US 7177484

I'll search for the specific patent number and any CAFC docket activity.

Let me check for litigation and any 2026 docket activity specific to this patent.

US Patent 7,177,484 — Verified Summary

Important scoping note: My searches returned no docket entry, PTAB paper, or Federal Circuit filing dated in calendar year 2026 that names patent 7,177,484. The litigation references below are the only ones I could ground. I could not independently verify a live 2026 CAFC docket for this number (searches for "7,177,484" + Federal Circuit returned no matching case), so any 2026 activity should be treated as unconfirmed. All bibliographic facts below are taken from the authoritative full patent text supplied, with corroboration from Google Patents / wiki.golden.com.

Bibliographic Data

Assignment chain (as recorded): Eastman Kodak Company (inventor assignment, 2003-02-26) → CitiCorp North America security interest (2012) and release (2013) → Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC (2013-04-22, effective 2013-02-01) → Monument Peak Ventures, LLC (2017-03-09, effective 2017-02-15); later a "release by secured party" in favor of Monument Peak (2023-08-15, effective 2023-07-28).

Classification: G06Q 30/02 (commerce/marketing); H04N 1/3871 (composing/repositioning originals of different kinds, e.g., low- and high-resolution originals).

Abstract (verbatim)

"A method of offering a customized promotional product to a user. The method comprises the steps of: accessing a user-supplied digital image at a digital imaging device; providing a digital image representative of a promotional product, the promotional product digital image having a predetermined image location adapted to receive at least a portion of the user-supplied digital image; generating a modified user image by modifying the at least a portion of the user-supplied digital image to simulate an application of the at least a portion of the user-supplied image to the promotional product; generating a customized digital image representative of the customized promotional product, the customized digital image comprising the promotional product digital image having the modified user image disposed within the predetermined image location; and displaying the customized digital image to the user on a display of the digital imaging device."

Independent Claims — Plain-Language Overview

Claim 1 — "Offering" method (5 steps)
A method of offering a customized promotional product to a user:

1. Access a user-supplied digital image at a digital imaging device (e.g., a kiosk — the specification's canonical example is Kodak's Picture Maker™ kiosk, reference numerals 10–27).
2. Provide a digital image of a promotional product that has a predetermined image location designed to receive at least a portion of the user's image (specification examples: tee-shirt 30a, cup 30b, heart shape 30c; other listed products include puzzles, posters, calendars, business cards, personalized checks).
3. Generate a modified user image by modifying at least a portion of the user's image so as to simulate how the image would actually appear applied to that product — e.g., texturing for a tee-shirt, perspective/curvature distortion for a round mug, or applied treatments such as tiling and posterization.
4. Generate a customized digital image by placing the modified user image into the predetermined image location of the product image (compositing; the patent cites Kodak's own U.S. 6,075,542 and 5,986,671, both to Fredlund, for combining digital images).
5. Display the resulting customized digital image to the user on the imaging device's display.

Claim 8 — "Ordering" method (9 steps)
A method of placing an order for a customized product. Steps (1)–(5) are identical in substance to claim 1 (access → provide product image with predetermined location → generate modified user image simulating application → generate customized digital image → display it). It then adds four commercial steps:
6. Provide a product order menu adapted to place an order for the customized product.
7. Receive the product order.
8. Generate the customized product (e.g., at an authorized photofinishing lab/service provider, or on-kiosk via printer 20 with delivery section 16).
9. Deliver the customized product (return to retail location, direct delivery, or on-kiosk output).

Dependent claims (both families mirror each other):

• 2 / 9 — display a plurality of customized digital images, each for a different promotional product.
• 3 / 10 — provide an order menu proximate the customized digital image.
• 4 / 11 — detect content of the user's image, categorize it, and select the promotional product from a plurality within that category (specification examples: baby detected → baby book/frame/card or customized gift certificate; theme/cartoon character; or textual content such as a "happy birthday" sign → birthday item suite). Cites U.S. 6,157,435 (Slater) for content/image recognition.
• 5 / 12 — the display step occurs while the computer is processing the user's request (i.e., the upsell opportunity is exploited during otherwise-idle processing time such as printing, scanning, editing, or transmitting).
• 6 / 13 — generate and display a plurality of views of the customized digital image (e.g., isometric + front view, or front + side).
• 7 / 14 — display the customized digital image in a scene (e.g., a person wearing the personalized tee-shirt, with a background chosen to complement the shirt).

Points of Uncertainty and Record Conflicts (flagged, not auto-corrected)

• Legal status is internally inconsistent in the record. Google Patents lists the status as "Expired – Fee Related, expires 2025-04-05" with an "Adjusted expiration" entry of 2025-04-05. However, the Legal Events show a Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees dated 2019-03-18 with an effective date of 2019-02-13 (37 CFR 1.362). Last-recorded maintenance fee payment was the 8-year payment on 2014-07-25. The two statements cannot both be accurate as to the operative expiration/lapse basis; I am flagging the conflict rather than resolving it.
• Internal citation discrepancy: the specification text states the incorporated-by-reference application U.S. Ser. No. 10/061,385 ("System and Method of Processing a Digital Image for User Assessment of an Output Image Product," Fredlund et al.) was filed Feb. 20, 2003, while the Non-Patent Citations field states filed Feb. 1, 2002. I have preserved both as given and cannot adjudicate from this record.
• Related co-owned application: the "Family Cites Families" data lists US 2003/0146997 A1 (published 2003-08-07, Eastman Kodak Company) as the published version of the 10/061,385 subject matter. Same document number, different filing dates as above.
• Litigation: The Google Patents record's "Family has litigation" section lists (i) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, case 21-1052, and (ii) U.S. District Court, California Central District, case 8:19-cv-02181. No outcome, party names, or 2026 activity for either was retrievable in my searches.
• Not found: No USPTO reexamination, reissue, IPR/PGR, or terminal disclaimer record for 7,177,484 appeared in the supplied text or my searches. I cannot confirm one way or the other.
• I found no third-party source contradicting any bibliographic field above; the independent source located (wiki.golden.com) agrees on patent number, issue date (Feb. 13, 2007), application number (10/375,848), filing date (Feb. 26, 2003), and assignee (Eastman Kodak).

One-Sentence Takeaway

US 7,177,484 (Fredlund & Manico, Eastman Kodak, filed 2003-02-26, issued 2007-02-13) claims a kiosk-based method of personalized upselling: take the customer's own photo, realistically simulate it applied to a promotional product (tee-shirt, mug, etc.), display that mocked-up product back to the customer, and — in the ordering claim — let them order and receive the real thing; it is essentially the ancestor of modern personalized-merchandise preview-and-order kiosks, and it now sits with Monument Peak Ventures, LLC.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 7177484 using the sources you specified.

Let me dig into the specific cases identified.

Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 7,177,484

Patent: U.S. 7,177,484 B2 — "Method for using customer images in a promotional product"
Application: 10/375,848 · filed Feb. 26, 2003 · granted Feb. 13, 2007
Original assignee: Eastman Kodak Company (inventors Fredlund & Manico)
Current owner of record: Monument Peak Ventures, LLC (via Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC)
Continuation in family: U.S. 7,302,115 B2 (app. 11/564,977)

Note on methodology: I treated "7177484" literally and did not substitute any similar number. Per Google Patents, the record for this patent reflects two litigation entries (one district court, one Federal Circuit appeal). I found no other case specifically asserting this patent.

Case 1 — District Court (the only district-court assertion of the '484 patent I located)

Outcome detail: On August 12, 2020, the court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. 38), holding the asserted claims of the '762, '484, '294, '064 and '095 patents ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Alice/abstract-idea analysis). A stipulated final judgment entered September 11, 2020 (Dkt. 51) dismissed with prejudice MPV's claims under the '090 patent and entered final judgment in favor of the Toshiba defendants as to the '484 (and other) patents' unpatentability under § 101. Bracewell LLP represented Toshiba; Edmonds & Schlather, PLLC represented MPV.

The '484 patent was one of the "five digital camera patents originally issued to Eastman Kodak" invalidated in this ruling.

Case 2 — Federal Circuit appeal

Confidence caveat: I confirmed via search that the Federal Circuit affirmed the California judge's finding that these patents cover only abstract ideas. I could not verify from the sources retrieved whether the affirmance was by precedential opinion or by a Rule 36 summary affirmance, so I am stating the affirmance itself as the reliable fact rather than characterizing the disposition type.

Related but NOT involving the '484 patent

• Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. v. Monument Peak Ventures, LLC, PTAB IPR2021-00330 — filed Dec. 21, 2020, terminated June 25, 2021, institution denied. This inter partes review challenged U.S. 7,583,294 (a different patent in the same MPV/Kodak portfolio), not the '484 patent. It is related litigation from the same dispute but should not be counted as an assertion of 7,177,484.
• Google Patents' Darts-ip "First worldwide family litigation filed" entry links to family ID 32869054 and does not identify any separate national case beyond the above.

Summary

Only one district-court action asserting U.S. 7,177,484 was identified — Monument Peak Ventures, LLC v. Toshiba America Business Solutions, Inc., et al., C.D. Cal. No. 8:19-cv-02181-DOC-DFM (filed 11/11/2019) — which ended in dismissal/judgment for Toshiba on § 101 grounds (Aug. 12/Sept. 11, 2020), and a single Federal Circuit appeal, No. 21-1052, affirmed in December 2021.

Caveat: I did not obtain a dedicated record from the Unified Patents litigation portal or a PACER docket confirming a fuller list of suits, and I did not locate any other defendant sued over this specific patent number. You should independently confirm against PACER (C.D. Cal. 8:19-cv-02181) and the Federal Circuit docket for 21-1052 before relying on this for any filing or validity opinion; I'm flagging that as a verification gap rather than a certainty.

I'll verify the structured "no PTAB proceedings" signal against web sources before finalizing.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 7,177,484 as of 2026-09-29: zero (0). Breakdown by status is therefore all-zero: 0 active · 0 claims invalidated · 0 claims sustained · 0 settled · 0 institution denied — no IPR, no PGR, and no CBM was ever petitioned against this patent, so the claims have never been tested at the Board and no claim has ever been canceled or confirmed by a PTAB panel.

The bottom-line defensive posture is unusual and, for a defendant, favorable — but not for the reason you'd expect. This is not the "claims 1–5 have been canceled, the demand letter is baseless" scenario (nothing was canceled), and it is emphatically not the "the patent has survived two IPRs and is hardened" scenario (nothing was filed). The real posture is: the patent was knocked out judicially, not administratively. The asserted claims were held ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by the C.D. Cal. in Monument Peak Ventures, LLC v. Toshiba America Business Solutions, Inc., No. 8:19-cv-02181, and that judgment was affirmed on appeal (Fed. Cir. No. 21-1052, December 2021). The absence of PTAB activity is a consequence of that ruling — once the claims were § 101-invalidated, there was no reason to spend $500K+ on an IPR. A defendant today should lead with the district-court judgment and the Blonder-Tongue estoppel it creates, not with a PTAB record, because there is no PTAB record.

Verification note: The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO Open Data Portal) returns none. My independent web searches — targeting the patent number, the title, the owners (Monument Peak Ventures, Intellectual Ventures Fund 83), and petitioner-side sources (Toshiba, Bosch, GE, Xerox filings) — surfaced no petition, no trial number, and no Board decision naming 7,177,484. This is consistent with, not contradicting, the earlier-generated summary. Nothing in my searches was found that names an AIA proceeding on this patent.

No proceedings to report — why the universe of AIA vehicles was thin to begin with

Because there are no proceedings, there are no per-proceeding entries to populate. Instead, the analytically useful answer is which AIA vehicles were even legally available against this patent, because that explains the empty docket:

So the only AIA trial that could ever have been filed was an IPR, and it never was. Any IPR filed in 2026 would need to thread § 315(b) (one-year bar from service of a complaint) and § 325(d)/Fintiv considerations, and — critically — would be aimed at a patent that is no longer in force, which is usually poor value (see Strategic summary).

Adjacent proceedings — same patent owner, same Kodak portfolio, different patents

These are not proceedings on 7,177,484 and must not be counted as such. They matter only as context for the portfolio-wide enforcement pattern, and they are the "closest analogues" that repeatedly appear in searches for Monument Peak Ventures PTAB activity. Claiming any of these as an attack on the '484 would be inaccurate.

IPR2021-00330 — Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. v. Monument Peak Ventures, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Patent challenged: U.S. 7,583,294 (a sibling patent from the same C.D. Cal. complaint — not the '484)
• Filed: 2020-12-21
• Status: Institution Denied (terminated 2021-06-25)
• Petition grounds: Not the '484; per the Patent Owner's Preliminary Response, MPV argued (a) discretionary denial under § 314(a)/Fintiv and (b) that the petition was untimely and barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because Toshiba America Electronic Components was served with the C.D. Cal. complaint on 2019-12-17 — more than one year before the December 2020 petition. (PO Preliminary Response, IPR2021-00330)
• Defensive value for the '484: Low, but instructive — Toshiba filed an IPR on one of the six asserted patents and lost it on the § 315(b) clock. Practitioners wanting to IPR an MPV patent should calendar the service date immediately.
• Contradiction check: This is consistent with the earlier-generated litigation summary, which correctly identified IPR2021-00330 as challenging the '294 and correctly excluded it from assertions of the '484. No conflict.

IPR2019-01020 — General Electric Co. v. Monument Peak Ventures, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Patent challenged: U.S. 7,092,573 (not the '484)
• Filed: 2019-04-25
• Status: Institution Denied (2019-09-23)
• Grounds (for context only): § 103 obviousness over Kinjo-569 in various combinations with Luo and Soohoo, targeting claims 1, 2, 4–6, and 8. (IPVerse case detail; Docket Alarm docket)
• Defensive value for the '484: None directly. Illustrates MPV's willingness to sit on preliminary responses and its success rate in getting petitions denied.

IPR2019-01472 through IPR2019-01476 — Robert Bosch LLC v. Monument Peak Ventures, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review (five petitions)
• Patents challenged: U.S. 6,282,317 and related Bosch-security imaging patents (not the '484)
• Filed: 2019-09-05
• Status: Terminated–Settled (e.g., IPR2019-01473: instituted 2020-03-09, joint motion to terminate 2020-08-26, terminated 2020-08-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 317 / 37 C.F.R. § 42.74, settlement agreement filed as confidential business information). (IPVerse case detail)
• Defensive value for the '484: None directly; relevant only as evidence that MPV monetizes broadly and that its PTAB cases often resolve through portfolio-level licensing rather than FWDs.

IPR2019-00993 / IPR2019-01029 (GE) and IPR2022-00318 (Xerox)

• Patents challenged: GE — U.S. 7,212,668 and related (not the '484); Xerox — U.S. 7,684,090 (not the '484).
• Status: Terminated–Settled (GE: IPR2019-01029 terminated 2019-11-29 after institution; Xerox: IPR2022-00318 terminated–settled).
• Defensive value for the '484: None. Listed solely to show that across MPV's ~10 PTAB cases, not one names 7,177,484. (IPVerse — Monument Peak Ventures competitive analysis, showing 10 MPV PTAB cases, all on other patent numbers.)

Strategic summary

Claim status: 14 claims, all UNTESTED at the PTAB. No claim of 7,177,484 has been canceled, held unpatentable, or sustained by the Board, because no AIA trial was ever instituted. Anyone telling you "claims 1–7 were canceled in IPR" is misattributing another patent from the MPV/Kodak portfolio. The only adverse adjudication on this patent came from an Article III court: the C.D. Cal. held the asserted claims of the '762, '484, '294, '064, and '095 patents ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (order 2020-08-12; stipulated final judgment 2020-09-11), which the Federal Circuit affirmed in No. 21-1052 (reported December 2021). Reference links from the authoritative record: C.D. Cal. 8:19-cv-02181 and Fed. Cir. 21-1052. I could not verify from retrieved sources precisely which claim numbers of the '484 were in suit or which disposition type the Federal Circuit used (precedential opinion vs. Rule 36 summary affirmance); treat those two points as verification gaps and pull the docket before drafting.

Estoppel landscape — this is where the empty docket cuts in your favor. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel is triggered only by an IPR that was instituted and reached a final written decision. No IPR on the '484 was instituted, so no petitioner, real party in interest, or privy is under any § 315(e)(2) estoppel as to the '484. A new defendant retains the full menu of § 102/§ 103 art and § 112 grounds (subject to the § 315(b) one-year clock and § 325(d) discretion). Conversely, there is no Fintiv history on this patent to argue from either direction. The separate, and much stronger, estoppel is non-mutual collateral estoppel under Blonder-Tongue Labs. v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U.S. 313 (1971): MPV litigated § 101 validity of the '484 to a final, appealed-and-affirmed judgment of invalidity and lost. A defendant receiving a new demand letter on the '484 should assert Blonder-Tongue preclusion at the outset — that argument does the work an IPR would have done, at a fraction of the cost.

Pattern signals. (1) No repeat petitioner on this patent — there was never a first petitioner. (2) MPV is a prolific but IPR-averse-of-late enforcer: its PTAB history runs through GE (2019), Bosch (2019, five petitions, all settled), Toshiba (2020, denied), and Xerox (2021–2022, settled); the assertions have since shifted to TCL (2024), Tesla (2023), Hanwha, Vivotek, Venable, Carl Zeiss (2026). (Justia docket search; Stanford NPE database) (3) No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) ever filed on the '484 — the only Unified Patents reference in the record is a litigation data link, not a filed challenge. (4) No PTAB appeal of this patent, obviously, since there was no Board decision; the only appellate activity is MPV's 21-1052 appeal of its loss.

One more practical point — the patent is not in force. The Legal Events show a lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees recorded 2019-03-18 with an effective date of 2019-02-13 (37 C.F.R. § 1.362), the last fee paid being the 8-year payment on 2014-07-25. Google Patents' header simultaneously displays "Expired – Fee Related, expires 2025-04-05" with an "Adjusted expiration" entry of 2025-04-05. Having flagged this as an internal conflict earlier, I can now partially reconcile it: 2025-04-05 is consistent with the nominal 20-years-from-filing term (2023-02-26) plus a patent term adjustment of roughly 792 days — that is the patent's statutory term, not a statement that fees were paid. The lapse event and the adjusted-expiration field answer different questions and can coexist. Under either reading, as of 2026-09-29 the '484 is expired/lapsed and cannot be enforced prospectively; any residual theory would be confined to pre-lapse damages within the 35 U.S.C. § 286 six-year lookback, which now reaches back only to 2020-09-29 — i.e., after the lapse effective date. Flag that arithmetic for your own damages analysis; I am reasoning from docket metadata, not a litigated holding.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not file an IPR on the '484, and do not source a defense from PTAB records — there are none. An IPR would be filed against a lapsed, judicially-invalidated patent; you would spend six figures to obtain a cancellation of claims that are already unenforceable and already subject to an adverse final judgment. That is worse than a waste — it can look like you lacked confidence in the district-court judgment.
2. Lead with Blonder-Tongue. MPV litigated § 101 validity of the '484 in C.D. Cal. No. 8:19-cv-02181 and lost; the Federal Circuit affirmed in No. 21-1052 (December 2021). A final judgment of invalidity, affirmed on appeal, precludes MPV from asserting the same patent against unrelated defendants. Cite the 2020-08-12 dismissal order and the 2020-09-11 stipulated final judgment, and confirm the claim numbers and the Federal Circuit disposition type from PACER/CourtListener before filing.
3. Cross-check the lapse date before responding to any demand. Pull the USPTO Patent Center fee history for 7,177,484 to confirm the 2019-02-13 lapse effective date. If confirmed, demand that the asserting party identify any accused act occurring before that date — a demand letter citing current-product infringement would have no recoverable damages on this patent.
4. Calendar the § 315(b) trap if you ever do petition. Toshiba lost IPR2021-00330 at institution because it petitioned more than a year after 2019-12-17 service. (PO Preliminary Response) Note that CBM is closed (sunset 2020) and PGR was never available (2003 effective filing date), so IPR is the only AIA vehicle — the deadline discipline matters more here than in a typical portfolio.
5. Verification gap to close. My searches returned no PTAB E2E page, no PTAB decision PDF, and no CourtListener permalink for 21-1052. I am not asserting those don't exist — I could not retrieve them. Confirm on USPTO PTAB E2E (search by patent number 7177484) and on the Federal Circuit docket for 2021-1052 before relying on the "zero proceedings" finding in any filing, and note that the USPTO ODP ingest underlying the structured block may lag several weeks behind new filings — though a 2026 filing on an expired, invalidated patent is commercially implausible.

I'll attempt to retrieve assignment-center metadata (especially correspondents of record) before writing up.

Let me try to pin down correspondents of record for the key reel/frame entries.

Assignment Record Reconstruction — US 7,177,484 B2

Important methodology caveat, stated up front: I do not have live access to the USPTO Assignment Center fields (reel/frame-level correspondent of record, execution vs. recording date pairs, page counts). The reel/frame numbers, conveyance types, assignors, assignees and effective dates below are taken from the legal-events data embedded in the authoritative full patent text supplied for this analysis, which reproduces the USPTO assignment record. The correspondent-of-record field is not present in that source, and my three search attempts to retrieve it returned unrelated records (a Juniper/Unified Patents exhibit containing Acacia-family assignment tables, and an IV Fund 83 → Monument Peak assignment instrument for a different patent, U.S. app. 09/223,860). Correspondent entries are therefore marked "not retrieved" rather than guessed. This is a genuine verification gap and I am flagging it rather than filling it.

Inventors

Pattern note — departure timing: The record supplied contains no inventor-separation, termination, or re-assignment-of-inventor-rights events, and nothing showing either inventor departing Kodak within 12 months of the 2003-02-26 filing. I therefore cannot confirm or rule out the "inventors depart early → portfolio fire-sale" precursor for this patent. The fire-sale that did eventually occur was driven by Kodak's 2012 Chapter 11, i.e. nine years after filing, not by inventor attrition.

Original assignee

Eastman Kodak Company (New Jersey corporation; Rochester, NY). Named as assignee on the issued patent (Reel 013832/0925).

• Product embodying the claims: Yes — the specification's own canonical implementation is the Picture Maker™ kiosk produced by Eastman Kodak Company (kiosk 10; ref. numerals 10–27, including the Kodak Digital Science Model 8650 printer 20). Kodak was a real operating company selling the very imaging kiosk hardware the claims are written against, so this is not an abstract paper title.
• Primary line of business at filing: photographic film, imaging hardware, photofinishing, and retail imaging kiosks/services.
• Current status: Still in existence as a public company (Eastman Kodak Company, NYSE: KODK) but a restructured survivor, not the 2003 business. It filed Chapter 11 on 2012-01-19 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) and emerged in September 2013 as a commercial-printing/advanced-materials company, having sold the digital-imaging patent portfolio at issue here.

Assignment timeline

Six recorded entries touch this patent. Execution/effective and recording dates are given as the record shows them.

• 2003-02-26 (executed) / recorded 2003-02-26 — Reel 013832/0925

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: Fredlund, John R.; Manico, Joseph A.
  • Assignee: Eastman Kodak Company
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved — the supplied record omits the correspondent field.
  • Context: Ordinary employment/inventor assignment at filing; establishes Kodak as original owner.

• 2012-02-21 (recorded) / effective 2012-02-15 — Reel 028201/0420

  • Conveyance: Security interest (secured-party filing)
  • Assignor: Eastman Kodak Company; Pakon, Inc.
  • Assignee: Citicorp North America, Inc., as Agent
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved.
  • Context: Securitization / collateral pledge of the portfolio to Kodak's DIP/lender agent, granted roughly one month after the Chapter 11 filing. Not a change of ownership.

• 2013-02-01 (recorded) / effective 2013-02-01 — Reel 029913/0001

  • Conveyance: Release (patent release)
  • Assignor: Citicorp North America, Inc.; Wilmington Trust, National Association
  • Assignee: The Kodak entity group (Eastman Kodak Company and numerous listed subsidiaries)
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved.
  • Context: Release of the 2012 security interest ahead of the §363 sale, clearing title so the portfolio could be sold free and clear.

• 2013-04-22 (recorded) / effective 2013-02-01 — Reel 030387/0571

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: Eastman Kodak Company
  • Assignee: Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC (Delaware LLC; address of record per the sibling assignment instrument I located: 7251 W Lake Mead Blvd, Ste 300, Las Vegas, NV 89128)
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved. (This is the single most important correspondent to obtain — it is the recording attorney for the entire Kodak→IV bankruptcy-sale tranche.)
  • Context: Bankruptcy fire-sale / transfer-to-asserter. Kodak's Chapter 11 §363 sale of its digital-imaging patent portfolio to IV for $527M, approved by the Bankruptcy Court (S.D.N.Y.) in January 2013 and closed in 2013. Public-company corroboration: Kodak Form 8-K dated 2012-12-18 describing the Patent Sale Agreement between Kodak and Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC, funding by an IV/RPX-organized licensee consortium (Adobe, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, FUJIFILM, Huawei, Google, HTC, Microsoft, RIM, Samsung, Shutterfly), plus grant-back licenses to Kodak. Note the ~11-week gap between the effective date and recording date — normal for a large multi-thousand-asset conveyance recorded in bulk.

• 2017-03-09 (recorded) / effective 2017-02-15 — Reel 041941/0079

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC
  • Assignee: Monument Peak Ventures, LLC (Texas LLC; address of record per the sibling instrument I located: 1400 Preston Road, Suite 400, Plano, TX 75093)
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved, but see the near-identical sibling instrument I retrieved for U.S. app. 09/223,860 ("Method for Automatic Determination of Main Subjects in Photographic Images"), executed FEBRUARY 15, 2017 — the same execution date as this reel's effective date — conveying the same IV Fund 83 → Monument Peak Ventures interests, including "causes of action and enforcement rights … for past, current and future infringement." That instrument corroborates the corporate identities and addresses above. It does not display the USPTO correspondent field.
  • Context: Transfer-to-asserter — IV carved the ex-Kodak portfolio into a dedicated Texas-based assertion vehicle, Monument Peak Ventures. This is the event that created the plaintiff in the later Toshiba suit.

• 2023-08-15 (recorded) / effective 2023-07-28 — Reel 064599/0304

  • Conveyance: Release by secured party
  • Assignor: Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC (as secured party)
  • Assignee: Monument Peak Ventures, LLC
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved.
  • Context: Internal collateral release within the same corporate family — IV Fund 83 relinquishing a security interest it still held over MPV assets. Confirms ongoing IV↔MPV affiliation; no third-party change of ownership.

(Non-assignment record along the way: maintenance-fee payment 2010-07-02 [4-yr] and 2014-07-25 [8-yr]; a lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees recorded 2019-03-18, effective 2019-02-13 under 37 CFR 1.362, with a further lapse entry 2019-04-09. This matters to the NPE analysis below.)

Record conflict carried forward (flagged, not resolved): Google Patents' header still reads "Expired – Fee Related, expires 2025-04-05 / Adjusted expiration 2025-04-05," yet the legal events show an 8-year fee paid 2014-07-25 and the patent expiring for non-payment of the 12-year fee effective 2019-02-13. These two statements are mutually inconsistent as to the operative lapse basis. Consistently with that, no assignment activity is recorded after 2023 and the patent is not currently enforceable on the record.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7177484
    2003 : Filed by Eastman Kodak
         : Inventors assign to Kodak
    2007 : Patent issued
    2012 : Kodak files Chapter 11
         : Citicorp security interest recorded
    2013 : Security interest released
         : Kodak sells portfolio to IV Fund 83
    2017 : IV Fund 83 assigns to Monument Peak Ventures
    2019 : Patent lapses for unpaid maintenance fee
         : Monument Peak sues Toshiba in C D Cal
    2021 : Federal Circuit affirms invalidity
    2023 : Release by secured party recorded

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. The patent moved out of an operating camera/imaging company (Kodak) into Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC at Reel 030387/0571 (Assignee: licensing-only Delaware LLC at the IV Las Vegas address 7251 W Lake Mead Blvd), and then into Monument Peak Ventures, LLC at Reel 041941/0079 (Texas LLC, 1400 Preston Road, Plano, TX). Both assignees are licensing-vehicle naming conventions ("Fund 83," "Ventures, LLC"), and the sibling assignment instrument I retrieved conveys only patent rights and enforcement causes of action — no business assets, no products. Corroborating (non-naming) evidence: MPV's own litigation pleading (Second Amended Complaint) describes MPV as a Texas LLC whose business is licensing the Kodak portfolio, and it made a licensing approach to Toshiba on 2018-06-20 rather than selling anything.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present (strong). Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC is a named IV acquisition vehicle (publicly documented as the buyer in Kodak's 2012-12-18 Form 8-K, $527M digital-imaging portfolio sale), and its successor Monument Peak Ventures, LLC is a high-frequency patent plaintiff on both the Unified Patents and RPX assertion trackers — it appears as patent owner in multiple PTAB proceedings (e.g., the GE IPR over U.S. 7,212,668, where MPV's mandatory notices were filed by Quinn Emanuel) and as plaintiff in numerous district-court campaigns beyond the Toshiba case. This is a Registry-level match, not a naming inference.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear (not retrievable). The Assignment Center correspondent fields for Reels 013832/0925, 028201/0420, 029913/0001, 030387/0571, 041941/0079 and 064599/0304 were not present in my source and not recovered by search, so I cannot test for a recurring recording attorney. I will not substitute litigation counsel (Quinn Emanuel appeared as MPV's litigation/PTAB counsel, a different role) for the correspondent-of-record — conflating the two would be a fabricated finding. If you can run the six reel/frame lookups directly in the Assignment Center, the correspondent on Reel 030387/0571 and Reel 041941/0079 is the highest-value data point in this whole chain.

4. Cascading transfers — present but weak/moderate. Two consecutive LLC-to-LLC transfers, Kodak → IV Fund 83 (effective 2013-02-01) and IV Fund 83 → Monument Peak (effective 2017-02-15), ~48 months apart — not the sub-24-month cascade that marks an assembly-line troll structure. However, both links run through the Intellectual Ventures corporate family, the 2023 "Release by secured party" (Reel 064599/0304) shows IV Fund 83 still holding a security interest over MPV six years after the "sale," and the addresses/principals are IV-linked. So the chain is staged, not rapid.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. MPV acquired the portfolio at Reel 041941/0079 (effective 2017-02-15). The first suit naming the '484 patent was filed 2019-11-11 (C.D. Cal. 8:19-cv-02181) — about 33 months later, and MPV's own complaint says it first approached Toshiba on 2018-06-20. Neither gap is within the 6-month window that suggests a chain arranged specifically to enable a particular suit; the transfer predates the campaign by years.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — present (strong). Eastman Kodak filed Chapter 11 (Jan 2012); the '484 patent was swept into the §363 sale of Kodak's digital-imaging portfolio to Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC for $527M, per Kodak's Form 8-K dated 2012-12-18 and the Patent Sale Agreement (Kodak↔IV Fund 83, dated 2012-12-18, Bankruptcy Court S.D.N.Y. approval Jan 2013). This is a textbook operating-company-to-NPE liquidation — the transfer recorded at Reel 030387/0571 is the recordation of that bankruptcy sale. (Note: the pre-sale collateral pledge at Reel 028201/0420 and its release at Reel 029913/0001 are the security-interest bookends of the same event.)

7. Privateering — present, with a nuance. The Kodak→IV sale was structured with grant-back licenses to Kodak and its divested entities, and the purchase was part-funded by an IV/RPX-organized licensee consortium (Adobe, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, FUJIFILM, Huawei, Google, HTC, Microsoft, RIM, Samsung, Shutterfly), so the portfolio was simultaneously monetized and pre-licensed to a group of large operating companies. Later assertion (MPV v. Toshiba) was directed at a company outside that consortium. That is the classic IV monetization pattern: operating-company portfolio handed to a licensing vehicle financed by licensees, with enforcement aimed at non-licensees. Caveat: I found no evidence that Kodak controls or benefits from MPV's assertion decisions post-2013, so this is a structural privateering read, not a documented Kodak-directed campaign.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. Although RPX Corporation co-organized the funding consortium for the original acquisition (per the Kodak 8-K), the chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at Monument Peak Ventures, LLC (Reels 041941/0079 and 064599/0304), an asserting entity. The RPX involvement is a funding-side defensive overlay on the original Kodak buyers, not neutralization of this patent.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two or more strong signals are satisfied on the face of the record: (i) a documented bankruptcy fire-sale — Eastman Kodak's Chapter 11 §363 sale of its digital-imaging portfolio, recorded as Kodak → Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC at Reel 030387/0571 (effective 2013-02-01), corroborated by Kodak's 2012-12-18 Form 8-K; and (ii) a known asserter at the end of the chain — Monument Peak Ventures, LLC, reached at Reel 041941/0079 (effective 2017-02-15) from IV Fund 83, which then asserted this patent (and family siblings) in Monument Peak Ventures, LLC v. Toshiba America Business Solutions, Inc., C.D. Cal. 8:19-cv-02181, losing on § 101 and again on appeal (Fed. Cir. 21-1052, affirmed December 2021). The shell-entity-transfer and IV-linked cascading-transfer signals reinforce the call, and the patent's 2019 lapse for unpaid maintenance fees (effective 2019-02-13) plus the 2023 intra-family release (Reel 064599/0304) show the vehicle outlived the asset.

Unresolved items lowering confidence from "certain" to "high": the correspondent-of-record field for all six reels could not be retrieved, so the "repeat correspondent" signal is untested; and the post-2017 ownership chain ends in 2023 with no further recorded transfers, meaning I cannot see whether MPV's assets were later sold to another asserter.

Verify directly (Assignment Center): search patent number 7177484 at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ or https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html — pull Reels 013832/0925, 028201/0420, 029913/0001, 030387/0571, 041941/0079, 064599/0304 and record each correspondent field. Also confirm the plaintiff/ownership allegations against PACER for C.D. Cal. 8:19-cv-02181 and the Fed. Cir. docket for 21-1052.

Cross-reference note on prior sections

This section is consistent with the previously generated Patent Summary and Litigation Summary on every bibliographic and case fact (filing 2003-02-26, issue 2007-02-13, reel/frame chain, IV Fund 83 → Monument Peak, C.D. Cal. 8:19-cv-02181, Fed. Cir. 21-1052). I add new grounding here: the Kodak Form 8-K of 2012-12-18 and the Patent Sale Agreement (Kodak ↔ Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC, dated 2012-12-18) independently establish the $527M bankruptcy-sale context for Reel 030387/0571, and a sibling IV Fund 83 → Monument Peak assignment instrument executed 2017-02-15 corroborates the assignee names and addresses for Reel 041941/0079. No contradiction with the prior sections was found; the previously flagged legal-status conflict (Google Patents "expires 2025-04-05" vs. 2019 maintenance-fee lapse) and the U.S. Ser. No. 10/061,385 filing-date discrepancy (spec text "Feb. 20, 2003" vs. Non-Patent Citations "Feb. 1, 2002") remain unresolved and are carried forward unchanged.

I'll research the prior art citations for US 7,177,484, grounding each reference before analyzing anticipation.

Let me ground the remaining cited references.

Prior Art Analysis — US 7,177,484 B2

Patent under analysis: US 7,177,484 B2, "Method for using customer images in a promotional product" (Fredlund & Manico, Eastman Kodak, App. 10/375,848, filed 2003‑02‑26, issued 2007‑02‑13).
§102 critical date: 2003‑02‑26 (no earlier priority claimed).

Verification note and honest scope limits

• The authoritative full patent text supplied lists exactly 11 patent citations + 1 non‑patent citation. That list is the backbone below and is treated as ground truth.
• I retrieved and grounded full abstracts/text for US 6,344,853; US 6,414,693; US 2001/0031102 A1; US 5,986,671; US 6,075,542 (and the corresponding EP/Kodak family members). My searches hit a step limit before I could independently pull abstracts for US 5,808,723; US 6,157,435; US 6,587,839; US 6,837,436; US 7,040,541; US 7,013,290. For those six I rely on the titles/bibliographic data in the authoritative record plus the specification's own characterization; I flag them as needing independent verification rather than asserting their contents as established.
• §102 is a single‑reference test: a reference anticipates only if it discloses every element of a claim. Most of these citations are realistically §103 (obviousness) references, not true anticipations. I say so explicitly for each.

Prior‑art status of each citation relative to the 2003‑02‑26 filing

Claim shorthand used below: E1 access user image · E2 product image with predetermined location · E3 generate modified user image simulating application · E4 generate composite customized image · E5 display to user · (claim 8 only) E6 order menu · E7 receive order · E8 make product · E9 deliver.

Group A — Image‑compositing references (the only realistic §102 candidates for claims 1 and 8)

1. US 6,075,542 B2 — "Method of combining two digital images"

• Inventors/assignee: John R. Fredlund; Ronald S. Cok — Eastman Kodak Company
• Filed: 1996‑07‑29 · Issued: 2000‑06‑13 · §102(b) prior art
• Description (grounded): Combines a captured customer‑generated digital image with a prestored digital image having one or more predetermined locations for receiving the customer image and/or text. Critically, the location has a predetermined 3‑D image structure, and the customer image is modified in accordance with that 3‑D image structure before being combined and forwarded to an output device. This is the Kodak line of "combine customer photo into a template/product" disclosures (family of Fredlund/Cok applications filed 1996‑07‑29).
• §102 relevance — claims 1 and 8 (E1–E5): This is the most structurally faithful anticipation candidate for independent claim 1. It discloses E1 (customer‑generated digital image), E2 (prestored image with predetermined location), E3 in the strongest form (image modified per the location's 3‑D structure — i.e., exactly the "simulate application/perspective" concept the '484 spec ties to the mug example), E4 (merged image), and can support E5 (viewing/print output). For claim 8 it can support E8 (output to printer), but E6/E7/E9 (order menu, receiving order, delivering product) are not clearly disclosed — claim 8 is therefore a weaker anticipation target.
• Caveat: This was cited by the examiner and the '484 patent nonetheless issued, so the examiner evidently read it as not disclosing the full kiosk‑offer/upsell sequence. Weight it as a strong §102/§103 reference, not a proven anticipation.

2. US 5,986,671 A — "Method of combining two digitally generated images"

• Inventors/assignee: John R. Fredlund; Ronald S. Cok — Eastman Kodak Company
• Filed: 1997‑04‑10 · Issued: 1999‑11‑16 · §102(b) prior art
• Description (grounded): Selects a prestored digital image having a predetermined location for the customer image; the customer image is automatically modified in accordance with a predetermined size/shape (aspect‑ratio) relationship of that location, then merged. The specification has a system where a CPU with a monitor lets the user view the images, and output devices include thermal transfer printers for T‑shirts and mugs, inkjet for greeting cards, and "garments, mugs, posters, banners… balloons, pens." Handles aspect‑ratio mismatch by providing multiple substantially identical prestored images each with a different‑aspect‑ratio location and auto‑selecting the closest.
• §102 relevance — claim 1 (E1–E5): Discloses E1, E2, E3 (auto‑modification of the customer image to fit the product location), E4 (merge), and E5 (monitor viewing). It arguably touches claim 2/9 (a plurality of prestored images / different customized outputs), but that plurality is of templates, not of displayed customized products — so claim 2 mapping is imperfect.
• Anticipation risk: Moderate for claim 1; low for claim 8 (no order menu / order receipt / delivery of a customized product is described).

3. US 6,344,853 B1 — "Method and apparatus for selecting, modifying and superimposing one image on another"

• Inventor/assignee: Kevin J. Knight (et al.) — Alcone Marketing Group
• Filed: 2000‑01‑06 · Issued: 2002‑02‑05 · §102(b) prior art
• Description (grounded): Server/client system that supports a preview of a composite image before buying. Builds libraries of first images (promotional products) and second images (logos), generates templates each bearing a product image with a defined area, and lets the user select, size, color‑adjust and position the second image on the product. The composite (logo superimposed on the promotional product) is returned for preview. The background explains it supersedes a manual TOMAX process where a photo of the logo‑on‑product was taken and mailed.
• §102 relevance — claim 1 (E1–E5) and claim 8: Strong on E1–E5 (select product image with defined area → modify/position second image → generate composite → display for preview). Also supplies E6/claim 3/10 flavor (a preview‑then‑buy flow). For claim 8, anticipation is weaker: it describes previewing before purchase but does not clearly recite receiving an order, generating the product, and delivering it.
• Note on the reverse mapping: in this reference the "promotional product" is the first image and the user‑supplied element is a logo. The '484 claim recites a "user‑supplied digital image," which a logo can satisfy literally — so this is not a fatal mismatch, but a §102 rejection based on it would invite a "different purpose" argument (marketing logo vs. personal photo).

4. US 6,414,693 B1 — "System and method for generating computer displays of custom bag designs"

• Inventors/assignee: Robert E. Berger; Jonathan G. Isaacson; Robert F. Leavitt — The Gem Group, Inc.
• Filed: 1999‑10‑12 · Issued: 2002‑07‑02 · §102(b) prior art
• Description (grounded): Internet system where a client selects a stored image of an article (bag/tote/portfolio) and manipulates a client graphic onto a predetermined location on the article image via drag‑and‑drop; the article image and graphic are combined so areas outside the graphic show the article beneath. The design can be resubmitted to the supplier for production of the actual physical sample; optional "step 340" produces the article directly from the order step; the spec paraphrases e‑commerce ordering dialog boxes. The stated goal is to "preview an article before commissioning an order" with accuracy as to the finished article. Its claim 1 recites the storage medium, article images, display of an article image + graphic menu, and manipulation of the graphic to a predetermined location on the article image.
• §102 relevance — claims 1 and 8: The best combined candidate for BOTH independent claims. E1 (client‑supplied graphic images), E2 (article image with predetermined location), E3 (scaling/manipulation), E4 (combined article+graphic), E5 (displayed at client), and E6–E9 (order submission → production of the physical article → delivery). A §102 challenge to claim 8 would center on whether "generate the customized product" and "deliver" are met by "resubmitted to the supplier for production of an actual physical sample."
• Also relevant to claims 2/9 (the system is expressly built to show many article/graphic variations).

5. US 2001/0031102 A1 — "Methods and apparatuses for generating composite images"

• Inventor/assignee: Larry Lunetta; Eliott Jones — Branders.com, Inc.
• Filed: 2001‑01‑10 (prov. 60/176,956, 2000‑01‑18) · Published: 2001‑10‑18 · §102(b) prior art
• Description (grounded): Web‑based composite generation. A product image (with a coded imprint area) and a decorative image are selected by the user in a browser; the selections are sent to a server that automatically generates the composite image and returns it to the browser for display, with a quote for the decorated product. The continuation family (e.g., US 7,236,647) expressly generates the composite "including warping to simulate curvature of the second image as applied to the first image" — i.e., the very "simulate application to the product" concept of E3/step 104. The disclosure contrasts the old problem that "the customer is left to imagine the appearance of the decorated product until after placing an order."
• §102 relevance — claims 1, 3/10, and 8: Strong on E1–E5 for claim 1 and on the "order menu/cost information" aspect of claims 3/10 and claim 8's E6 (product details + quote screen). Anticipation of claim 8 is plausible if the quote/order flow is read as an order menu; the product‑generation/delivery steps (E8/E9) are less clearly recited in the base publication. Because warping is the key E3 element, note the §102(e) support comes from the shared 2000‑01‑18 priority date via the parent application — verify against the actual parent disclosure before relying on warping.
• Caveat: US 7,302,114 (issued 2007‑11‑27) and US 7,050,654/US 7,236,647 are post‑'484‑filing continuations; they are not prior art themselves, but their shared priority/spec may be.

Group B — Commerce/ordering references (relevant to claim 8 steps, upselling context, and the profiling‑based claims — poor §102 fits for claims 1/8 as a whole)

6. US 5,808,723 A — "Photofinishing system having customized customer order payment feature"

• Assignee: Eastman Kodak Company · Filed: 1996‑05‑21 · Issued: 1998‑09‑15 · §102(b)
• Description: Photofinishing order/checkout system with customized customer order payment. (Abstract not independently retrieved — verify.)
• §102 relevance: Only the commercial/order steps of claims 3/10 and 8 (E6/E7). It is a payment/ordering reference, not an image‑compositing reference. It cannot anticipate claim 1 (no E2/E3/E4 image generation) and can at best be a §103 secondary reference.

7. US 6,587,839 B1 — "Method and system for notifying a consumer that the photofinishing order is ready and for controlling inventory of photofinishing orders in a business"

• Assignee: Eastman Kodak Company · Filed: 2000‑02‑04 · Issued: 2003‑07‑01 · §102(e) (as of the 2000‑02‑04 filing date)
• Description: Order‑ready consumer notification + photofinishing inventory control. (Abstract not independently retrieved — verify.)
• §102 relevance: Touches claim 8's order/delivery notification and could be cited against claims 5/12 (activities around the time the computer is "processing the request"). No image‑compositing content → not a claim‑1 anticipation.

8. US 6,157,435 A — "Image processing" (Slater)

• Assignee: Eastman Kodak Company · Filed: 1998‑05‑29 · Issued: 2000‑12‑05 · §102(b)
• Description: The '484 specification expressly cites this reference as relating "to content recognition and image recognition." (I could not retrieve its abstract/claims within the search budget — verify before relying.)
• §102 relevance: Directed at claims 4 and 11 (detect content → categorize → select product), which the spec links to this reference. It does not disclose the full E1–E5 pipeline, so it is a §103/§102‑to‑dependent‑claim reference at best, not an anticipation of claim 1 or 8.

9. US 6,837,436 B2 — "Consumer interactive shopping system"

• Assignee: Symbol Technologies, Inc. · Filed: 1996‑09‑05 · Issued: 2005‑01‑04 · §102(e) (as of 1996‑09‑05)
• Description: Interactive (portable/kiosk‑type) consumer shopping and checkout. (Abstract not independently retrieved — verify.)
• §102 relevance: Relevant only to the retail‑kiosk upsell/ordering context and the commercial steps of claim 8. No disclosure of generating a modified user image simulating application to a product → not an anticipation of claim 1; §103 candidate for the "digital imaging device/kiosk + order" environment.

10. US 7,040,541 B2 — "Portable shopping and order fulfillment system"

• Assignee: Symbol Technologies, Inc. · Filed: 1996‑09‑05 · Issued: 2005‑05‑09 · §102(e) (as of 1996‑09‑05)
• Description: Portable shopping/order‑fulfillment system. (Abstract not independently retrieved — verify.)
• §102 relevance: Same posture as US 6,837,436 — order‑fulfillment environment reference; relevant to claim 8's E8/E9 at most. Not a claim‑1 anticipation.

11. US 7,013,290 B2 — "Personalized interactive digital catalog profiling"

• Inventor: John Allen Ananian · Filed: 2001‑08‑03 · Issued: 2006‑03‑14 · §102(e) (as of 2001‑08‑03) — the record's assignee field lists no assignee (individual inventor).
• Description: Personalized interactive catalog profiling. (Abstract not independently retrieved — verify.)
• §102 relevance: Relevant to the user‑profile/loyalty‑card personalization passage in the '484 spec and to claims 4/11 (selecting products based on user data). Does not disclose E2–E5 → not an anticipation of claim 1/8.

Non‑patent citation (cited in the record, but not prior art in the ordinary sense)

U.S. Appl. No. 10/061,385 — "System and Method of Processing a Digital Image for User Assessment of an Output Image Product," Fredlund et al.

• The specification cites this as the source of the step‑104 "simulate application" disclosure and cites it as filed Feb 20, 2003; the Non‑Patent Citations field says filed Feb 1, 2002 (an internal conflict already flagged in the earlier section). Its published counterpart in the record is US 2003/0146997 A1 (2003‑08‑07, Eastman Kodak).
• §102 caveat: It is commonly owned with the '484 patent and is cited as an incorporated‑by‑reference document, not as a prior‑art rejection. Even though its (earlier) filing date could nominally make it §102(e) art, common ownership would defeat its use in a §103 combination under pre‑AIA §103(c). Treat it as background/incorporation, not as an anticipation reference.

Which claims are most exposed, and to what

Bottom line

• Only one citation list exists for 7,177,484 (11 patent citations + 1 NPL), and five of those — US 6,075,542, US 5,986,671, US 6,344,853, US 6,414,693, US 2001/0031102 A1 — are the genuine §102‑capable references because each independently discloses the core pipeline access image → product image with predetermined location → modify image to fit/simulate → composite → display. US 6,075,542 is the single closest on the "simulate application to the product" element (predetermined 3‑D image structure), and US 6,414,693 is the closest on the ordering claim because it expressly produces the physical article from an approved on‑screen design.
• The remaining six citations (US 5,808,723, US 6,157,435, US 6,587,839, US 6,837,436, US 7,040,541, US 7,013,290) go only to ordering/payment, notifications, kiosk shopping, or content profiling and are best treated as §103 secondary references and claim‑specific art, not anticipations of independent claim 1 or 8.
• Two honesty flags: (i) I could not independently retrieve abstracts for the six references in the preceding bullet within this session's search budget, so their characterizations rely on the authoritative record's titles plus the specification's own statements and should be verified against the full documents; (ii) the '484 patent issued over all 11 citations, so my "potentially anticipates" mapping is a defensive/validity‑style reading — no examiner ever adopted these as anticipatory, and any real §102 rejection here would have to overcome the kiosk‑based "personalized upsell" framing that appears to be the claim's point of novelty.

No contradiction with the previously generated sections was found; this analysis is consistent with the claim mapping and the flagged citation‑date discrepancy for U.S. Ser. No. 10/061,385.

I'll ground the prior-art characterizations before building the § 103 analysis. Let me pull the key references.

Now let me pull the Kodak combining references and the commercial/ordering references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,177,484 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Patent: US 7,177,484 B2 — "Method for using customer images in a promotional product"
App. No.: 10/375,848 · filed 2003-02-26 · granted 2007-02-13
Inventors: John R. Fredlund; Joseph A. Manico · Original assignee: Eastman Kodak Company · Current: Monument Peak Ventures, LLC

Governing law note (important): The application was filed 2003-02-26, before the AIA first-inventor-to-file provisions took effect (2013-03-16). Accordingly, the pre-AIA § 103(a) framework applies, including pre-AIA § 103(c) common-ownership disqualification of art that qualifies only under § 102(e)/(f)/(g). This matters directly to one of the applicant's own cited references (see § VII.E).

Important scope caveat carried forward: the previously-generated sections flagged an unresolved conflict in the patent's legal-status record (a 2025-04-05 "adjusted expiration" entry versus a 2019-03-18 lapse for non-payment of maintenance fees, effective 2019-02-13). I do not resolve it here. Nothing in this § 103 analysis depends on it — but note that an expired/lapsed patent is still amenable to a § 103 validity analysis for defensive purposes, and the real-world record I retrieved shows the patent was in fact invalidated on a different ground (§ 101) in MPV v. Toshiba, so the grounds below were never adjudicated.

I. Summary of Grounds

II. The Claimed Subject Matter (for element-by-element mapping)

Claim 1 (offering) reduces to five steps: (a) access a user-supplied digital image at a digital imaging device; (b) provide a promotional-product digital image having a predetermined image location; (c) generate a modified user image simulating application of the image to the product; (d) generate a customized digital image by placing the modified image in the predetermined location; (e) display it. Claim 8 (ordering) repeats (a)–(e) and adds: (f) order menu; (g) receive order; (h) generate the product; (i) deliver.

Claims 2–7 and 9–14 are the mirrored dependent set (plural images; proximate order menu; content detection/categorization/selection; display during processing; plural views; in-scene display).

III. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art (my construction, not from the record)

A POSITA here would hold a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or imaging science (or equivalent experience) and roughly two to three years' experience in digital imaging software and/or retail photofinishing systems, including digital image compositing and consumer-facing order interfaces. I state this as an analytical assumption; the patent and its file history as supplied do not fix a level of skill.

IV. Ground 1 — Alcone '853 in view of Fredlund '542

A. US 6,344,853 B1 (Alcone Marketing Group; filed 2000-01-06; issued 2002-02-05)

Retrieved text confirms the reference is directed to exactly the promotional-product compositing problem, expressly framed as a marketing use:

"a service to be marketed over the Internet involves the superimposing of one image on another to permit the prospective purchaser to preview the composite image before buying."
"the first image represents a promotional product … the second image represents a logo … the composite image is the logo superimposed on the promotional product."
"a second image of a logo of a business company or athletic team for example may be superimposed on a first image in the form of promotion merchandise such as a watch, clock, calculators or other electronics."

Alcone further discloses constructing first/second libraries at a server, generating templates bearing the first images, storing parameters defining characteristics (color, relative size) of the images, presenting a webpage with actuable indicia to select an image, and enabling the purchaser to adjust size/color/location. Critically for motivation, Alcone criticizes the prior photographic approach:

"a drawback to the technique described above is that the superimposing is performed photographically and, as a result, requires a significant amount of time. Further, the TOMAX USA process is not capable of adjusting the color of either the image of the logo and/or the promotional product. Further, there is no provision for changing the relative size of the logo with regard to the product."

Mapping to claim 1: (b) promotional-product image with a location adapted to receive a portion of the second image ✔; (c)/(d) composite generation by placing one image on the product ✔; (e) display to the prospective purchaser ✔. What Alcone does not plainly supply is the consumer-photograph-as-source-image and the realistic 3-D/product-specific simulation of step (c).

B. US 6,075,542 (Fredlund & Cok, Eastman Kodak; filed 1996-07-29; issued 2000-06-13)

Retrieved full text confirms this reference supplies precisely the missing element. The '542 abstract:

"The prestored digital image has one or more predetermined locations where a captured generated digital image and/or text may be placed, the location having a predetermined 3-D image structure. The customer generated digital image is modified in accordance with the predetermined 3-D image structure so as to form a first modified image and is combined with the selected prestored digital image at the predetermined location…"

Its stated problem is the same realism problem the '484 patent claims to solve:

"the customer generated image may appear as if it was just pasted onto the prestored digital image. Applicants have solved the foregoing problem by taking into account the three-dimensional characteristics… and adjusting the customer generated image such that it substantially corresponds to that of the prestored digital image."

The '542 specification expressly contemplates output onto T-shirts, mugs, garments, posters, banners, greeting cards, and teaches modification according to texture, shading, shape, spatial relationship, line of sight, and perspective — an exact textual match to the '484 specification's step 104 examples ("texturing … tee-shirt"; "perspective representation … mug"; "tiling and posterization").

C. Motivation to combine

A POSITA would have been motivated to substitute Alcone's composite generator with the Fredlund/Cok 3-D-structure modification for at least four reasons, all grounded in the references themselves:

1. Same field, same problem. Both address presenting a consumer/purchaser-supplied image on a promotional article. Alcone's own listed drawback (poor realism/time cost) is the precise problem '542 was filed to solve.
2. Alcone invites the improvement. Alcone's stated object is to let a purchaser "adjust on line the relative size, color or location," and its detailed description of the pen/luggage sizing problem shows a designer actively seeking a more faithful preview.
3. Predictable result. Applying a known 3-D-structure/perspective warp ('542 claims 1, 5, 10 — sphere, shape, perspective) to a known image-superimposition pipeline ('853') yields nothing more than the expected improvement in visual fidelity. This is a textbook KSR "combination of familiar elements according to known methods … yield[ing] predictable results."
4. Both are in the same art of record. The '484 examiner cited both '853 and '542; '542 is Kodak's own work and '853 is third-party, so no § 103(c) issue arises for this pairing.

Result: claim 1 obvious; claim 8's steps (f)–(i) via Alcone's order/produce flow plus Ground 5.

V. Ground 2 — Gem Group '693 in view of Fredlund '542/'671 and Slater '435

A. US 6,414,693 B1 (Berger, Isaacson & Leavitt; The Gem Group; filed 1999-10-12; issued 2002-07-02)

Retrieved claim 1 and specification are unusually close to the '484 claims:

"a plurality of images, stored by the supplier, representative of articles associated with the supplier; means for displaying, at the client, an article image … and a menu that includes the plurality of graphic images associated with the client; and means for enabling the client to manipulate a selected graphic image … to a predetermined location that is overlaid on the article image and for fixing the selected graphic image … at a predetermined location on the article image…"

And from the specification:

"so that the user can preview an article before commissioning an order"
"The customized article appearance can be resubmitted to the supplier for production of an actual physical sample of the article."
"This process assists end users in coming to a final determination on a customized design as it shows the finished article in a relatively accurate way."

'693 therefore discloses elements (b), (d), (e), and the claim-3/10 "order menu proximate" concept (the graphic menu displayed alongside the article image), plus the "resubmit for production" half of claim 8.

B. Fredlund '542 and US 5,986,671 (both Kodak)

• '542 supplies the 3-D/perspective/texture modification (Ground 1.B above).
• US 5,986,671 (Fredlund & Cok; filed 1997-04-10; issued 1999-11-16) supplies the broader commercial framework: a prestored image library "compris[ing] a variety of artistic themes having at least one location for receiving a customer generated digital image," automatic modification of the customer image "in accordance with predetermined size or shape relationship of the location," and output devices including "transfers for use on T-shirts… for placement on mugs… greeting cards," and further "garments, mugs, posters, banners, life-size cut-outs, holographic and 3-D imaging, balloons, pens, and pencils."

C. Motivation

• Gem Group's express goal — "reasonably good degree of accuracy and clarity" of a previewed custom article — is the same objective as '542's stated purpose (avoiding the "pasted on" appearance). A POSITA improving '693's output would directly consult '542.
• Both '693 and '671 contemplate producing the physical article after approval; the preview-accuracy improvement is a natural, predictable refinement with no change in principle of operation.

VI. Ground 3 — Lunetta / Branders.com US 2001/0031102 A1 (with Fredlund '542)

US 2001/0031102 A1 (Lunetta & Jones; filed 2001-01-10; published 2001-10-18; priority US provisional 60/176,956, 2000-01-18; assignee Branders.com) is statutory prior art under § 102(a)/(b) by its 2001 publication, more than a year before the 2003-02-26 filing.

Its retrieved disclosure is a near-complete anticipation of the claim-1 architecture (as a composite-generation method) and much of claim 8:

• "prompts a user for a product image selection and a decorative image selection and displays a product image … with the decorative image … placed on it";
• server-side compositing engine generating the composite and communicating it to the browser, with the product image file containing "imprint instructions" including size, imprint area, warp ratio;
• positioning grid and size/zoom controls (supports claims 2/9 plural images and 6/13 multiple views/zoom);
• a "manufacturing process filter" so that "the logo appears applied to the product image according to the selected filter, i.e., embroidery, silk-screening, engraving" — i.e., simulating application to the product;
• a price quotation form, order database, and transmission of the order to a supplier ("the order, shipping and billing information is formatted and sent to the supplier") — supporting claim 8 steps (f)–(i); and
• the background's express problem statement: customers "generally [look] at catalog images or samples that are blank … the customer is left to imagine the appearance of the decorated product until after placing an order."

Motivation: Lunetta's background and objects read as a direct statement of the '484 patent's own problem — customers should "select a product and a decoration … and view the appearance of the final product." Its "manufacturing process filter" concept and Fredlund '542's 3-D/perspective modification are complementary, alternative techniques for the same function, and a POSITA would consider both obvious to try.

Critical timing caveat: the warping subject matter ("warping to simulate curvature … cylindrical … spherical … according to a warp ratio") appears in the continuation applications, US 2005/0259883 → US 7,236,647 B2 (filed 2004-12-02) and US 2006/0031392 → US 7,050,654 B2 (also 2004-12-02). Those filings post-date the '484 filing and therefore are not prior art. I could not verify from the retrieved material whether the warping disclosure was present in the parent application 09/758,648 (filed 2001-01-10). Accordingly, for § 103 purposes the "simulate curvature" element should be grounded in Fredlund '542 (perspective/sphere/shape), not in the Lunetta continuations. I flag this rather than assume it.

VII. Ground 4 — US 6,157,435 (Slater & Murray, Kodak) for Claims 4 and 11

This is the strongest motivational reference in the entire set, and it is doubly useful because it is expressly identified in the '484 specification as the content-recognition reference.

Retrieved specification text of US 6,157,435 (filed 1998-05-29; issued 2000-12-05) states:

"There is a high degree of interest among photographers … in a multitude of products, other than in typical prints or slides. For example, it is known to provide a service whereby a photographer can provide a particular image to a service operator, who will scan the image and print it on T-shirts, cups, calendars, or similar items."

"photographers are left to their own devices to locate products or services which might be of interest to them even though they may repeatedly indicate an interest in such products or services by the pictures they take."

"It would be particularly desirable to readily make available such a product or service in relation to a consumer's images, and further desirable if in the case of a product the consumer could simultaneously be provided with a realistic view of a final product incorporating the consumer's image before ordering that product."

That final sentence is, in substance, the entire inventive premise of the '484 patent — stated in a Kodak reference four years and nine months before the '484 filing. Slater's claims supply the mechanism: generate an image content identification based on an identification of one or more scene objects (claim 1(a)), compare it against stored identifications associated with predetermined customer certificate data (1(b)), and select the matching item (1(c)); claim 10 adds a category identification; claim 28 retrieves the image and produces the indicated product.

Mapping to claims 4/11: "detecting a content of the user-supplied image" → Slater's scene-object content identification. "Categorizing the detected content to determine a category" → Slater's stored content identifications / image category identification. "Selecting the promotional product from a plurality … within the category" → Slater's comparison-and-select of the predetermined product/service. The '484 specification's own examples (baby detected → baby book/frame/card; "happy birthday" text → birthday item suite) are straightforward applications of Slater's teaching.

Motivation: Slater states the motivation explicitly (consumers signal product interests by the content of their photos, and should be shown a realistic view of a product using their own image before ordering). Under KSR, an express statement of the problem in the prior art is a paradigm motivation to combine.

VIII. Ground 5 — Ordering, Payment, Production and Delivery (Claims 8–14)

Motivation: Each ground-1/2/3 reference already contains an ordering or "resubmit for production" step (Alcone: preview-then-buy; Gem Group: "resubmitted to the supplier for production of an actual physical sample"; Lunetta: price quote → order database → supplier transmission). Adding a conventional order/payment/delivery workflow drawn from the photofinishing and retail-terminal arts reflects only the ordinary commercial requirements of the same retail environment — a KSR-sanctioned "design incentive" and "market demand" rationale. The '484 specification itself concedes that the kiosk setting and the upsell opportunity are the point of novelty, not the ordering machinery ("the kiosk can be in communication with a computer or other server by means of a communication network to receive/transmit digital images").

IX. Dependent Claims 2–7 / 9–14

X. Why a POSITA Would Have Combined These — Consolidated Rationales

Following MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007):

1. Express problem statement in the prior art. Slater '435 states the exact objective the '484 patent claims to have achieved ("a realistic view of a final product incorporating the consumer's image before ordering that product"). Lunetta '102 states the same problem ("the customer is left to imagine the appearance of the decorated product until after placing an order").
2. Reference criticizes its own prior art and points to the solution. Alcone '853 identifies the TOMAX photographic process's deficiencies (time, no color/size adjustment) and seeks on-line adjustability — the same trajectory as the '484 claims.
3. Same field of endeavor / same assignee track record. Fredlund & Cok's '542 and '671 are Kodak's own image-compositing patents, cited in the '484 specification itself as the combining methods "known to those skilled in the art."
4. Predictable results. Every step is a known digital-imaging or retail-terminal operation: image selection, template compositing, geometric/3-D warping, filtering, display, menu generation, order capture. Combination produces nothing more than the expected improvement in preview fidelity and the expected commercial benefit of a suggested upsell.
5. Design incentive / market pressure. The '484 background concedes the commercial driver ("It is to the financial benefit of the retailer to sell as many imaging services and/or products as possible"; generic ads "may have little or no interest to the user").
6. Obvious to try. Which promotional products to offer against which detected image content is a finite, predictable set of options (tee-shirt, mug, calendar, puzzle, poster — all enumerated in Fredlund '671/'542 and Gem Group '693).
7. Nature of the problem suggests the combination. The stated problem is situational relevance to the individual retail customer; both content-based selection (Slater) and the consumer's own image (Fredlund '542) are the two most natural inputs to that problem.

XI. Weaknesses, Counterarguments and Things I Could Not Verify

I would be doing you a disservice to present the above as airtight. The following are the honest soft spots:

1. No single reference discloses the consumer's own photograph applied to a promotional merchandise item in a retail upsell display. Alcone uses logos; Gem Group uses client-supplied artwork in a B2B distributor context (entities/profiles, ASI/PPAI account numbers); Lunetta uses logos over a web browser, not a retail kiosk. The '484 claim 1 does not literally require a kiosk or a photograph of a person, but the commercial novelty resides in that application. A Patent Owner would argue the combination is impermissibly hindsight-driven, and the "kiosk upsell during idle processing" framing (claims 5/12) is where the strongest non-obviousness argument lies.
2. The strongest element-specific reference is the applicant's own incorporated work. The '484 specification relies on U.S. Ser. No. 10/061,385 ("System and Method of Processing a Digital Image for User Assessment of an Output Image Product," Fredlund et al.) for the "simulate application" step. Three dates appear in the record for that application: 2002-02-01 (Google Patents "Family Cites Families" table and the patent's Non-Patent Citations field), 2002-02-20 (specification text), and 2003-02-20 (specification text as transcribed). I am not auto-correcting any of them. If it was filed 2002-02-01 or 2002-02-20, it predates the '484 filing and is potentially § 102(e) art — but because it was commonly owned by Eastman Kodak at the time, pre-AIA § 103(c) could disqualify it from an obviousness combination. This is a genuine vulnerability in a § 103 case built on the '385 application, and it is precisely why Grounds 1–3 above rest on Fredlund '542 and '671 instead, which are § 102(b) printed publications and therefore not subject to § 103(c). This substitution is the analytical crux of the whole analysis.
3. Prior-art status of the later-issued references. US 6,587,839 (issued 2003-07-01), US 6,837,436 (2005-01-04), US 7,040,541 (2006-05-09) and US 7,013,290 (2006-03-14) all issued after the 2003-02-26 filing. Their prior-art status rests on their earlier effective filing dates (§ 102(e) via the 1996, 2000, 2001 filings) or on corresponding pre-grant publications. I have not verified those underlying application filing dates or whether the relevant disclosures were carried in the earlier filings. Any § 103 ground relying on them must independently establish prior-art status — and each is subject to the same § 103(c) analysis if commonly owned (relevant only to the Kodak reference, US 6,587,839).
4. Title-level-only characterizations. For US 5,808,723 and US 6,587,839 I retrieved only the patent number, assignee and title (my later searches were truncated). Their inclusion in the combination is inferential. Treat Ground 5's Kodak references as candidate art pending full-text review.
5. The '484 record was not invalidated on § 103. The C.D. Cal. dismissed the claims as ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and the Federal Circuit affirmed (see the previously-generated Litigation section). Because the § 101 dismissal disposed of the case, no § 103 ground was ever litigated or adjudicated. Do not read the § 101 outcome as confirming or denying any of the combinations above; they are independent inquiries.
6. No secondary considerations evidence was located. I found no record of commercial success, long-felt need, industry praise, or copying tied to the '484 claims in the supplied material or my searches. Absent that, the Graham factor is neutral. I cannot affirm a negative — this is a verification gap, not a finding.

XII. One-Paragraph Conclusion

On the retrieved record, and assuming each reference's prior-art status is independently established, the strongest § 103 position is that claims 1–3 and 8–10 would have been obvious over US 6,344,853 (Alcone) or US 6,414,693 (Gem Group) in view of US 6,075,542 and/or US 5,986,671 (Fredlund & Cok, Kodak) — the first pair teaching the select-an-article / select-an-image / place-it-in-a-predetermined-location / preview-on-a-display / order-and-produce workflow, and the Fredlund/Cok pair supplying the express motivation and the mechanism (3-D structure, perspective, texture, shading) for simulating how the customer's image would actually look applied to the article rather than appearing "pasted on." Claims 4 and 11 are additionally obvious over US 6,157,435 (Slater & Murray, Kodak), which not only teaches scene-object content identification mapped to a category-appropriate predetermined product but also states, in 1998, the precise commercial premise on which the '484 patent rests — that a consumer should be shown "a realistic view of a final product incorporating the consumer's image before ordering that product." Claims 5–7 and 12–14 are supported by routine design-choice rationales plus US 2001/0031102 A1 (Lunetta / Branders.com) and the Symbol self-service-shopping references for the display variants. The principal risks to this position are (i) hindsight-reconstruction of the retail-kiosk upsell context, (ii) the pre-AIA § 103(c) disqualification of the applicant's own commonly-owned incorporated reference (why the argument must be re-grounded on the Fredlund/Cok printed publications), and (iii) unverified prior-art status of the post-2003-issued references.

If you want, I can next build a formal element-by-element claim chart (claim 1 and claim 8, limitation by limitation, with quoted reference text and citation anchors) or attempt to retrieve full texts of US 5,808,723 and US 6,587,839 to close the Ground 5 verification gap.