Invalidity dossier
US 7096037
Videoconferencing bandwidth management for a handheld computer system and method
Current assignee: Qualcomm Inc
Added 9/23/2026, 7:14:31 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview — US 7,096,037 B2
Title: Videoconferencing bandwidth management for a handheld computer system and method
Patent number / application: US 7,096,037 B2 (application US 10/159,398; published as US 2003/0144004 A1)
Inventors: Francis James Canova, Jr.; Albert H. Ting
Original assignee: Palm, Inc. Current assignee listed as Qualcomm Inc. (the source notes listed assignees "may be inaccurate" and that Google performed no assignment analysis). Inventors assigned to Palm, Inc. on filing.
Key dates (as listed): Priority date 2002-01-29 (an assumption, not a legal conclusion); filing date 2002-05-30; publication of application 2003-07-31; patent granted/publication 2006-08-22. Legal status: Expired – Fee Related, adjusted expiration 2024-01-05.
Purpose (from the supplied "Definitions" text): The invention "relates to methods and systems associated with mobile computing devices," more specifically "videoconferencing via a handheld computer," and more specifically still "managing bandwidth for videoconferencing using a handheld computer." The excerpt frames the problem as the portability-versus-utility tradeoff: mobile devices such as handheld computers, personal digital assistants, and mobile phones are asked to add functionality while remaining easily portable, and "bandwidth demands for videoconferencing can be high, particularly for small, wireless devices with limited computational power." The stated field of prior-art keywords is video, mobile device, communication, session, devices.
Plain-language scope: On the supplied excerpt alone, the patent addresses managing how much bandwidth a videoconference consumes on a handheld computer, in view of the limited computing power and portability constraints of such devices. No claim language, specification passages, or drawing descriptions appear in the excerpt, so the precise claimed scope is not established here.
What the excerpt does not establish: It does not provide the claims, detailed description, embodiments, figures, or cited prior art; it does not verify dates, inventor or assignee accuracy, or legal status (expressly disclaimed by the source); and it contains only the beginnings of background discussion.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:42:16 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 7096037. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.