. Then evaluate § 102/§ 103 on the merits — you have a clean slate and no estoppel risk from a prior petition.
4. If the demand letter cites a specific claim, verify it against the issued claim set before responding. Since no claim has been construed by the PTAB or canceled by it, the claim language controls entirely, and the 40–200 °C / 40–140 °C range limitations and the "hydrophobic layer on the entire surface" requirement are the limitations most likely to carry any remaining defense weight.
5. Check the continuation (US 11/353,970 / US 2006/0156941 A1) and its progeny to see whether the commercially relevant claims migrated into an unexpired family member — that is where a live assertion would more plausibly originate.

I'll start by trying to pull the recorded assignment data for this patent from USPTO sources, cross-checking the legal events already in the patent text.

Let me try to locate the specific recorded assignment entries (reel/frame) and any litigation history.

The Espacenet INPADOC result surfaced a concrete reel/frame pattern. Let me pull the legal-status history specifically for US7032514 and check for any litigation.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 7,032,514 B2

Patent: "Planographic printing method, original printing plate and printing press"
App. No.: 09/887,334 · Filed: 2001-06-25 · Granted: 2006-04-25 · Priority: 2000-06-26 (JP)
Status shown: Expired – Fee Related (adjusted expiration 2023-08-03)

Data-availability note (important). The Google Patents record supplied as the authoritative source exposes this patent's legal events without reel/frame numbers. I was able to reach only one assignment/frame data point for the Fujifilm corporate reorganization (from an Espacenet INPADOC legal-status page for a different sibling publication, US 2006/0152562 A1). I could not, within available searches, retrieve the executed dates, recorded reel/frame numbers, or correspondents of record for US 7,032,514 itself. Per the operating rules, I am not fabricating reel/frame or correspondent fields; those cells are marked as not retrievable. Search page for verification: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (query 7032514) and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html.

---

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check: None found. Both inventors assigned to the employer-of-record rather than departing, and there is no evidence of either inventor leaving before the assignment. No spin-out, no inventor-started LLC. The only mild irregularity — the inventor→company assignment being recorded on 2003-02-13, roughly 20 months after the 2001-06-25 filing — is routine late recording, not a fire-sale precursor (fire-sale precursor is usually an inventor departure or an early sale of the asset).

---

Original assignee

Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. (Japan) — named on the face of the issued patent.

• Business: Diversified imaging and materials conglomerate; its relevant line for this patent is graphic arts / printing-plate materials (presensitized "PS" plates, offset printing chemistry). This patent is squarely in that product line — a planographic printing/plate-making method and press.
• Product embodying the claims: Unclear / not established. The specification is an apparatus-and-method disclosure (on-press plate making without development); it is a plate-making process and press disclosure rather than a discrete sellable product. Fujifilm (via Fujifilm Graphic Systems) does commercialize offset plate and printing-press-related goods, but I found no source confirming this specific patent was commercialized.
• Current status: Operating. Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. did not dissolve — it was renamed Fujifilm Holdings Corporation effective 2006-10-01, and its business (assets and liabilities) was succeeded by the newly organized Fujifilm Corporation effective 2006-10-02 under a Japanese corporate split (corroborated by the Honeywell v. Apple stipulation caption change in D. Del. 1:04-cv-01338 and by Fujifilm's own filings). Fujifilm Holdings is publicly listed (TYO: 4901). No bankruptcy, no dissolution, no wind-down.

---

Assignment timeline

Recorded assignments surfaced for this patent (Google Patents legal events; reel/frame and correspondent not exposed there):

1. Executed date not shown / recorded 2003-02-13 — Reel not exposed in the sources available

   • Conveyance: Assignment (ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST)
   • Assignor: MORI, NOBUFUMI; NAKAMURA, TAKASHI (individual inventors)
   • Assignee: FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
   • Correspondent: not retrievable — cannot assess
   • Context: Ordinary employee-inventor assignment to the employer of record (acquisition of the founders' rights); routine.

2. Executed 2007-01-30 (effective date per INPADOC) / recorded 2007-02-15 — Reel 018904 / frame 0001 (reel/frame value taken from the INPADOC record of the Fujifilm reorganization recording; the same reel 018904 was used for Fujifilm's batch post-reorganization recordings, and the exact frame for US 7,032,514 is not independently confirmed — treat the frame as unverified for this patent)

   • Conveyance: Assignment (ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST; described in INPADOC as new owner = FUJIFILM CORPORATION, Japan)
   • Assignor: FUJIFILM HOLDINGS CORPORATION (formerly FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.)
   • Assignee: FUJIFILM CORPORATION
   • Correspondent: not retrievable for this patent
   • Context: Internal corporate reorganization / asset succession — the 2006-10-02 Japanese corporate split in which the renamed holding company (Fujifilm Holdings) transferred the operating business to Fujifilm Corporation. Not an arm's-length sale to a third party.

No other recorded assignments were found. In particular there is no post-issuance transfer to any LLC, no security agreement, no license record, and no transfer to an assertion entity. The 2006-02-15 "Priority to US 11/353,970" event on the Google Patents page is a continuation-family filing (published as US 2006/0156941 A1), not an ownership change. The 2023-08-03 entry is a term adjustment/expiration event, not an assignment.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7032514
    2000 : Priority application filed in Japan
    2001 : US application filed by Fuji Photo Film
    2003 : Inventors assign rights to Fuji Photo Film
    2006 : Patent US 7032514 granted
         : Fuji Photo Film renamed Fujifilm Holdings
    2007 : Operating business to Fujifilm Corporation
    2023 : Patent term adjusted and lapsed

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The only non-inventor transfer (recorded 2007-02-15) moves the patent from Fujifilm Holdings Corporation to Fujifilm Corporation, a named operating subsidiary, not to any "IP / Holdings / Ventures" licensing shell. No registered-agent-service address, no single-purpose LLC.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Neither assignee (Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. / Fujifilm Holdings Corporation / Fujifilm Corporation) appears on any of the listed NPE rosters (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). Fujifilm is an operating manufacturer.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / not assessable. The correspondent-of-record field is not exposed in the sources I could reach for this patent, and I could not verify a corresponding attorney on any reel/frame entry for US 7,032,514. Because the rule here is that recurrence (not a single appearance) is the finding, I make no finding. (Flagged as a genuine gap rather than evidence of absence.)

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Two records total across ~six years, both intra-corporate. No chain of LLCs, no transfers in <24 months through sequential shells.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. I found no infringement suit naming US 7,032,514. There is therefore no pre-suit transfer to time; the 2007-01-30 transfer predates any conceivable filing by nearly two decades and was a corporate split, not an assertion setup.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No Chapter 7/11 for Fuji Photo Film / Fujifilm Holdings / Fujifilm Corporation; the 2006 event was a solvent, shareholder-approved reorganization, not an insolvency sale.

7. Privateering — Not present. No evidence of transfer to an NPE asserting on Fujifilm's behalf; the patent never left the Fujifilm corporate family.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. Note that Fujifilm does participate in cross-licensing generally, but there is no recorded assignment evidencing a defensive-aggregation outcome here.

Aggravating/neutral fact: The patent shows as Expired – Fee Related (adjusted expiration 2023-08-03). Fee-lapse termination — rather than assertion — is a counter-indicator of NPE behavior; an assertion vehicle typically keeps the asset alive while litigating.

---

Verdict

Insufficient data — meaning: no NPE pattern is present, and none of the NPE categories is supported.

The complete obtainable record is (i) a routine inventor→employer assignment recorded 2003-02-13 to Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd., and (ii) a 2007-02-15 intra-corporate asset-succession entry (effective 2007-01-30) moving the patent from Fujifilm Holdings Corporation (formerly Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd.) to Fujifilm Corporation — an operating manufacturer that still exists today. Zero of the eight NPE signals are present, the patent was never transferred outside the Fujifilm family, and I found no assertion naming it; the residual "operating-company assertion" category is not affirmable because there is no evidence Fujifilm sued anyone on this patent, and the chain does not terminate at a defensive aggregator, so "defensive / non-asserting" also does not apply. Because I could not independently verify the reel/frame and correspondent-of-record fields for US 7,032,514 from the sources reachable here, I decline to make a stronger affirmative call — the honest classification is a routine, operating-company-owned patent with no NPE activity.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search 7032514) — request the reel/frame and correspondent of record for both entries above; if a single outside attorney/firm filed both the 2003 and 2007 records, that is the one remaining field that could change this picture.

I'll research US Patent 7032514 and its prior art citations.

Let me gather more detail on the cited references and the patent's claims.

Prior Art Analysis — US Patent 7,032,514

1. Confirmation of the Subject Patent

US 7,032,514 B2 — "Planographic printing method, original printing plate and printing press"

• Application No. US 09/887,334, filed June 25, 2001
• Priority date: June 26, 2000
• Granted/Published: April 25, 2006
• Inventors: Nobufumi Mori, Takashi Nakamura
• Original Assignee: Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. (now FUJIFILM Holdings Corp. / FUJIFILM Corp.)
• §102(e)/§102(a)/§102(b) reference dates relevant to this patent: an invention by others must predate the June 26, 2000 priority date (or be published/filed accordingly).

Subject matter at issue (for mapping the prior art): a planographic printing method using a printing-plate precursor having photocatalytic power, in which the entire surface is made hydrophobic and activation light is irradiated imagewise while the plate is held at 40–200° C. to form hydrophilic/hydrophobic areas without development. Independent claims 1 and 8 (a "processing method" per the abstract) recite a graphic arts original printing plate and printing press respectively.

---

2. References Cited on the Face of US 7,032,514

The examiner-cited "References Cited" list (from the Justia record for 7032514) consists of three U.S. patents and a set of Japanese publications. Below I separate those I could verify from those I could not fully verify, and I flag the latter rather than guess at their contents.

A. Verified U.S. Patent Citations

1. US 6,048,654 — "Lithographic printing method and printing plate precursor for lithographic printing"

• Inventors: Nakayama et al.
• Issue date: April 11, 2000 (per the cited-reference table)
• Description (from text I retrieved): Discloses a lithographic method that repeats the steps of (a) exposing a plate precursor whose surface has a thin layer of TiO₂, ZnO, or an oxide selected from RTiO₃, AB₂₋ₓCₓD₃₋ₓEₓO₁₀, SnO₂, Bi₂O₃, and Fe₂O₃ to active light to make the exposed area hydrophilic, and (b) making the hydrophilic area hydrophobic again by heat treatment, permitting plate regeneration. Notably, this is the reference whose metal-oxide genus (RTiO₃, AB₂₋ₓCₓD₃₋ₓEₓO₁₀, SnO₂, etc.) is copied almost verbatim into the 7,032,514 specification (see the AB₂₋ₓCₓD₃₋ₓEₓO₁₀ discussion and the CsLa₂NbTi₂O₁₀ examples).
• Potentially anticipatory claim(s) under §102(b): Because it issued April 11, 2000 (more than one year before the June 25, 2001 filing, and before the June 26, 2000 priority date), it is a §102(b) reference. It potentially anticipates claims directed to the photocatalytic oxide precursor + imagewise active-light exposure + heat-based regeneration of the plate (i.e., the regeneration/reuse aspects and the metal-oxide species claimed). It does not appear to disclose the critical feature of claim 1 — maintaining the plate at 40–200 °C during activation-light irradiation to accelerate the polarity-change rate — so anticipation would turn on how narrowly the claims recite that temperature limitation. If any claim omits or broadly recites the temperature/rate feature, US 6,048,654 is the strongest §102(b) candidate.

2. US 6,079,331 — "Plate making device and printer and printing system using the plate making device"

• Inventors: Koguchi, Kamiyama, Nakayama (Koguchi et al.)
• Priority date: October 23, 1997; application date: Oct 25, 1998; issued June 27, 2000.
• Description (from text I retrieved): A plate-making device/printer using a plate material with a surface layer whose major component changes from lipophilic to hydrophilic by a photocatalytic reaction and returns to lipophilic on heat treatment. The exposure means exposes the plate to active light over substantially the entire surface with the image part kept unexposed (reverse imagewise exposure), ink is supplied to the unexposed imaged region, ink is removed after printing, and a heating means restores the plate for reuse. The claims recite titanium oxide or zinc oxide as the major component, and claim 12 places the exposure/ink/heating means around a plate cylinder.
• Potentially anticipatory claim(s) under §102(b): As a June 27, 2000 grant with a 1997 priority date, it is §102(b) as to the 2000/2001 subject application. It strongly maps to claims reciting: a plate cylinder carrying a photocatalytic printing original, activation-light imagewise exposure, ink supply, ink removal, and heating to restore the plate (i.e., the printing-press apparatus aspects and the regeneration aspects). Its "reverse" exposure (imaging the unexposed areas) differs from the negative-type imaging described in 7,032,514, but apparatus/regeneration claims may still read on it.

3. US 6,318,264 B1 — D'Heureuse et al. (issued November 20, 2001)

• Status of verification: I could not retrieve the specification/full citation text for this reference within the research steps available, and I will not characterize its disclosure beyond its inventor/date as listed in the cited-reference table. I cannot responsibly assign it a claim-by-claim §102 mapping without the text. Note that because it issued November 20, 2001 — after the June 25, 2001 filing date but with an earlier effective filing — its relevance would run through §102(e) (a U.S. patent granted on an application filed before the subject invention), not §102(b). Its contents should be verified directly before any anticipation position is taken.

B. Foreign (Japanese) Citations

The cited-reference table lists a large body of Japanese art, principally directed to (i) hydrophobic/hydrophilic polarity conversion of photocatalytic metal-oxide layers and (ii) coating/spraying/vapor-condensation application methods. Listed as published (with the dates shown on the Justia face of 7032514):

Caveat: I was unable to retrieve the full text/claims of the individual JP documents within this research pass. The subject-matter column above reflects how the 7,032,514 specification itself characterizes these references (e.g., it cites JP H11-174665, H11-138970 and H11-143055 for "many photocatalytic metal oxides are made hydrophobic by being heated to 80–140 °C"). Those admissions are themselves significant for §102/§103 purposes, because the applicant's own specification states that the hydrophobic-processing heating step was known. However, I cannot map any specific JP reference to a specific claim of 7,032,514 without its text, and I decline to do so speculatively.

---

3. Assessment: Which Reference Is Most Relevant

On the verified record, the two U.S. patents form the closest prior art, and they divide the invention's two halves:

• US 6,048,654 (Nakayama) and US 6,079,331 (Koguchi) both disclose the core "no-development" lithographic concept central to 7,032,514 — a plate with a photocatalytic metal-oxide surface layer that becomes hydrophilic on imagewise active-light exposure and is restored by heating for reuse.
• The feature that 7,032,514 relies on for patentability is the temperature-controlled irradiation — holding the plate at 40–200 °C (preferably 40–140 °C) while exposing so that the polarity-change rate increases (its FIG. 1 and the Examples, where 30 °C control-fails but 100–140 °C succeeds). The specification expressly argues novelty over "irradiating activation light as per image without adjusting the temperature of an original plate to 40–200 °C."

Accordingly:

Bottom line: Neither verified U.S. reference appears to disclose the specific §102-defeating limitation — imagewise activation-light exposure at a controlled 40–200 °C plate temperature to accelerate the polarity-conversion rate. That limitation is what distinguishes 7,032,514. Whether §102 anticipation actually lies would require reading the full claim set of 7,032,514 (the independent "processing method" claims 1 and 8 and their dependents), which was not fully reproduced in the materials I retrieved; I have mapped the references at the level the available text supports and have flagged US 6,318,264 and the Japanese references as unverified rather than fabricate their contents.

---

Items I could not verify (stated explicitly, not guessed)

1. The full claim text of US 7,032,514 (independent claims 1 and 8 and dependents) — needed for exact claim-by-claim §102 mapping.
2. The specification/claims of US 6,318,264 B1 (D'Heureuse et al.).
3. The contents of the JP 8/9/10/11-series and JP 2000-62334/35 references, beyond how the 7,032,514 specification characterizes them.

If you want, I can run a focused retrieval on any one of these three gaps (I'd prioritize the full claim set of 7,032,514 and the D'Heureuse text) to complete a rigorous §102 chart.

I'll start by gathering the actual claim text and the prior-art references cited on this patent's record, since the fetched page text was truncated before the claims.

I have the claim set. Now let me pull the prosecution/appeal history and the specific prior-art references that appear on this patent's record.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 7,032,514 B2

Title: Planographic printing method, original printing plate and printing press
Appl. No.: US 09/887,334 · Filed: 2001‑06‑25 · Priority: 2000‑06‑26 (JP) · Granted: 2006‑04‑25
Assignee of record: Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. → FUJIFILM Holdings Corp.
Governing law: pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (application filed 2001); KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966).

---

1. Evidentiary basis and caveats (read first)

The fetched Google Patents text (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7032514B2/en) was truncated before the Claims, the front‑page "(56) References Cited" list, and the "Cited By / Similar Documents" tables. I therefore could not read the patent's own printed prior‑art listing verbatim. The prior art used below comes from two verifiable sources:

1. The "Description of the Related Art" section of this document (and of its pre‑grant publication US20020001776A1, https://patents.justia.com/patent/20020001776 and https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ff/17/04/f405df70bb361d/US20020001776A1.pdf), which expressly identifies prior art; and
2. References identified by search of the same technical field, whose bibliographic data I flag where unverified.

Two things I could not verify and will not assert: (a) the verbatim text of granted claim 1 (only claims 6–15 were retrieved; https://patents.justia.com/patent/7032514); the claim‑1 language below is from the published counterpart and should be confirmed against the printed patent. (b) A page titled "Ex Parte Mori et al" appears in the BPAI decisions index (https://law.onecle.com/board-of-patent-appeals/2005/fd051229002.html), but I could not retrieve its text, so I cannot report what the Board held. Treat the grounds below as an independent § 103 analysis, not as a report of the actual Office action.

---

2. The claims at issue

Claim 1 (independent method claim, per US2002/00001776A1):

"A planographic printing method, comprising the steps of: uniformly providing a layer of a hydrophobic substance on an original printing plate having photo catalyst power; thereafter forming distributions of hydrophilic and hydrophobic areas as per image by heating the surface of the original plate to a temperature ranging from 40 through 200° C. and irradiating activation light thereonto; and performing printing by the hydrophobic areas accepting printing ink."

Decomposed: (a) photocatalyst‑bearing original plate; (b) separate hydrophobic‑substance layer applied uniformly first; (c) imagewise hydrophilic/hydrophobic distribution created by temperature 40–200 °C combined with activation‑light irradiation; (d) printing with ink on the hydrophobic areas.

Claim 10 (independent, product): "An original plate for planographic printing having photo catalyst power, in which the irradiation of activation light is carried out at a temperature of the original plate from 40 through 200° C."

Claim 13 (independent, apparatus): a six‑element press: mounting section → hydrophobic processing section → activation‑light irradiation section → heating section for 40–200 °C during irradiation → ink/dampening supply section → printing section.

Dependents: 6–8 (methods of applying the hydrophobic layer: coating, spraying, vapor condensation, gas contact, immersion; sublimating solid/volatile liquid; macromolecular compound sprayed as solution/dispersoid); 9 (ink removal and reuse); 11–12 (oxide selection and heat‑insulating layer); 14–15 (light‑heating vs. electro‑heating means).

---

3. The prior art relied upon

Excluded as post‑priority (not prior art): JP2000-289359A (publ. 2000‑10‑17), JP2000289359, US20040168597A1, US20050092198A1, and the EP1084863 family publications (2001). JP2000062335A (publ. Feb. 2000) and JP3486361B2 may qualify, but I could not confirm full bibliographic data, so I rely on them only as corroboration.

---

4. Level of ordinary skill

A POSITA would be a person with a degree in chemistry, materials science, or printing engineering plus 2–4 years' experience in lithographic plate development, or equivalent — familiar with (i) semiconductor photocatalysis and the photo‑induced hydrophilicity of TiO₂, (ii) on‑press/direct imaging plate‑making, and (iii) conventional planographic press architecture (plate cylinder, dampening/ink trains, blanket cylinder).

---

5. Grounds of rejection

Ground 1 — Claim 1 over JP H11‑133631 in view of JP H11‑138970 (and H11‑143055 / H11‑174665)

H11‑133631 discloses elements (a), (b), (c‑in‑part) and (d): a photocatalytic original plate, a uniformly applied hydrophobic‑substance layer, imagewise activation light that removes the hydrophobic substance to define hydrophilic areas, and printing from the retained hydrophobic areas. That is the entire invention of claim 1 except the temperature limitation.

H11‑138970 discloses both halves of the missing element: an RTiO₃ photocatalytic planographic plate imaged by activation light and used directly for printing, and heating of that plate to ≥ 80 °C. H11‑143055/H11‑174665 confirm that heating the photocatalyst layer to 80–140 °C is a known plate‑treatment step.

The claimed range 40–200 °C overlaps/subsumes the known 80–140 °C treatment. Under In re Peterson, 315 F.2d 323 (CCPA 1963), and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990), a claimed range that overlaps, touches, or is merely adjacent to a prior‑art range is prima facie obvious absent evidence of criticality.

Rationale for combining (MPEP § 2143):

• (A) Known elements combined by known methods, predictable result. Both references are Fuji applications in the identical field (photocatalyst planographic plates), and the specification itself frames them as alternative responses to the same admitted problem.
• (C)/(D) Known technique to improve a similar device. H11‑138970 shows heating the same type of photocatalytic plate; applying that known thermal step to the H11‑133631 plate is use of a known technique for its known purpose.
• Motivation supplied by the applicant's own admission. Spec ¶[0008] concedes: "It is also desirable that a substantial shortcoming of the polarity changing rate in line with the irradiation of activation light being slow is corrected. If the polarity changing rate is slow, the sensitivity is lowered … the depicting time by activation light is increased, and energy consumption is accordingly increased." An applicant's admitted problem statement is usable as evidence of motivation. The same paragraph notes the prior art was already attacking distinction (H10‑25131 via fluorine hydrophobics; H11‑133631 via hydrophobic‑layer decomposition), i.e., the art was converging on the same solution space.

Ground 2 — The temperature range as an obvious optimization of a result‑effective variable

Even if H11‑138970 were read only as regeneration heating, the 40–200 °C limitation is a classic optimization of a result‑effective variable. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272 (CCPA 1980); In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The patent's own FIG. 1 demonstrates the point against the applicant: the time to reach a 5° contact angle falls smoothly and monotonically — ≈280 s at room temperature, ≈100 s at 60 °C, ≈20 s at 120 °C. That is a continuous, predictable kinetic trend (elevated temperature accelerating a photocatalytic surface reaction), not a discontinuity. At 1.3 mW/cm², the claimed 40–200 °C band spans essentially the whole practical operating window above ambient, and the lower bound of 40 °C is only marginally above the 30 °C comparative that the applicants ran.

The prosecution history would therefore likely include the familiar "broad range encompassing the disclosed sub‑range, predicting only a difference in degree" line of reasoning.

Ground 3 — Claim 10 (and 11–12)

Claim 10 recites a plate whose only distinguishing feature is an intended processing condition ("the irradiation of activation light is carried out at a temperature … from 40 through 200 °C"). Under In re Vaeck / In re Schreiber, intended‑use and process‑step language in an apparatus/product claim does not distinguish over the prior‑art structure. H11‑133631, H10‑250027 and US 6,420,091 each disclose the plate itself (substrate + photocatalytic metal‑oxide layer), and H11‑138970 discloses heating such a plate to ≥80 °C. Claim 10 is therefore obvious over any of those alone or in combination. Claims 11 (oxide list) and 12 (heat‑insulating layer) are supported by the same references: US 6,420,091 recites the identical oxide enumeration (TiO₂, RTiO₃, AB₂₋ₓCₓD₃₋ₓEₓO₁₀, SnO₂, ZrO₂, ZnO, ZnS, CdS, Bi₂O₃, Fe₂O₃), and the intervening‑/insulating‑layer expedient is a routine design choice for thermal management in the thin‑film art.

Ground 4 — Claim 13 (press)

Claim 13 is the six‑element press. On a POSITA's level, the combination is:

• US 6,423,468 and JP H10‑250027 — on‑press plate‑making and printing devices for photocatalyst/planographic plates;
• H11‑138970 / H11‑143055 / H11‑174665 — heating of the plate to a defined temperature as a known plate‑handling step in the same press context;
• US 6,420,091 / US 6,423,468 — ink removal and plate reuse in situ.

The only arguably new element is item (4), the heating means for holding the plate at 40–200 °C during activation‑light irradiation. The specification itself concedes that which heaters are suitable ("nichrome wires and heat‑generating resistors," "a contact heating type heat roller," "infrared ray light, halogen light, tungsten light … xenon discharge light") are publicly known means. Placing a known heater in a known plate cylinder to perform a known heating step is, at most, an aggregation of old elements in a known environment producing no more than their expected combined effect (MPEP § 2143(A); In re Harza). The press claim adds no new cooperation among the six sections beyond what would be expected.

Ground 5 — Dependent claims 6–9

• Claims 6–8 (coating, spraying, vapor condensation, gas contact, immersion; sublimating solid/volatile liquid; sprayed macromolecular dispersoid): the same Fuji disclosures in this family recite these deposition techniques, and the vapour‑condensation/immersion application of hydrophobic agents to plates was conventional (the specification itself cites Japanese Patent No. 2655337 and Japanese Unexamined Patent Publication Nos. 8‑290088, 8‑290087, 9‑138493, 8‑123001, 9‑160208, 9‑179272 as known application methods). The choice among five known coating methods for a known coating step is obvious.
• Claim 9 (remove ink, reuse the plate): squarely disclosed by H11‑138970 ("after the printing is completed … remove residual ink … heat the original plate to 80 °C or more … repeat printing") and by US 6,420,091 ("reclaiming a printing plate precursor which can be repeatedly used").

---

6. Motivation to combine — the general case

Beyond the reference‑specific rationales, the record supplies four, mutually reinforcing motivations:

1. Same field, same assignee, same problem. All the principal references are Fuji applications on photocatalytic planographic plates; the specification's own "Related Art" section collects them as a single line of development. H11‑138970, H11‑143055 and H11‑174665 are not remote art.
2. Explicit statement of the problem and its two known solutions. The applicants admit (i) the polarity‑changing rate was too slow and (ii) prior art had already addressed distinction by adding a hydrophobic layer (H11‑133631) or making the photocatalyst hydrophobic (H11‑174665/H11‑138970/H11‑143055). Combining those two known solutions is the definition of the KSR "predictable variation" inquiry.
3. Finite, predictable options. The art presented a small, identified set of mechanisms for accelerating the polarity change (more exposure energy, more time, higher temperature). Where a finite number of identified, predictable solutions exist, "obvious to try" supports patentability's denial. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.
4. Design‑choice simplicity. Nothing in the art taught away from heating during irradiation; heaters of the claimed kinds were notorious in the printing and photocatalysis arts.

---

7. Rebuttal analysis — what the applicant can credibly argue

An honest analysis requires flagging two real counterpoints:

(a) Teaching away. The applicant will argue that H11‑138970, H11‑143055 and H11‑174665 teach that heating a photocatalyst metal oxide makes it hydrophobic — the inventors wrote exactly that in the specification — so that the art teaches in the opposite direction from heating during activation‑light exposure to promote hydrophilization. This is the strongest argument available. The rebuttal is that the two teachings are not inconsistent: heat drives the surface toward its thermodynamically stable hydrophobic state in the absence of UV, while UV drives it hydrophilic; raising the temperature accelerates the UV‑driven kinetics — which is exactly what FIG. 1 shows. A teaching‑away argument requires that the prior art "criticize, discredit or discourage" the claimed option; a preference for a different purpose (regeneration) is not criticism of the claimed use.

(b) Criticality of the upper bound. The specification's comparative (heater set to 210 °C) reports staining of the non‑printed areas and low image density, i.e., it deliberately brackets the claimed range with worked examples of failure at 30 °C and 210 °C. A showing of criticality at both ends, supported by unexpected results, would defeat the "result‑effective variable" attack (In re Woodruff; MPEP § 716.02). The weakness is that the 210 °C failure appears to be attributable to thermal destruction/de‑wetting of the hydrophobic layer — a predictable consequence of overheating a thin organic film — so it likely shows a difference in degree, not in kind. The 40 °C lower bound is also weaker than the upper bound: FIG. 1 shows no criticality at 40 °C, only a smooth curve.

(c) Secondary considerations. The specification asserts ≥15 reuse cycles, sharper distinction, shorter plate‑making time, and clean prints at 140 °C. These are the expected results of the combination (greater temperature, cleaner surface), and the nexus to the temperature limitation specifically (as opposed to the hydrophobic layer, which is old in H11‑133631) is not established. No third‑party licensing or long‑felt‑need evidence appears on the face of the document.

(d) Pre‑AIA § 103(c) safe harbor for US 6,420,091. Because both US 6,420,091 and US 7,032,514 were owned by Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd., § 103(c)(1) (applicable to applications filed after 29 Nov 1999) would disqualify US 6,420,091 as § 102(e)/102(f)/102(g) art for § 103 purposes if common ownership existed at the time the invention was made. I could not verify US 6,420,091's filing date or the ownership timeline, so this is flagged rather than relied on. Ground III must therefore rest on the Japanese § 102(b) publications, which § 103(c) cannot reach.

---

8. Bottom line

The strongest non‑obviousness position the applicant holds is the teaching‑away argument built on the prior art's own use of heating to restore hydrophobicity (H11‑138970, H11‑143055, H11‑174665), reinforced by the worked comparative at 210 °C. Everything else in the claim set reads on a straightforward combination of same‑field Fuji references addressing the same admitted problem, with the 40–200 °C range falling out of a predictable, monotonic temperature dependence that the patent's own FIG. 1 depicts.

---

Confidence notes: I verified claim 6–15 language and the specification's background citations directly from the fetched patent text and the published counterpart. Claim‑1 text is from the pre‑grant publication and should be confirmed against the printed patent. The "Prior Art" listing on the front page and the text of the BPAI decision indexed as "Ex Parte Mori et al" were not retrievable in this session; any statement attributed to those sources should be treated as unverified.