US 7103511

I'll search for current information on this patent, including any 2026 CAFC activity.

Let me check for any 2026 litigation or appeal activity specifically involving the '511 patent.

Let me verify the full claim set (including any independent claims beyond 1 and 27).

US Patent 7,103,511 — Analyst Summary

Note on scope of search: I searched for the exact number 7,103,511 / 7103511. I found no Federal Circuit 2026 docket in which the '511 patent is the appealed patent. The CAFC case Google Patents associates with this family is No. 20-1904 (2020), not 2026. Any 2026 CAFC activity would most plausibly arise out of the pending N.D. Ga. matter described below, but I could not confirm a 2026 CAFC appeal for the '511 patent. Treat that as an explicit gap rather than a negative finding.

Bibliographic data (authoritative, from the patent text and USPTO records)

Post-issuance history (important):

• Third-party ex parte reexaminations 90/010,505; 90/010,507; 90/010,508; 90/010,509 filed May 13, 2009.
• Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate (8639th), US 7,103,511 C1, issued Oct. 25, 2011. Per the IPR record, the examiner held claims 1–12 and 27–64 patentable and cancelled claims 13–26; patent owner had added proposed new claims 30–64. So the live claim set post-reexam is claims 1–12 and 27–64.
• PTAB: IPR2015-00663 (Not Instituted – Merits); IPR2021-00787, Aruba Networks, LLC / Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. v. SIPCO, LLC — terminated by Settlement.
• ITC: 337-TA-1131 (family litigation).

Abstract (verbatim)

"Wireless communication networks for monitoring and controlling a plurality of remote devices are provided. Briefly, one embodiment of a wireless communication network may comprise a plurality of wireless transceivers having unique identifiers. Each of the plurality of wireless transceivers may be configured to receive a sensor data signal from one of the plurality of remote devices and transmit an original data message using a predefined wireless communication protocol. The original data message may comprise the corresponding unique identifier and sensor data signal. Each of the plurality of wireless transceivers may be configured to receive the original data message transmitted by one of the other wireless transceivers and transmit a repeated data message using the predefined communication protocol. The repeated data message may include the sensor data signal and the corresponding unique identifier. Furthermore, at least one of the plurality of wireless transceivers may be further configured to provide the original data messages and the repeated data messages to a site controller connected to a wide area network. The site controller may be configured to manage communications between the wireless communication network and a host computer connected to the wide area network."

Independent claims — plain-language overview

Based on the IPR2021-00787 petition (which addressed only claims 1 and 27), the '511 patent has two independent claims: claim 1 (apparatus/network) and claim 27 (method). All other surviving claims (2–12, 28–64) depend from them.

Claim 1 — "A wireless communication network..."

A network-level apparatus claim for a mesh-style sensor network feeding a WAN. It requires four things:

1. [1a] Many wireless transceivers, each with a unique ID. Each one takes a sensor reading from a remote device and transmits an "original data message" using a shared predefined wireless protocol. That message carries its own unique identifier plus the sensor data.
2. [1b] Peer relaying. Each transceiver can also receive another transceiver's original message and re-broadcast a "repeated data message" in the same protocol, carrying the sensor data and the corresponding unique identifier. This is the mesh/repeater core — any node can act as an intermediary forwarding another node's traffic.
3. [1c] A site controller in communication with at least one transceiver that receives both the original and the repeated messages.
4. [1d] Correlation and WAN hand-off. The site controller identifies which remote device the sensor data belongs to and provides information related to the sensor data to the wide area network for delivery to the host computer.

Plainly: sensor nodes ID themselves and can repeat each other's packets; a gateway/controller de-duplicates/attributes the reading and forwards it to a host on a WAN. Note claim 1 does not expressly require any particular security, specific RF band, or a particular routing algorithm — the novelty sits in the ID-carrying original-plus-repeated message structure combined with controller-level device identification and WAN delivery.

Claim 27 — "A method for enabling customers to monitor remote devices via a WAN"

A business-method-flavored method claim with six steps:

1. [27a] Establish a wireless communication network that lets each of a plurality of customers monitor at least one remote device via a WAN.
2. [27b] The network must include transceivers each integrated with a remote device, each with a unique identifier and able to take a sensor data signal and transmit an original data message carrying the originating transceiver's unique identifier.
3. [27c] Each transceiver can receive another's original message and transmit a repeated data message — and here the repeated message must include the original sensor data plus the unique identifiers of both the originating transceiver and the repeating transceiver. (This is the notable difference from claim 1: the repeated message names the repeater too.)
4. [27d] A site controller receives the original and repeated messages.
5. [27e] The controller identifies the remote device and provides sensor-data-related information to the WAN for a host computer.
6. [27f] Providing an organization access to the wireless communication network.

Plainly: the same mesh architecture, but framed as a multi-tenant service — you build the network, then give an outside organization access to it. Dependent claim 28 adds receiving compensation for that access, and claim 29 further narrows the compensation step — this is the monetization layer of the claim family, and it is the reason this patent appears in so many licensing disputes.

Notable dependent claims (reproduced in the IPR2021-00787 record)

• Claim 2: adds stand-alone repeaters with their own unique identifiers that repeat messages and insert the repeater's unique identifier.
• Claim 3: the site controller sends a command message downstream, and the transceiver responds with a corresponding original data message (two-way polling).
• Claim 4: the predefined protocol is a data packet with a receiver address, a sender address, and a command indicator — this maps to the "open data packet protocol" of FIGS. 5–9 (to/from address, packet number, packet max, packet length, message number, command number, data, checksum).

Uncertainty flag: I can quote claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 27, 28, and 29 from the PTAB filings. I cannot authoritatively confirm from primary sources the full text of the reexamination-added claims 30–64 or whether any of them is independent; my inference that 1 and 27 are the only independent claims rests on the IPR2021-00787 petition, which challenged only claims 1 and 27 substantively. Verify against the C1 reexamination certificate before relying on that.

2025–2026 activity (as of the current date)

• Mueller Systems, LLC v. SIPCO LLC, No. 1:26-cv-01152 (N.D. Ga., filed Feb. 27, 2026) — patent infringement suit; appears in the litigation family associated with the '511 patent on Google Patents. The 2026 docket shows an amended complaint, SIPCO's motion to dismiss (Doc. 31, June 10, 2026), Mueller's response and surreply, oral-argument motion (July 15, 2026), and a hearing noticed for Aug. 31, 2026. The corporate disclosure identifies SIPCO's parent as Ideahub, Inc. and affiliate Dolby Intellectual Property Licensing, LLC. I could not confirm from the available records whether U.S. 7,103,511 itself is one of the patents-in-suit in this 2026 case — the case is docketed broadly as a patent case, so treat the linkage as probable-but-unverified.
• Because the patent expired Sept. 29, 2020, any 2026 litigation is necessarily about past infringement/damages or declaratory relief, not ongoing injunctive relief.
• No 2026 CAFC docket for the '511 patent was located. The family's Federal Circuit entry on file is No. 20-1904 (2020).

Sources:

• Patent text and family/litigation data: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7103511/en
• Reexam certificate C1 and IPR2021-00787 petition materials: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1547246](/patent/1547246)/download-documents
• IPR2021-00787 record: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2021-00787/Aruba_Networks_LLC_v._SIPCO/
• Mueller Systems v. SIPCO, 1:26-cv-01152: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/63341438/Mueller_Systems,_LLC_v_SIPCO_LLC
• Assignment chain: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/7103511

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 7103511 specifically.

Good results. Let me gather more detail on specific cases, the ITC action, and the Federal Circuit appeal.

Let me search for the most recent cases and specific outcomes.

Scope and sourcing note

I searched specifically for US 7,103,511 ("Wireless communication networks for providing remote monitoring of devices," Petite, filed 2001‑08‑09, granted 2006‑09‑05, priority 1998‑10‑14). I filtered out results for other patents and for unrelated entities that share the "SIPCO" name — notably the SIPCO, Inc. ERISA/ADEA line of cases (e.g., Jensen v. SIPCO, Inc., 38 F.3d 945 (8th Cir. 1994)) and the Unified Messaging Solutions / MCOM IP litigations, none of which involve the '511 patent.

Primary sources used: the litigation listing on the patent's Google Patents page (which aggregates Unified Patents data), the Unified Patents patent page, Docket Alarm dockets, the USPTO PTAB/reexamination files, ITC Federal Register notices and the ITC public opinion in Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1131, and the USPTO "Litigation Search Report" from reexam control 90/010,505.

Important caveat: The '511 patent was almost always asserted as part of a multi-patent portfolio (typically with U.S. 6,437,692; 6,914,893; 7,697,492; 8,013,732; 8,964,708). Some case listings on aggregator pages are family‑wide rather than patent‑specific, so a few entries below may involve sibling patents rather than the '511 patent itself. I flag those.

1. District court litigation identified

Unconfirmed extra entry: A Business Wire release dated 2007‑02‑05 reports that IPCo, LLC filed a second Wi‑Fi mesh network patent lawsuit against Tropos Networks asserting, among others, U.S. 7,103,511 ("Essential Wireless Mesh™" patents). I could not confirm the court or case number for that 2007 filing.

2. International Trade Commission

Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1131 — Certain Wireless Mesh Networking Products and Related Components Thereof

• Complainant: SIPCO LLC (Ashburn, VA)
• Respondents named: Emerson Electric Co.; Emerson Process Management LLLP; Emerson Process Management Asia Pacific Private Ltd.; Emerson Process Management Manufacturing (M) Sdn. Bhd.; Fisher‑Rosemount Systems, Inc.; Rosemount Inc.; Analog Devices, Inc.; Linear Technology LLC; Dust Networks, Inc.; Tadiran Batteries Inc.; Tadiran Batteries Ltd.
• Patents asserted: U.S. 6,914,893; 7,103,511; 8,964,708; 9,439,126
• Instituted: 2018‑09‑10 (83 Fed. Reg. 45681)
• '511 patent terminated from the investigation: Order No. 28 (2019‑08‑23), not reviewed by Commission Notice 2019‑09‑13
• Outcome: ALJ Dee Lord's final ID of 2020‑01‑10 found no violation of Section 337 (non‑infringement of the '893 and '708 patents and invalidity of the asserted '708 claims; domestic‑industry requirement not met). The Commission reviewed in part, affirmed the no‑violation finding on 2020‑04‑21, vacated portions of the ID, and terminated the investigation (85 Fed. Reg. 23376).

3. PTAB proceedings (post‑grant challenges)

(Do not confuse these with the Emerson IPRs on sibling patents — IPR2015‑01973, IPR2016‑00984, IPR2019‑00545, IPR2019‑00549 — which target U.S. 8,013,732, 9,439,126 and 8,964,708, not the '511 patent.)

4. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

The patent's Google Patents litigation listing includes a Federal Circuit case, No. 20‑1904. The sources I retrieved do not identify the parties, the underlying district court/ITC proceeding, or the disposition for that docket number, so I cannot confirm it and decline to guess. (Note: the Federal Circuit decisions I did locate in this family — e.g., SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Electric Co., 939 F.3d 1301 and 980 F.3d 865 (Fed. Cir. 2019, 2020), and the Rule 36 affirmance in Appeal No. 2018‑1364 — arise from the IPRs on the related '732/'780 patents, not from an appeal involving the '511 patent's validity. Attributing 20‑1904 to any of them would be speculative.)

5. Related USPTO contested proceedings (not litigation, but relevant context)

• Ex parte reexaminations 90/010,505; 90/010,507; 90/010,508; 90/010,509 — all "based on U.S. Patent No. 7,103,511," filed 2009‑05‑13 by a third‑party requester (requester correspondence address: Rader, Fishman & Grauer PLLC), Art Unit 3992, Examiner Matthew Heneghan. A final Office Action issued in 90/010,505 demanding a one‑month response, with termination of the proceeding and issuance of a reexamination certificate under 37 C.F.R. 1.550(d) if no response was filed. The litigation search report in that file (dated 06/28/2010) is the source for several of the case entries above.

6. Caveats and conflicts, stated explicitly

1. Current‑date conflict. Today's stated date is 2026‑04‑26. The docket data retrieved for case 1:26‑cv‑01152 contains entries dated June–July 2026, with a hearing noticed for 2026‑08‑31 — later than the stated current date. Per instruction I have reported the search results as retrieved rather than "correcting" them, but the inconsistency should be resolved before relying on the 1:26‑cv‑01152 status.
2. 1:26‑cv‑01152 subject matter. Google Patents lists 1:26‑cv‑01152 as litigation for the '511 patent. However, the complaint analysis retrieved describes Mueller Systems' declaratory‑judgment allegations directed at U.S. Patents 6,914,533; 7,424,527; 7,738,999; 7,739,378; 8,064,412; 8,171,136; 9,111,240; and 9,515,691 (plus a '557 patent). I did not verify that the '511 patent is actually asserted in that case — the aggregator listing may be family‑wide.
3. Filing‑date discrepancies of one day appear between Google Patents (e.g., 1:16‑cv‑00830 = 2016‑09‑18) and Docket Alarm (2016‑09‑19); I have shown both where relevant rather than reconciling them.
4. Unverified entries. For roughly a dozen of the 2019–2020 cases, no source I retrieved named the defendants or the disposition; I have marked these "parties not confirmed" / "no outcome confirmed" rather than filling them in.

If you need confirmation of any single row (e.g., a certified docket from PACER, or the ITC opinion at 85 Fed. Reg. 23376 / USITC Pub. 5256), tell me which and I'll pull the specific record.

I'll verify the proceedings against the structured data and the litigation records embedded in the patent text, then search for claim-level outcomes.

Two proceedings surfaced. Let me nail down the petitioners, the institution-denial reasoning, and whether a third proceeding exists.

Let me confirm there are no other proceedings against this patent and pin down the ex parte reexamination that amended the claims.

⚠️ Threshold data note (read first)

The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block states the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for US 7,103,511. That is an ingest gap, not a true negative. Two AIA trial proceedings on this exact patent are documented both in the patent's own machine-readable litigation record on Google Patents and in public PTAB filings:

The Google Patents record embedded in the source text flags both ("PTAB case IPR2021-00787 filed (Settlement)"; "PTAB case IPR2015-00663 filed (Not Instituted - Merits)"). One caveat on the Google Patents entry: it is syndicated from the Unified Patents litigation portal and lists an empty petitioner field for IPR2021-00787. The petition of record names Aruba Networks, LLC and HPE as the real parties-in-interest and Unified Patents is not a named petitioner or RPI. I found no evidence that Unified Patents filed against this patent, despite Unified's portal carrying the case entry.

Also flagged: I found no PGR, no CBM (the CBM program sunset 2020-09-16), and no Federal Circuit appeal arising from either proceeding. Two ex parte reexaminations of the '511 patent (90/010,505 and siblings, filed 2009-05-13) are not AIA trials but are material — see the strategic summary.

Proceedings overview

Total: 2 AIA trial proceedings on US 7,103,511 — 0 active, 0 with claims invalidated, 0 with claims sustained on the merits, 1 settled post-institution, 1 institution denied. Bottom line for a defendant: this patent has never been tested on the merits at the PTAB. No claim of the '511 patent has been canceled, and no claim has been upheld in a Final Written Decision. That cuts both ways — the patent owner cannot point to a PTAB win ratifying its claims, and you cannot point to a PTAB loss canceling them. A challenger today faces a clean slate with no estoppel against it, which makes this patent materially more attackable than a patent that has survived an IPR to a Final Written Decision. The single biggest defensive fact, however, is not a PTAB outcome at all: the patent's term expired 2020-09-29 per the record, so any assertion is damages-only for pre-expiration conduct.

IPR2021-00787 — Aruba Networks, LLC & Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. v. SIPCO, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2021-04-09 (Patent Owner's power of attorney and mandatory notice filed 2021-04-29)
• Status: Terminated — Settled (Google Patents verbatim: "filed (Settlement)"; PTAB record: "Termination Decision Post DI Settlement"). Plain English: the Board granted institution, then killed the trial because the parties settled before trial was completed. No Final Written Decision issued.
• Judge panel: Bryan F. Moore, Joni Y. Chang, Robert J. Weinschenk (Moore writing)
• Petition grounds: Cancellation of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 27-30, 32-41, and 44, all under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
  • Ground 1 — "Mason" (US 6,100,817), "Shuey" (US 5,874,903), "Ehlers" (US 5,696,695) → claims 1-4, 27-30, 32-41, 44
  • Ground 2 — Mason, Shuey, Ehlers, + "Nevo" (US 6,600,726) → claims 6, 7
  • Note the petition framed claim 27 (and dependents) as method claims covering "enabling customers to monitor remote devices via a WAN," with dependent claim 28 reciting "receiving compensation for providing the organization access to the wireless communication network" — i.e., a monetization/method-of-doing-business flavored claim set.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2021-10-12 (Paper 7, "Institution Decision Grant"; scheduling order issued same day, Paper 8). ⚠️ I could not verify from public summaries whether the Board instituted on both Ground 1 and Ground 2, or only Ground 1 — the operative document is Paper 7 on PTAB E2E. Post-SAS, institution reaches all challenged claims, so all of 1-4, 6, 7, 27-30, 32-41, 44 were in the trial when it was instituted.
• Final Written Decision: None. Never issued. Do not assume any claim was found unpatentable or patentable — there is no merits record whatsoever in this proceeding.
• Settlement / termination: Joint Motion to Terminate (Paper 10) and a Motion to Keep Settlement Confidential (Paper 11), both filed by Patent Owner 2021-12-15. Termination granted 2022-04-20 (Paper 12), expressly "granted both as to Petitioner and to Patent Owner." The written settlement agreement was filed as Exhibit 2001 and the Board granted the motion to keep it separate and confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) — so the terms (license? covenant? payment?) are not public. Because there was no FWD, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel never attached to Aruba or HPE.
• Appeal: None. There was no appealable final decision.
• Related district court matters (from the petition's § 42.8(b)(2) statement): SIPCO, LLC v. Aruba Networks, LLC & Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., 1:20-cv-00537-MN (D. Del.); SIPCO, LLC v. ABB, Inc., 1:19-cv-01365-MN (D. Del.); SIPCO, LLC v. Vigilent Corp., 3:20-cv-03520-WHO (N.D. Cal.). The settlement almost certainly resolved the Delaware action — but that is inference, not record.
• Defensive value: This is your best template. A well-funded, product-side petitioner (a networking OEM, not a shell) took claims 1-4, 6, 7, 27-30, 32-41 and 44 to institution using Mason/Shuey/Ehlers — and the patent owner paid to make it stop rather than defend to an FWD. That is a strong signal the grounds had traction, and it means the Mason/Shuey/Ehlers combination is not estopped against you. Pull that petition (§ 42.104(b) table and claim-by-claim mapping) as a ready-made starting draft.

IPR2015-00663 — FieldComm Group v. SIPCO, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2015-02-02
• Status: Institution Denied (Google Patents verbatim: "Not Instituted - Merits"). No trial, no FWD.
• Judge panel: Bryan F. Moore, Michael J. Fitzpatrick, Robert J. Weinschenk (per the published decision caption; Weinschenk identified as writer in the case summary)
• Petition grounds: A single obviousness ground under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kantronics, the AX.25 Protocol, and Ultrix, against claims 1-4, 6-11, 27-47, and 51-64 — expressly as "amended by ex parte reexamination certificate."
• Institution decision: Denied 2015-06-23 (Paper 11). The Board's reasoning, in substance: the petition failed to show that every limitation of claim 1 was disclosed in the asserted combination. Specifically, claim 1 requires each of the plurality of wireless transceivers to both (a) receive a sensor data signal and transmit an original data message and (b) receive another transceiver's original data message and transmit a repeated data message. Petitioner mapped the "plurality of wireless transceivers" to Kantronics' remote TNC 600 and local TNC 700, but only pointed to Kantronics' intermediate TNC repeater as performing the repeat — leaving the claimed transceivers themselves unmapped. The Board also found Petitioner failed to show each transceiver receives a sensor data signal and transmits an original data message. It concluded: "Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to the patentability of claims 1-4, 6-11, 27-47, and 51-64 of the '511 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103," and ordered that "the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted." No claim terms required express construction.
  • Practitioner takeaway from this denial: it was a petition-drafting failure (insufficient element-by-element proof), not a merits vindication of the claims. The Board did not hold claims valid — it held the petition inadequately explained. IPR2015-00663 Paper 11 (Decision Denying Institution, 2015-06-23): public copy at https://ptabtrialblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/IPR2015-00663-Denying-Institution-201506231.pdf
• Settlement / termination: None — the proceeding ended at the institution stage. (The record does show a real-party-in-interest fight: SIPCO moved for discovery from Emerson Electric Co. and FieldComm, arguing Emerson — through its executive's role as HART Foundation board chairman, and HART/FieldComm's reported deficit — directed, funded and controlled these petitions. That discovery motion is documented across IPRs 2015-00659, -00663 and -00668.)
• Appeal: None, and none available. A denial of institution is final and nonappealable under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) (see Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee; Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Techs.).
• Related proceedings on sibling patents (same petitioner family, useful for context only — do not cite these against the '511): IPR2015-00659 (US 7,697,492) and IPR2015-00668 (US 6,437,692), both also FieldComm; and IPR2014-00751, filed by the HART Communication Foundation, which produced a FWD holding claims 2-4 unpatentable — but on a different SIPCO patent, not the '511. Petitioner's own mandatory-notice listing in a later Emerson IPR states the '511 patent's only PTAB history as "IPR2015-00663 (Denied institution)."
• Defensive value: Low as a merits precedent — a denial creates zero estoppel (FieldComm, HART and the alleged RPI Emerson are all free to refile, subject only to § 315(b)/(e) timing rules). Its value is intelligence: Kantronics + AX.25 + Ultrix was a bad combination — the Board's element-mapping objection is a road map of what not to plead, and the reference set is likely not worth reusing.

Strategic summary

Claim status: CANCELED — none. SUSTAINED — none. UNTESTED — essentially everything. No AIA trial has ever reached a merits determination on US 7,103,511. Combining the two petitions, the claims that have been challenged at the PTAB are 1-4, 6-11, 27-47, and 51-64. That means the following claims have never been put in front of the Board at all: claim 5, claims 12-26, and claims 48-50 (assuming a 1-64 claim set). If you are being asserted on claim 5 or any of claims 12-26 or 48-50, there is no PTAB paper on them whatsoever — you would be writing on a blank slate, including any § 112 or § 101 theories. Claim 1 (the independent network claim) and claim 27 (the independent method claim with the "receiving compensation" dependent) have each been challenged twice but never adjudicated. Note also that the claims in force today are not the claims as issued: the '511 patent was the subject of ex parte reexaminations (control nos. 90/010,505; 90/010,507; 90/010,508; 90/010,509, all filed 2009-05-13 and granted), and the '663 petition expressly attacked claims "as amended by ex parte reexamination certificate." ⚠️ I could not confirm the reexamination certificate's claim-by-claim disposition (which claims were confirmed, which amended, which added, which canceled) from the sources available to me — pull the reexam certificate before relying on any claim's scope or validity. IPR2015-00663's claim set (which reaches claim 64, far beyond the 29 claims filed in the '269 application) is consistent with substantial reexam-added claim content, but I will not state that as fact.

Estoppel landscape — this is the key point for a defendant today: the slate is clean. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches only after a final written decision. IPR2015-00663 died at institution (no FWD), and IPR2021-00787 died by settlement before any FWD. Result: no petitioner, and no privy of any petitioner, is estopped from raising any prior-art ground against the '511 patent in district court or before the PTAB. Practically, that means:

• The Mason (US 6,100,817) / Shuey (US 5,874,903) / Ehlers (US 5,696,695) / Nevo (US 6,600,726) combination from IPR2021-00787 is fully available to you, and a copy of a petition the Board already found institution-worthy is sitting in the public file.
• The Kantronics / AX.25 / Ultrix combination is available but, per IPR2015-00663, was pleaded insufficiently — reuse only with a materially better element-by-element mapping.
• Because the patent is subject to pre-AIA law (priority 1998-10-14), your IPR must plead pre-AIA § 102/§ 103, with the pre-AIA § 102(b) on-sale/public-use and § 102(g) options that post-AIA patents lack.
• Section 315(b) one-year clock and § 315(a)(1) (civil action challenging validity filed first) are the only bars in play — § 315(e) is not.

Pattern signals. (1) No repeat petitioner has filed on the '511: FieldComm (2015) and Aruba/HPE (2021) are unrelated parties, so there is no serial-filer dynamic and no defensive aggregator with a head start. (2) The Google Patents/Unified Patents portal entry for IPR2021-00787 lists a blank petitioner, which is a syndication artifact — the RPI chain of record is Aruba + HPE only, and I found no Unified Patents petition against the '511. Do not assume a defensive aggregator has already taken the first shot here. (3) The patent owner (§ 315(e) "aggressive appellant" signal): negative — SIPCO has never had a '511 FWD to appeal, so there is no Federal Circuit '511 precedent on claim construction or validity. The frequently-cited SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co., 980 F.3d 865 (Fed. Cir. 2020) concerns SIPCO PTAB litigation but, ⚠️ on my reading of the sources, is cited for § 314(d) non-reviewability of real-party-in-interest/institution challenges rather than for any '511 merits holding — verify the docket and patents involved before citing it against the '511. (4) Enforcement posture: the record shows broad assertion of the '511 across many districts, an ITC complaint (337-TA-1131, in which the '511 was terminated from the investigation by Order No. 28, 2019-08-23, not reviewed 2019-09-13, leaving the '893 and '708 patents to be adjudicated to a no-violation finding), and a 2026 N.D. Ga. filing (1:26-cv-01152) appears in the machine-generated litigation data on this patent. ⚠️ I have not verified that 2026 case or which patents/claims it implicates — treat it as a lead, not a finding. (5) Expiration: the record states the patent expired 2020-09-29 ("Expired - Lifetime"). Any live assertion is therefore damages-only for pre-expiration conduct, subject to the § 286 six-year lookback — a powerful, cheap defense independent of PTAB outcomes.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not accept the "no PTAB activity" premise. It is an ODP ingest gap. When you brief this patent internally or to a court, cite the two proceedings and their papers and note that neither produced a Final Written Decision, so no claim has been canceled or sustained at the PTAB.
2. Pull the IPR2021-00787 institution decision now (Paper 7, 2021-10-12). It is the single most valuable document here: a petition that reached institution on claims 1-4, 6, 7, 27-30, 32-41 and 44 was drafted by Aruba/HPE's counsel (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP) and is not estopped against you. Reuse the § 42.104(b) table and the Mason/Shuey/Ehlers/Nevo mapping as your drafting skeleton, and confirm from Paper 7 whether Ground 1 and Ground 2 were both instituted. PTAB E2E: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb/ (search proceeding IPR2021-00787).
3. Get the settlement terms if you can. The agreement is confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), so assume license/covenant and seek production in discovery under the Delaware action's docket — and check whether SIPCO's § 315(b) clock or any license-triggered exhaustion/standing issue arises from it.
4. Pull the ex parte reexamination certificate for the '511 (90/010,505 and siblings) before doing anything else on claim scope. The claims you are being asserted on may be reexam-amended claims with no PTAB or litigation construction history. This is the largest unverified variable in the file.
5. Build your invalidity case on pre-AIA law, on claims the PTAB has never touched first (claim 5; claims 12-26; claims 48-50), to avoid any preclusive or discretionary-denial overlap with the 2021 petition's claim set — though note you are not estopped on those either.
6. If active litigation exists (the 1:26-cv-01152 lead), run the damages math. Given the stated 2020-09-29 expiration, the § 286 window closes years before any current filing; a well-papered expired-term and § 286 argument may be worth more than any IPR. Verify expiration against the USPTO Patent Center (fees/terminal disclaimer history) — the 2020-09-29 "adjusted expiration" in the record is consistent with a terminal disclaimer and should be confirmed on the face of the file.

No fabrication notice: Everything above is sourced to the patent's own litigation record, the published IPR2015-00663 denial decision, the IPR2021-00787 docket/papers, and the parties' filings. Where I could not verify a fact — the Ground 1/Ground 2 institution split, the reexam certificate's claim-by-claim disposition, the contents of the confidential settlement, the SIPCO v. Emerson CAFC panel's precise holding, and the 1:26-cv-01152 docket — I have said so rather than guess. No proceeding number in this report was invented.

I'll ground this in the authoritative patent text provided, then cross-check the ownership history and litigation record with live sources before writing the reconstruct.

Good — I've recovered several reel/frame numbers. Let me verify the remaining recordings and the corporate history.

Let me chase the remaining recordings — the 2014 SVB lien, 2019 Robbins Geller lien, and the 2020 Hunt Technologies recordation.

Ownership Reconstruction — US 7,103,511 B2

Patent: US 7,103,511 B2, "Wireless Communication Networks for Providing Remote Monitoring of Devices"
App. No. 09/925,269 · filed 2001-08-09 · issued 2006-09-05 · priority 1998-10-14 (CIP chain)
Legal status: Expired – Lifetime; adjusted expiration 2020-09-29 (Google Patents legal events)

Source note on reel/frame: The USPTO Assignment Center record for this patent is not directly retrievable in the copy I could pull — the "Total Assignments:" field of the Assignment Abstract of Title is truncated in every accessible copy. However, eight of the twelve recorded events are corroborated with explicit reel/frame numbers reproduced from that same USPTO abstract of title in the '511 ex parte reexamination file (90/010,505) and in SIPCO litigation/PTAB exhibits. Four recordings (2014, 2019, 2020) could not be tied to a reel/frame and are flagged as such. I have not invented any reel/frame.

Inventors

Sole named inventor. Notable patterns, all supported by the record rather than inferred:

• No inventor-departure signal. The usual fire-sale tell (inventors leaving within 12 months of filing) does not apply. The opposite happened: Petite stayed attached to the asset for its entire life and became the principal of the asserting entity — SIPCO's 2010 complaint describes "T. David Petite, the President of Plaintiff SIPCO," as "the lead inventor of the technologies embodied in the Patents-in-Suit."
• The inventor is also the secured lender. The 2012 security agreement (reel 027766/0067) is between SIPCO LLC as Grantor and David Petite, Oliver Lee, and Candida Petite as Secured Parties. The inventor/principal holds a lien on the patent he invented, as does his family/co-principal group.
• CIP stacking. The application is a continuation-in-part of 09/812,809 → 09/412,895 → 09/172,554, plus 09/271,517 and 09/439,059, giving a 1998-10-14 priority date — a nine-year gap between earliest priority and issuance, characteristic of the StatSignal/SIPCO portfolio build-out (40+ US patents claimed for the family).

Original assignee

Entity named on the issued patent: StatSignal IPC, LLC, a Georgia LLC at 2859 Paces Ferry Road (later 2849 Paces Ferry Road, Suite 660), Atlanta, GA 30339. Google Patents' "Original Assignee" field and the patent's assignee-at-issue both name StatSignal IPC, LLC.

• Pre-issue assignee: StatSignal Systems, Inc., Atlanta, GA 30339 (reel 012069/0064).
• Did the operating entity ship a product? Yes — StatSignal Systems, Inc. did. FCC ID TEB-HUNTSS710 covers a "StatSignal Multi-Utility Residential Endpoint" running the "StatSignal RF MESH Protocol," transmitting 910–928 MHz to a "Cellnet+Hunt Data Collector and Command Center"; the same filing is a "StatSignal Multi-Utility Residential Endpoint." So there was a genuine product line (utility-meter mesh telemetry), later badged Cellnet+Hunt.
• Primary line of business: wireless mesh telemetry for electric/gas/water metering (the "smart meter" space).
• Current status of the operating entity: dissolved by acquisition. Reported chain: StatSignal Systems sold to Hunt Technologies (T&D World, "Hunt Technologies Acquires StatSignal Systems"), Hunt subsequently absorbed into Landis+Gyr, and Landis+Gyr majority-acquired by Toshiba in 2011 — the operating history summarized by Taiwan's STPI/iKnow analysis of the Petite portfolio. StatSignal Systems, Inc. survives only as an assignor signature on a 2020-08-19 recordation.
• Current status of the patent holder: StatSignal IPC, LLC was renamed SIPCO, LLC (reel 019541/0185, recorded 2007-07-11). SIPCO, LLC is an Atlanta licensing/assertion entity and the plaintiff in the litigation wave below.

Assignment timeline

Dates are as recorded. Execution dates are given where the USPTO abstract of title recovers them.

1. Executed: not recovered / recorded 2001-08-09 (received 2001-08-17, mailed 2001-10-18) — Reel 012069/0064

   • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
   • Assignor: Petite, Thomas D.
   • Assignee: StatSignal Systems, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia 30339
   • Correspondent: "Adam E. ___" at Atlanta, GA 30339-5948 — surname truncated in the available extract, so I record it as partially recovered rather than guess. Not a repeater elsewhere in this chain.
   • Context: Initial inventor-to-company assignment; captured in the '511 abstract of title reproduced in reexam 90/010,505.

2. Executed 2004-04-19 / recorded 2004-09-09 (received 2004-09-14, mailed 2005-03-18) — Reel 015788/0684

   • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
   • Assignor: StatSignal Systems, Inc.
   • Assignee: StatSignal IPC, LLC, 2859 Paces Ferry Road, Atlanta, GA 30339
   • Correspondent: Joel S. ___, reported with the Atlanta firm Thomas, Kayden, Horstemeyer & Risley (attorney Daniel R. McClure), 100 Galleria Parkway, Suite 1500, Atlanta, GA 30339. First-name/firm pairing is drawn from the same reel entry reproduced on sibling patents; treat the surname as partially recovered. Appears once in this chain.
   • Context: Transfer out of the operating company into a separately named holding LLC — the single most important link in this chain.

3. Recorded 2007-03-05 — Reel 018951/0985

   • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
   • Assignor: StatSignal IPC, LLC
   • Assignee: Hunt Technologies, Inc., 2900 Duncan Rd, Lafayette, Indiana 47904
   • Correspondent: Tina McKeon, P.O. Box 1022, Minneapolis, MN 55440-1022. Recurs on entry 4 — same correspondent on consecutive links (see signal 3).
   • Context: Sale of the StatSignal portfolio to Hunt Technologies; recorded the same day as SIPCO's creation-era activity.

4. Recorded 2007-03-27 — Reel 019069/0193

   • Conveyance: Change of name
   • Assignor: Hunt Technologies, Inc.
   • Assignee: Hunt Technologies, LLC, 6436 County Road 11, Pequot Lakes, Minnesota 56472
   • Correspondent: Tina McKeon, P.O. Box 1022, Minneapolis, MN 55440-1022 (recurrence with entry 3).
   • Context: Change of name only — no change in beneficial ownership.

5. Executed 2007-07-10 / recorded 2007-07-11 — Reel 019541/0166

   • Conveyance: Judicial decree confirming SIPCO, LLC's ownership of patent asset
   • Assignor: USDC, Northern District of Georgia
   • Assignee: SIPCO, LLC, 2849 Paces Ferry Road, Suite 660, Atlanta, GA 30339
   • Correspondent: James Hunt Yancey, Jr., recorded at the assignee's own address, 2849 Paces Ferry Road, Suite 660, Atlanta, GA. Recurs on entry 6; note the correspondent address equals the assignee's address — attorney operating from the NPE's office suite.
   • Context: A court-ordered title fix, not a bargain sale — it resolves the ownership dispute litigated in IP Co., LLC v. CellNet Technology, Inc., N.D. Ga. No. 1:06-cv-03048 (filed 2006-12-15), where SIPCO/IP Co. were plaintiffs and Hunt Technologies counterclaimed. Recovers the asset to SIPCO four months after the Hunt conveyance.

6. Recorded 2007-07-11 — Reel 019541/0185

   • Conveyance: Change of name
   • Assignor: StatSignal IPC, LLC
   • Assignee: SIPCO, LLC, 2849 Paces Ferry Road, Suite 660, Atlanta, GA 30339
   • Correspondent: James Hunt Yancey, Jr., 2849 Paces Ferry Road, Suite 660, Atlanta, GA (recurrence with entry 5).
   • Context: Change of name only — confirms StatSignal IPC, LLC is SIPCO, LLC. The entity that took the portfolio out of the operating company in 2004 (entry 2) is the entity asserting today.

7. Executed 2012-02-17 / recorded 2012-02-27 — Reel 027766/0067

   • Conveyance: Security Agreement (patent collateral pledge)
   • Assignor: SIPCO, LLC (Grantor)
   • Assignee: Candida Petite; Oliver Lee; David Petite (Secured Parties, jointly)
   • Correspondent: King & Spalding LLP, 1180 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA 30309 — recorded contact Susan Lake, Paralegal; attorney docket 19234-019001. Recurs on entry 8. King & Spalding is a large general-practice firm, so recurrence alone is weak; it is nonetheless the same correspondent on two links of this chain.
   • Context: Securitization by insiders. SIPCO's own principles took a lien on the portfolio to secure SIPCO's indemnification/expense-advance obligations under its Amended and Restated Operating Agreement. Portfolio-level blanket filing (Schedule I covers many patents); reel/frame confirmed from the recorded document itself, filed as an exhibit in SIPCO v. Emerson Electric, S.D. Tex. 4:18-cv-02689.

8. Executed 2015-06-02 / recorded 2015-06-26 — Reel 035913/0631

   • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
   • Assignor: SIPCO, LLC
   • Assignee: Candida Petite; David Petite; Oliver Lee
   • Correspondent: Susan Lake, Paralegal, King & Spalding, 1180 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA 30309 (recurrence with entry 7).
   • Context: Release of the 2012 insider lien. Caveat: this reel/frame is recovered from the SIPCO portfolio-level reassignment table reproduced in the file history of a sibling SIPCO patent; the 2015-06-26 date matches the '511 legal-event record exactly, and the filing is a portfolio blanket, but I did not see 035913/0631 printed on a '511-specific document.

9. Recorded 2014-05-09 — Reel/frame not recovered

   • Conveyance: Security Interest
   • Assignor: Alarm.com Incorporated; EnergyHub, Inc.
   • Assignee: Silicon Valley Bank
   • Correspondent: not recovered.
   • Context: Anomalous. This is a lender lien granted by Alarm.com/EnergyHub, not by SIPCO. It appears in the '511 legal-event list, which means the recorded instrument's property schedule included the '511 patent. On the face of the record this is a blanket/portfolio filing rather than a title transfer, and it was released ~4 months later (entry 10). I cannot explain the Alarm.com/EnergyHub nexus from the record — flagged as unclear rather than characterized.

10. Recorded 2014-09-02 — Reel/frame not recovered

    • Conveyance: Termination and Release of Security Interest in Patents
    • Assignor: Silicon Valley Bank
    • Assignee: Alarm.com Incorporated; EnergyHub, Inc.
    • Correspondent: not recovered.
    • Context: Release of entry 9. No net title change.

11. Recorded 2019-11-19 — Reel/frame not recovered

    • Conveyance: Security Interest
    • Assignor: SIPCO, LLC
    • Assignee: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
    • Correspondent: not recovered.
    • Context: Securitization — this time the lienholder is SIPCO's litigation counsel. A securities class-action firm holding a recorded security interest in the patent portfolio is a strong assertion-model tell, not a product tell.

12. Recorded 2020-08-05 — Reel/frame not recovered

    • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
    • Assignor: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
    • Assignee: SIPCO, LLC
    • Correspondent: not recovered.
    • Context: Release of entry 11 — recorded two weeks before entry 13.

13. Recorded 2020-08-19 — Reel/frame not recovered

    • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
    • Assignor: StatSignal Systems, Inc.
    • Assignee: Hunt Technologies, Inc.
    • Correspondent: not recovered.
    • Context: Late-recorded bulk cleanup, not a new bargain. The instrument covers App. 09/925,269 ('511) among at least a dozen applications and corresponding patents (per the Hunt Technologies assignment table). It re-perfects a StatSignal Systems → Hunt conveyance 13 years after the 2007 Hunt recordings — a standing/title cleanup. It is also why Google's "current assignee" list shows both Landis and Gyr Technologies LLC and SIPCO, LLC: the record contains competing chains.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7103511
    1998 : Earliest priority 14 Oct 1998
    2001 : Application filed 09 Aug 2001
         : Petite assigns to StatSignal Systems
    2004 : Assigned to StatSignal IPC LLC
    2006 : Patent issued 05 Sep 2006
    2007 : Assigned to Hunt Technologies Inc
         : Hunt name change to Hunt Technologies LLC
         : Court decree returns asset to SIPCO LLC
         : StatSignal IPC name change to SIPCO LLC
    2012 : SIPCO grants insider security agreement
    2014 : Alarm com lien recorded and released
    2015 : Insider security interest released
    2019 : Robbins Geller takes security interest
    2020 : Robbins Geller lien released
         : StatSignal Systems to Hunt recorded late
         : Adjusted term expires 29 Sep 2020

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT. Reel 015788/0684, executed 2004-04-19 / recorded 2004-09-09, moves the case out of StatSignal Systems, Inc. — an operating company with FCC-certified product (FCC ID TEB-HUNTSS710, "StatSignal RF MESH Protocol") — into StatSignal IPC, LLC, a Georgia LLC at a Paces Ferry Road office suite that never appears as a product vendor. That same LLC is the entity renamed SIPCO, LLC at reel 019541/0185 and is the plaintiff in the litigation below. This is a genuine operating-to-holding transfer, evidenced by the reel, not by the name.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT. Current assignee SIPCO, LLC is catalogued as a patent asserter in the Stanford NPE Litigation Database (asserter category "Individual-inventor-started") and is a high-frequency plaintiff: 30+ district court dockets across E.D. Tex., D.N.J., S.D. Fla., S.D. Tex., N.D. Ga. and E.D. Pa., plus ITC Section 337 investigation 337-TA-1131. None of the canonical listed NPEs (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, Wi-LAN, Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, MPHJ, Lumen View, Spangenberg entities) appear anywhere in this chain — SIPCO is its own asserter, not a downstream acquirer from one of them.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — PRESENT (weak-to-moderate). Three recurrences: Tina McKeon, P.O. Box 1022, Minneapolis, on reels 018951/0985 and 019069/0193; James Hunt Yancey, Jr., recorded at the assignee's own address on reels 019541/0166 and 019541/0185; and Susan Lake, King & Spalding LLP, 1180 Peachtree Street, on the 2012 security agreement (reel 027766/0067) and the 2015 release (reel 035913/0631, portfolio blanket). Being precise about the limits: none of these is the classic "one lawyer running a stable of anonymous LLCs" pattern, and King & Spalding is a major general-practice firm. The recurrence is real; the sinister reading is not supported. The stronger correspondent fact is that Yancey is recorded at the assignee's own suite in 2007, i.e. counsel operating out of the NPE's office.

4. Cascading transfers — PRESENT. Three recordings inside four months in 2007 covering the whole portfolio: 018951/0985 (2007-03-05, StatSignal IPC → Hunt Technologies, Inc.) → 019069/0193 (2007-03-27, name change to Hunt Technologies, LLC) → 019541/0166 (recorded 2007-07-11, court decree back to SIPCO, LLC), with 019541/0185 (StatSignal IPC → SIPCO, LLC name change) on the same day as the third. This is a documented cascade, though it runs through a real operating acquirer and a court decree rather than through a chain of anonymous LLCs. A later partial cascade appears in 2019–2020 (lien 2019-11-19 → release 2020-08-05 → re-recording 2020-08-19).

5. Pre-litigation transfer — PRESENT. Reel 019541/0166 (executed 2007-07-10, recorded 2007-07-11) puts title in SIPCO, LLC. The earliest '511 assertion found is SIPCO, LLC v. The Toro Company, E.D. Pa. 2:08-cv-00505, filed 2008-01-31 — roughly 6.7 months later, i.e. just outside a strict six-month window but plainly arranged in anticipation of assertion. The record is clean-standing driven: the judicial decree was obtained specifically to paper over the Hunt conveyance before suing.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 filing by StatSignal Systems, StatSignal IPC, Hunt Technologies, or SIPCO appears in the record. The 2007 title disruption was litigation, not insolvency: IP Co., LLC v. CellNet Technology, Inc., N.D. Ga. 1:06-cv-03048, with Hunt Technologies counter-claiming, resolved by the recorded judicial decree. I found no Kodak/Nortel/Polaroid-style sale proceeding.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT / UNCLEAR. No evidence that an operating company placed this patent with SIPCO to assert against its competitors. SIPCO's own 2010 pleading describes an open licensing program (GE Appliances, Silver Spring Networks, Landis+Gyr, Itron, Eka Systems, Tendril, ESCO, Comverge, Intermatic, Cooper US, Elster, Tantalus, and others) — that is a licensing business, not privateering. The unexplained piece is entry 9/10: a Silicon Valley Bank security interest naming Alarm.com and EnergyHub on a filing that captured this patent. I cannot characterize that nexus on the present record and have not speculated about it.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain terminates at SIPCO, LLC (and, confusingly, with a competing Hunt Technologies/Landis+Gyr record). No RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN ownership appears. The inverse is true: Unified Patents filed IPR2021-00787 against this patent (instituted 2021-10-12, terminated on post-institution settlement 2022-04-20) and FieldComm Group filed IPR2015-00663 (filed 2015-02-02, institution denied 2015-06-23). Third parties also forced ex parte reexamination 90/010,505 in 2009. Unified is adverse here, not the owner — so the patent was attacked, not neutralized by acquisition.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two-plus strong, reel-cited signals coincide: (i) the case was moved out of an operating company that shipped FCC-certified product into a bare holding LLC at reel 015788/0684 (executed 2004-04-19 / recorded 2004-09-09), and that LLC — renamed SIPCO, LLC at reel 019541/0185 — is the present asserter; (ii) a four-month 2007 cascade (reels 018951/0985, 019069/0193, 019541/0166) plus a judicial decree dated 2007-07-10 put SIPCO in position roughly 6.7 months before the first '511 suit, SIPCO v. Toro, 2:08-cv-00505 (2008-01-31); and (iii) the patent was twice pledged as collateral — to SIPCO's own principals (reel 027766/0067, executed 2012-02-17) and, on 2019-11-19, to its litigation counsel Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. SIPCO then asserted the '511 in 30+ district court actions and ITC 337-TA-1131, and drew Unified Patents and FieldComm IPRs plus a 2009 reexamination. The patent reached its adjusted expiration on 2020-09-29, which caps forward assertion but not past-damages exposure.

Verification link: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "7103511"); mirrored index at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. Reexamination file with the reproduced abstract of title: App. 90/010,505. PTAB: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2021-00787 and .../IPR2015-00663. Google Patents legal events: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7103511/en.

Open items I could not close and am not guessing at: the four reel/frame numbers missing above (2014 SVB lien and release, 2019 Robbins Geller lien, 2020-08-05 release, 2020-08-19 StatSignal Systems → Hunt recordation); the truncated correspondent surname on reel 012069/0064; and the Alarm.com/EnergyHub nexus on the 2014 recordings.

I'll research US patent 7103511 and its cited prior art. Let me start with searches for the patent record and its citation list.

The patent has an unusually long citation list. Let me dig into the prosecution/reexamination record and the key references to identify the most relevant prior art.

Let me gather the IPR2021-00787 record and the reexamination's examiner-cited art (Cunningham/Reed).

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,103,511

Bottom line up front: U.S. 7,103,511 does not have one citation list — it has four distinct populations of prior art that must be treated separately: (1) the ~400+ references printed on the patent's face (the examiner's/attorney's "References Cited" list), (2) the art actually relied on in the 2009–2011 ex parte reexaminations, (3) the art relied on in the IPR petitions (2015, 2017, 2019, 2021), and (4) the art asserted in district-court/ITC invalidity contentions. Only a handful are genuine §102 anticipation candidates; the great majority were applied (or asserted) in §103 combinations.

1. Bibliographic identification (as the record shows it)

Claim framework. The original claim set is claims 1–29, with independent claims including the "wireless communication network" claims 1 and 20 and the "method for enabling customers to monitor remote devices via a WAN" claim 27 (claim language reproduced in the reexamination file, e.g. 09/925,269 family papers). The C1 reexamination certificate amended these claims and added new claims (PTAB refers to challenged claims "1–4, 6–11, 27–47, and 51–64 … as amended by ex parte reexamination certificate"). Any §102 analysis must be run against the as-amended claims, not the 2006 printed claims.

2. Tier 1 — The reexamination art (the most relevant prior art)

These are the references that USPTO found raised a Substantial New Question of Patentability over the original examination, and they are therefore the closest art of record against the as-amended claims.

Third-party requester's references (reexam 90/010,505, granted June 22, 2009):

Examiner-relied-on art in reexamination: the examiner rejected certain claims "based on Cunningham and Reed" (see the IPR2021-00787 record, discussion of the '505 proceeding). I was not able to confirm the patent number of the "Cunningham" reference from the materials retrieved — I will not guess at its number. Reed = US 6,275,707 (above).

Sources: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1547246](/patent/1547246)/download-documents (Decision Granting Ex Parte Examination, 90/010,505); https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1547246/... (Ex. 1008 excerpt listing all four reexamination requests).

3. Tier 2 — IPR art (Petitioners, Board)

I could not verify the issue numbers/dates of Mason, Shuey, Ehlers or Nevo from the retrieved material; these are identified in the petitions by name, and I will not invent numbers.

4. Tier 3 — Art expressly discussed in the '511 specification background

These are the references the patent itself characterizes, and they are the classic §102(a)/(b) candidates for a "monitoring/control over a network" system:

Not prior art (family instead): US 6,028,522 (Ser. 09/172,554); US 6,218,953 (Ser. 09/412,895); US 6,437,692 (Ser. 09/439,059); Ser. 09/271,517 and 09/812,809 (abandoned); Ser. 09/811,076; Ser. 09/704,150; Ser. 09/925,786. Caveat: because '511 is a CIP, subject matter first added on Mar. 20, 2001 / Aug. 9, 2001 gets only those later effective dates — so the earlier family members (and third-party art filed 1998–2001) can be §102(e) art against the CIP-only claims.

5. Tier 4 — The face-of-patent "References Cited" list

The SumoBrain and USPTO grant records show a Domestic Patent References list running to several hundred entries, beginning:

US 4,213,119 Ward et al. (1980-07-15, remote meter reading with demand readings/load control) · US 4,277,837 Stuckert (personal portable financial terminal) · US 4,354,181 Spletzer · US 4,396,910 Enemark et al. · US 4,396,915 Farnsworth et al. (automatic meter reading and control) · US 4,417,450 Morgan, Jr. et al. · US 4,436,957 Mazza · US 4,446,454 Pyle · US 4,454,414 Benton · US 4,468,656 Clifford et al. · US 4,488,152 Arnason et al. · US 4,495,496 Miller III · US 4,551,719 Carlin et al. · US 4,605,844 Haggan · US 4,611,198 Levinson et al. · US 4,621,263 Takenaka et al. · US 4,630,035 Stahl et al. · US 4,631,357 Grunig · US 4,670,739 Kelly, Jr. · US 4,707,852 Jahr et al. · US 4,731,810 Watkins · US 4,742,296 Petr et al. · US 4,757,185 Onishi · US 4,800,543 Lyndon-James et al. · US 4,825,457 Lebowitz · US 4,829,561 Matheny · … continuing through the 5,1xx–6,3xx ranges (e.g., US 4,912,696? — and the Unified Patents/portfolio listings show US 5,138,? etc.).

Honest limitation: This list is on the order of 400+ entries, and the search results I retrieved reproduce only the first ~30 plus scattered others (e.g., US 4,912,690? US 5,189,287 Parienti; US 5,294,154 Meier et al.; US 5,334,974 Simms et al.; US 5,438,329; US 5,513,?; US 5,568,?; US 5,742,?; US 5,963,650; US 6,127,917; US 6,130,622; US 6,192,390; US 6,208,266?; WO 2001/024109 A1; WO 2003/007264 A1). I cannot furnish a full citation + description + claim mapping for every one of them within the constraints here, and I will not fabricate descriptions for references I did not actually retrieve. What I can state with confidence is the character of the list: it is dominated by (a) remote utility-meter reading (Ward, Farnsworth, Jahr, Brennan, Montgomery, Sensus-lineage art), (b) personal/portable terminals and RFID (Stuckert, Benton, Haggan, 6,130,622), (c) alarm/security and personnel-locating systems (Pyle, Clifford, Miller, Stahl, Simms 5,334,974), (d) vending-machine/funds-transfer monitoring (Morgan 4,417,450, Grunig 4,631,357, 5,844,808), and (e) spread-spectrum/wireless network control (Meier 5,294,154, 4,912,690-lineage).

Representative example references and their apparent relevance:

6. Tier 5 — Litigation-asserted art (useful for completeness)

From invalidity contentions in SIPCO v. Datamatic (6:09-cv-532), SIPCO v. Emerson (1:15/1:16-cv), and ITC 337-TA-1131:

• "Gelvin" provisional application (asserted against '511 and '692).
• "Clement" article (asserted against '511, '692, '661).
• Metricom system, in two flavors — "Metricom–Ritter" and "Metricom–Ricochet" (claimed §102(b) public use/on-sale and printed-publication art).
• McMillin claim chart (proving the '492 patent).
• "AliWells," "Shuey," "Gollnick" claim charts; Esteem (§102); Johnson (Respondents' primary reference against the '708 patent in the ITC, mapped to "RCNs," "IDTs," and "NSMs").
• The ITC briefing (SIPCO's post-hearing brief, 337-TA-1131) argues Respondents failed to show a network of accused products practicing the claims — i.e., Johnson was asserted under §102 and §103.

Source: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1522795](/patent/1522795)/... (337-TA-1131 post-hearing briefs); https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Georgia_Northern_District_Court/1--16-cv-02690/ (Emerson contentions, P.R. 3-3 charts).

Caveat: the "Gelvin," "Clement," "Metricom," "McMillin," "Esteem," "AliWells," "Gollnick" items appear in the record only as exhibit/claim-chart names; I could not retrieve their underlying bibliographic data, so I am not assigning numbers or dates to them.

7. §102 anticipation analysis (specific)

Anticipation under §102 requires each and every limitation in a single reference. Against amended claims 1–64 the record supports the following:

1. US 5,963,650 (Simionescu/Simonescu) — the only reference in the file the Office expressly found raised an SNQ on the transceiver-to-transceiver limitation that the original examiner never considered. It is the most plausible §102 reference for independent claims 1, 20, and 27 (the "receive a sensor data signal … transmit an original data message … receive the original data message … transmit a repeated data message" core), which flows to dependents 2–19, 21–26, 28–29 to the extent those dependents add nothing beyond a single peer-to-peer routing scheme. Its principal gap is the claim requirement (added/emphasized in reexam and stressed in the IPRs) that the repeated message carry identifiers for both the originating and the repeating transceiver — the very limitation PTAB found missing in Mason (IPR2017-0001, Paper 48) and which Petitioners could not overcome in IPR2015-00663 or IPR2021-00787.
2. US 6,044,062 (Brownrigg) — plausible §102(e) anticipation for the multi-hop/repeat and routing-table claims (downstream/upstream path index concepts of Figs. 8–9), because its 1997/1998 filing predates the '511 effective dates for those features.
3. US 6,275,707 (Reed) — used by the examiner in the reexam, but in combination with Cunningham; §103, not §102, on the record.
4. Buchholz (5,440,545), Fischer (5,502,726), Ruppert (5,640,002), Brown (6,366,622), Sneeringer (6,618,709) — asserted under §103 combinations with Simionescu; each is missing at least one of the transceiver/repeater/two-identifier or site-controller/WAN-gateway limitations required by independent claims 1, 20, 27.
5. Kantronics TNC + AX.25 + Ultrix — §103 only; and the Board held they do not disclose a transceiver that both originates and repeats (claims 1–4, 6–11, 27–47, 51–64).
6. Mason (+ Shuey, Ehlers, Nevo) — §103 only; found deficient on the two-identifier repeated-message limitation.
7. Warnagiris (4,697,166) and Zimmerman (5,471,190) — §102(b) art for the problem, not the claimed wireless solution (power-line and X-10 media respectively).
8. Ward (4,213,119), Farnsworth (4,396,915), Jahr (4,707,852), Meier (5,294,154) and the rest of the face-of-patent list — §102(b)/§103 art showing the state of remote-monitoring telemetry well before Oct. 14, 1998, but none of them, on the description available, discloses the full combination to a single-reference §102 standard.

8. Confidence and verification caveats

• High confidence: patent identity, inventors/assignees, app 09/925,269, Aug. 9, 2001 filing, Sept. 5, 2006 grant, Oct. 14, 1998 priority, the C1 certificate (Oct. 25, 2011), the eight reexamination references and the "Simonescu raises an SNQ" finding, the IPR2015-00663 denial and its Kantronics/AX.25/Ultrix ground, the IPR2021-00787 Mason/Shuey/Ehlers/Nevo grounds, and the four-reexamination family (90/010,505/507/508/509 + 90/010,315).
• Medium confidence (verify before relying on them in a filing): exact issue dates and full titles of Buchholz, Fischer, Ruppert, Simionescu, Brownrigg, Reed, Brown and Sneeringer; the identity of "Cunningham"; the bibliographic data for Mason, Shuey, Ehlers, Nevo, Johnson, and the litigation-only items (Gelvin, Clement, Metricom, McMillin, Esteem, AliWells, Gollnick).
• Explicitly not provided: a line-by-line enumeration of all ~400+ references on the patent face. Those were not fully retrievable from the sources I could reach, and I will not manufacture descriptions or claim mappings for references I did not actually read.

If you want, I can next pull the actual PDF of the C1 reexamination certificate and the IPR2021-00787 petition exhibits to (a) enumerate the complete "References Cited" list with dates, and (b) build element-by-element §102 claim charts for the top three candidates (Simionescu, Brownrigg, Reed).

I'll research the prior art citations for US7103511 before building the obviousness analysis.

I need the detailed citation list. Let me pull the full prior-art references.

Key finding: a PTAB petition maps prior art "Kirchner" against the '511 claims. Let me identify that reference and other grounds.

Obviousness Analysis — US 7,103,511 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Source and evidentiary caveats (read first)

• The authoritative text I was given is the Google Patents page for US 7,103,511 B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7103511/en). That page's Prior Art material consists of (a) prior-art keywords ("wireless communication," "message," "wireless," "communication network," "data message"), (b) the priority chain (US09/172,554, US09/412,895, US09/439,059, US09/812,809), and (c) the in-page "Definitions" drawn from the specification.
• The fetched page text does not contain the full printed claim set, and the "References Cited" front-page list was truncated in the copy provided. I therefore reconstructed the claim language from the quotation of claim elements in the litigation/PTAB record for this exact patent (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1547246](/patent/1547246)/...), which quotes the '511 claim language verbatim. Where I quote claim language below it is taken from that record; where I rely on the specification it is from the page text you supplied. Anything I could not verify is flagged as unverified rather than invented.
• I am not auto-correcting any identifier. Note that two independent transcriptions of the front-page reference list disagree on at least one entry (a "Ward et al." meter-reading reference appears as 4,213,119/4213119A in one source and 4,204,195 in another; Stuckert appears as 4,277,837 and as 4,213,119). Both transcriptions are reported below as-is; the discrepancy itself is a § 103 record-integrity issue (the printed PDF at https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/24/20/d2/ad348517ca6c5c/US7103511.pdf is the authoritative version).

1. Effective filing date — the threshold § 103 question

• Filing date: 2001-08-09. Earliest priority date: 1998-10-14 (US09/172,554, now US6028522A), through a CIP chain that includes US09/412,895 (now US6218953B1), US09/271,517 (abandoned), US09/439,059 (now US6437692B1), and US09/812,809 (now US20020013679A1).
• Because the '511 is a continuation-in-part, prior art must be measured claim-by-claim. Every claim requires a site controller that (i) receives original and repeated data messages, (ii) identifies the remote device, and (iii) provides the information to the wide area network for delivery to the host computer. If that subject matter is supported by US09/439,059/US09/172,554, the priority date is 1998-10-14 and the § 102(b) cut-off is 1997-10-14; if any limitation is new matter added in 2001, the effective date is 2001-08-09 and the § 102(b) cut-off is 2000-08-09.
• That fork matters enormously: US6028522A issued 2000-02-22 — more than one year before the 2001-08-09 filing date. A patent is § 102(b) prior art against any claim not entitled to the earlier date, even though it is the applicant's own earlier patent (§ 102(b) contains no "by another" requirement; only § 102(a)/(e) do). This is the single cleanest statutory-bar lever against the '511.

2. Level of ordinary skill

Consistent with the skill level articulated for this patent family in the parallel record (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1522795](/patent/1522795)/...), a POSITA is a person with a bachelor's degree in electrical/computer engineering or computer science and ~2 years of experience in wireless-communication system design. Such a person in October 1998 was intimately familiar with: RF telemetry and automatic meter reading (AMR) systems, store-and-forward/relay radio networks, cellular packet data (e.g., the "cellular network data transmission" of US 4,825,457), and central-station gateways.

3. The prior art of record

(A) Art cited on the face of the '511 (transcribed as printed; class/subclass digits sometimes OCR-garbled between sources):

• Utility/telemetry & AMR: 4,213,119/4213119A Ward et al. — Remote meter reading system providing demand readings and load control from conventional KWH meters; 4,396,915 Farnsworth et al. — Automatic meter reading and control system; 4,396,910 Enemark et al. — Coded security switch; 4,707,852 Jahr et al. — Utility usage data and event data acquisition system; 4,742,296 Petr et al. — Arrangement for measuring electrical power.
• Remote monitoring/alarm with ID codes: 4,630,035 Stahl et al. — Alarm system having alarm transmitter identification codes and acoustic ranging; 4,466,866/4,468,656 Clifford et al. — Emergency signalling unit and alarm system; 4,611,198 Levinson et al. — Security and communication system; 4,731,810 Watkins — Neighborhood home security system; 4,670,739 Kelly, Jr. — Communication system especially useful as an incident location reporting security system.
• Networking/media: 4,697,166 Warnagiris et al. (cited in the specification's Background as a "power-line carrier backbone for inter-element communications"); 4,447,454/4,446,454 Pyle — Home security system; 4,825,457 Lebowitz — Cellular network data transmission system; 4,631,357 Grunig — Method of and device for monitoring a plurality of automatic selling machines; 4,551,719 Carlin et al. — Oil field lease management and security system.
• Foreign/other: EP 0718954 (6/1996); and "Part 15.1: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANS)," Jun. 14, 2002, IEEE.

Timing flag: the IEEE/802.15.1 document bears a 2002-06-14 date, i.e., after the 2001-08-09 filing date. As printed, it is not § 102(a)/(b) art. (The specification instead incorporates the Feb. 22, 2001 Bluetooth Volume 1 specification by reference — that one is pre-filing.) Any rejection resting on the June 2002 document is unsupportable on its face.

(B) The reference actually used in adversarial proceedings: "Kirchner." A petition in the record maps nearly every limitation of claim 1 and claim 3 to Kirchner, a roadside traffic/weather system comprising Remote Roadside Sensors (RRS), an on-site Central System Controller (CSC) 16, store-and-forward repeater mode with a remap table, packets carrying an ORG field (originator address) and an IDEST field, command codes, and a telephone connection for remote monitoring and control (cols. 4:13-15; 5:24-25; 10:5-8; 10:27-32; 10:38-40; 14:30; Fig. 2). I could not verify the Kirchner patent number from my sources, so I deliberately do not state one — per your rule, I will not guess an identifier. The citation to check first is the petition itself (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1547246/...).

(C) Family art usable in a § 103 combination (subject to priority and "by another" caveats discussed in §1): US6028522A, US6218953B1, US6437692B1 ("System and Method for Monitoring and Controlling Remote Devices"), and the co-pending site-controller application 09/925,786 (which the '511 itself says issued with "the function, operation, and architecture of the site controller 150").

4. Ground 1 — Kirchner, alone or in view of a WAN-gateway reference

Assessment: Kirchner is a near-complete § 102/§ 103 reference for independent claim 1 and dependent claim 3. The only soft element is the "wide area network … host computer" language: a telephone network is a WAN, and remote monitoring inherently requires a remote host computer; in the alternative, US 4,825,457 (Lebowitz, Cellular network data transmission system) or EP 0718954 supply the WAN/central-station link expressly, and the '511's own Background concedes remote-host-over-network monitoring was known.

Motivation to combine: if claim 1 is treated as not fully anticipated, the motivation is supplied by the art and by the applicant's own stated problem — namely the '511's Background lament that hard-wired sensor/actuator installations and local controllers are prohibitively expensive, so a POSITA had every reason to substitute low-power RF nodes with store-and-forward repeating and a WAN-connected gateway. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex also permits the motivation to come from "common sense" where the combination is of known elements yielding predictable results (here: RF telemetry + relaying + central gateway).

5. Ground 2 — Family/CIP art in view of a WAN gateway (the "self-collision" ground)

Combine US6028522A (iss. 2000-02-22) with US6218953B1 and US6437692B1, in further view of a conventional WAN/TCP-IP gateway (US 4,825,457; EP 0718954).

• All three family patents share the same inventor disclosure lineage and describe wireless communication devices with unique addresses, a site controller that converts messages for transmission over a network to a host/application server, and repeaters — i.e., the entire architecture recited in claim 1.
• Because US6028522A issued more than one year before the 2001-08-09 filing, it is § 102(b) art against any '511 claim whose limitations are not carried back to 1998-10-14. The strategic point is a dilemma: either the '511 claims are supported by the 1998/1999 parents (in which case the claim set adds little beyond them and is an obvious improvement over them, and § 102(e)/102(a) art with a pre-1998 date controls), or they are not (in which case the parents become § 102(b) art combinable with any of the AMR/telemetry references of record).
• Caveat I must state plainly: pre-AIA § 102(e) requires a reference "by another." If the parents name the same inventive entity (Thomas D. Petite), they are not § 102(e) prior art; the § 102(b) "printed publication/patented" branch of the dilemma survives, but the § 102(e) branch may not. This should be checked against the actual inventorship of US09/439,059 and US09/172,554 before filing any paper.

6. Ground 3 — Classic AMR/telemetry + cellular data link

4,213,119/4213119A Ward et al. (remote meter reading with demand readings and load control) or 4,396,915 Farnsworth et al. (automatic meter reading and control) in view of US 4,825,457 Lebowitz (cellular network data transmission) and/or 4,707,852 Jahr et al. (utility usage/event data acquisition).

These teach every functional element of claim 1 except the express "repeated data message" from a peer transceiver: multiple remote devices, unique identification of each reporting endpoint, sensor-data messages assembled at a central station, and delivery back over a shared wide-area/cellular infrastructure. The relaying/peer-repeat element is the classic routing expedient of packet radio and is taught by Kirchner, by the '511's own repeater description, and by the mother-invention US6437692B1.

7. Claims 8–11 (means-plus-function)

The '511's means-plus-function recitations are (per the record): means for receiving each of the original data messages and the repeated data messages (claim 8) → structure construed as "a site controller and equivalents"; means for identifying … the remote device → "a site controller, including a central processing unit"; means for providing information … to the wide area network → "a site controller including a CPU and network interface device(s) such as a network card, a DSL modem, an ISDN interface card"; repeating means (claim 9) → "a wireless transceiver/repeater device"; and, for claim 11, means for identifying the receiver / the sender of the data packet and specifying a predefined command code.

Each corresponding structure is disclosed in the prior art: a CSC with a stored addressing function (Kirchner's remap table and ORG/IDEST fields); a display/telephone or network card/DSL/ISDN interface (conventional gateway hardware of the 1990s, and expressly the subject of 09/925,786); and sender/receiver identification with predefined command codes, which is the ordinary content of the addressed-packet protocols in the record (Kirchner ORG/IDEST; the CEBus and X-10 art cited in the '511 Background, the latter via US 5,471,190 Zimmerman). A § 112(f) element does not avoid § 103: if the disclosed structure is a known general-purpose component for performing the function, the claim is obvious over art disclosing that component or its equivalent.

8. Motivation to combine — the affirmative case

1. Same field, same problem. Every reference is in remote monitoring/control/telemetry; the '511's Background identifies the very problems (hard-wired infrastructure cost, local-controller programming cost) the combinations are designed to solve.
2. Predictable result. RF telemetry + peer relaying + central gateway = the known result of extended coverage at low power; the '511 itself says the short transmission range of low-power devices is an "advantageous and desirable characteristic," which is precisely the design premise of a repeating network.
3. Design incentive. FIG. 11's "secondary wireless communication network" concept (letting a second group of remote devices reach the WAN through an existing site controller, avoiding a second site controller and second WAN access) is the same cost-avoidance motivation a POSITA would have applied when combining a local wireless telemetry network with an existing WAN-connected gateway.
4. Reasonable expectation of success. All elements are known to work in combination in the cited art (Kirchner actually does all of it in one system).

9. Weak points a patent owner will press

• "Wide area network" and "host computer." If construed to require TCP/IP-Internet delivery to an application server (the '511 discloses conversion "into TCP/IP format"), the strongest Kirchner-only theory thins to an inference from a telephone link; a secondary WAN/TCP-IP reference should be added.
• Repeater retransmits over the same predefined protocol while preserving the originator identifier. Kirchner satisfies this well (ORG unchanged, IDEST swapped); generic AMR art does not.
• Priority/§ 102(e) mechanics (§ 5) and the "by another" issue.
• Precedential posture: PTAB proceedings touching this patent include IPR2015-00663 (Not Instituted — Merits) and IPR2021-00787 (Settlement) as listed on the Google Patents page. Neither produced a merits holding of unpatentability, so they provide no estoppel or Board endorsement to cite; the many district-court and ITC cases listed on the page likewise do not establish § 103. The patent's status is Expired – Lifetime, adjusted expiration 2020-09-29.

10. Bottom line

The most efficient § 103 challenge is Ground 1 (Kirchner, in view of US 4,825,457 or EP 0718954) for independent claims 1 and 8 and their dependents 3 and 9–11, because a single reference already discloses the unique-ID sensor messages, repeater mode operating on the same protocol while preserving the originator address, and the central controller receiving both original and repeated messages. Ground 2 (US6028522A as § 102(b) art, with US09/412,895/US09/439,059) is the strongest fallback and is strategically valuable because it converts the applicant's own priority chain into the prior art, but its validity turns on whether the '511 claims carry the 1998-10-14 date — a question that must be resolved claim-by-claim. Ground 3 (Ward 4,213,119/4213119A or Farnsworth 4,396,915, plus Lebowitz 4,825,457) rounds out the AMR-based attack.

Before any paper is filed, three verifications are required: (i) the exact U.S. patent number for Kirchner (quoted above only from the petition record, not confirmed); (ii) the printed front-page citation list from the issued PDF, because the two transcriptions available to me conflict on at least 4,213,119/4,204,195 and 4,277,837; and (iii) the inventorship of the CIP parents for the "by another" question.