US 7203517

US 7,203,517 — Verification Summary

Bottom line: I found the patent in the USPTO/Google Patents record and in several third‑party litigation/PTAB sources. I did not find any 2026 CAFC docket entry specifically tied to 7,203,517. Note one material legal-development caveat: the patent was substantially rewritten in ex parte reexamination in 2021 — issued claims 1–8 were cancelled, so the claim numbers you see in the printed patent are largely no longer in force.

1. Bibliographic data

Per the operating rules I did not auto-correct any identifier; the one‑day date discrepancies between the Google Patents record and the Unified Patents portal are flagged rather than reconciled.

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"A mobile communication terminal device which includes a plurality of different communication interfaces that are automatically switched for making a communication. The stable connection is ensured whether the terminal device remains at rest or is moving by monitoring positional information on the terminal device for a moving situation thereof to control a selection from a plurality of physical interfaces. This selection control involves selecting a connection to a narrow range communication such as wireless LAN which is inexpensive and stable when the terminal device remains at rest, and selecting a connection for a communication through a portable telephone which provides a connection over a wider range when the terminal device is moving. Also, a connection for a communication is automatically selected from the positional information, thereby permitting an automatic selection of a connection intended by the user."

3. Independent claims — plain-language overview (as issued)

The patented device is a mobile terminal with at least two physically different communication interfaces (e.g., public wireless LAN vs. cellular) plus a "selection switching determination unit" that chooses which one to use.

• Claim 1 — speed-scaled switching hysteresis. Beyond the two interfaces and the selection unit, the device must have (a) a communication determination unit that checks whether each interface is usable, (b) a movement determination unit that determines the terminal's moving speed, and (c) a position detection unit. The switching decision is made on the combination of availability + speed + position. The distinguishing requirement: the selection unit waits longer before switching interfaces the faster the terminal is determined to be moving — i.e., a speed-dependent dwell/hold-off time that suppresses rapid interface flapping.

• Claim 7 — speed-dependent priority tables. Same preamble and same three units (communication determination, movement/speed, position), and selection based on availability + speed + position. Instead of a wait time, the selection unit selects one of a plurality of priorities for the interfaces according to the determined moving speed (e.g., a "rest" priority list vs. a "moving" priority list, as described in connection with FIGS. 4(b), 6(b), 9(b)).

• Claim 9 — with a user/application priority-setting unit. Same preamble and same three units, with selection based on availability + speed + position, and additionally a priority setting unit for setting the priority used by the selection switching determination unit — i.e., the priority ranking itself is configurable (the specification says such priorities "may be previously defined or set by the user").

Dependent claims: 2, 6 (position detection unit acquires position information from outside — substantively duplicative), 3 and 8 (output unit notifies the user which interface is in use), 4 (output unit notifies the user of the determined communication availability), 5 (memory storing the detected position and the interface used at that position, with switching based on the stored mapping), 10 (output unit notifying availability, appended to claim 9).

4. Critical caveat — the 2021 reexamination changed the claims

From the USPTO legal-events record on the patent page:

• 2020‑12‑15: request for ex parte reexamination filed.
• 2021‑11‑02: "REEXAMINATION CERTIFICATE; CLAIMS 1–8 ARE CANCELLED. CLAIMS 9 AND 10 ARE DETERMINED TO BE PATENTABLE AS AMENDED. NEW CLAIMS 11–44 ARE ADDED AND DETERMINED TO BE PATENTABLE." (Effective 2021‑10‑25.)

Consequence: independent claims 1 and 7 are cancelled, and the plain-language summaries above describe the as-issued text, not the current operative claim set. I do not have authoritative text for amended claims 9–10 or new claims 11–44, so I cannot summarize the live claim scope — treat that as an open item. Any current infringement analysis must be run against the reexamination certificate, not the printed B2 claims.

5. Post-grant proceedings and litigation bearing on 7,203,517

• IPR2018‑00251 — Petitioner Huawei Device Co., Ltd. / Huawei Technologies Co.; filed 2017‑11‑28 (Google Patents labels it Settlement).
• IPR2021‑00047 — Petitioner Apple Inc. (per Patexia, "Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.," petition filed 2020‑12‑14, Paper 1, with EX1001/EX1002 exhibits being the '517 patent and its file history); Joint Motion to Terminate filed 2021‑04‑08 (37 C.F.R. § 42.72). Google Patents likewise shows this IPR as Settlement.
• ITC Investigation 337‑TA‑1215 (per Unified Patents litigation data).
• District court: W.D. Tex. 6:20‑cv‑00646; E.D. Tex. 5:16‑cv‑00178 (per Unified Patents litigation data).
• Reported accused feature (press commentary only, not a court finding): Apple's Wi‑Fi Assist.

2026 CAFC check: Searching CAFC/Federal Circuit dockets turned up Maxell appeals captioned Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Maxell, Ltd., Docket 26‑1320 (Jan. 7, 2026), Maxell, Ltd. v. [Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd., Docket 26‑1330 (Jan. 12, 2026), and Maxell, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2026‑1625 (filed Apr. 7, 2026, appeal from PTO). The public summaries do not tie any of these to 7,203,517, and Maxell's Samsung disputes are reported as involving personal‑electronics, smart‑device, video‑processing, and battery patents. I found no CAFC 2026 docket specific to 7,203,517. (An older Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd., No. 21‑1033 (CAFC, filed Oct. 9, 2020) appears in a related‑matters list in another Maxell IPR petition, but I could not confirm from these results that it concerns the '517 patent.) This is a genuine uncertainty, not a negative finding of no appeal.

6. Sources

• Authoritative full text: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7203517/en
• Unified Patents patent page: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-7203517-B2
• Apple v. Maxell docket (IPR exhibits/motions): https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Apple-Inc-v-Maxell-Ltd-id-[142134](/patent/142134)/documents/
• IPR2018‑00251 listing (Huawei): https://ippunch.blogspot.com/2017/12/week-48-27th-nov-2017-to-3rd-dec-2017.html
• ITC/PTAB/district litigation links: as listed on the Google Patents page (337‑TA‑1215; IPR2021‑00047; 6:20‑cv‑00646; 5:16‑cv‑00178)
• CAFC 2026 Maxell/Samsung dockets: https://www.docketalarm.com/search/?f=party_obj.name_exact-Samsung+Electronics+America ; https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/shorturl-id-[221478](/patent/221478)

Explicit uncertainties: (1) the text/scope of amended claims 9–10 and new claims 11–44 is not available to me; (2) whether any 2026 CAFC appeal involves this patent is unverified; (3) the one-day date discrepancies between the Google Patents record and the Unified Patents portal are reported as-is rather than resolved.

I'll research the litigation history of US patent 7203517 using the sources you specified.

Let me search for the specific cases identified in the patent record.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 7,203,517 ("the '517 patent")

Patent: U.S. 7,203,517 B2 — "Mobile Communication Terminal Device"; inventors Shinichi Shimoda and Naoki Mori; original assignee Hitachi, Ltd.; current/former owner of record during enforcement: Maxell, Ltd.

The '517 patent was asserted in a coordinated enforcement campaign by Maxell against Apple and against Chinese device makers (Huawei). Below is what I could verify. Where I could not fully confirm a detail, I flag it.

1. District Court Litigation

(a) Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc. — W.D. Tex., Case No. 6:20-cv-00646

Sources: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Western_District_Court/6--20-cv-00646/Maxell_Ltd._v._Apple_Inc/ ; https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txwdce-[1102337](/patent/1102337)-maxell-v-apple ; https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/6:2020cv00646/1102337

(b) Maxell, Ltd. v. Huawei Device Co., Ltd. et al. — E.D. Tex. (Case No. 5:16-cv-00178)

Confidence note: I confirmed the existence of E.D. Tex. case 5:16-cv-00178 as '517-related litigation via the Google Patents family-litigation links and confirmed Huawei as the '517 IPR petitioner, but I could not independently pull the 5:16-cv-00178 docket to verify the exact defendant caption or the precise disposition date/terms in this session. Treat the caption as high-confidence for Huawei but partially unverified.

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7203517](/patent/US7203517)/en (family litigation links)

(c) Related but NOT asserting the '517 patent — Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., E.D. Tex., No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS

This is frequently cited alongside the '517 matters, but the '517 patent was not among the patents-in-suit. That case (filed Mar. 15, 2019; Judge Robert W. Schroeder III) asserted U.S. Patents 6,329,794; 6,928,306; 6,408,193; 10,084,991; 10,212,586; 6,430,498; 6,580,999; 6,748,317; 7,116,438; and 8,339,493. It settled in March 2021 (settlement announced during jury selection). I include it only to correct the common misattribution.

Source: Law360 report excerpt, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558234](/patent/1558234)/download-documents

2. International Trade Commission

In the Matter of Certain Mobile Electronic Devices and Laptop Computers — Inv. No. 337-TA-1215

Sources: https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/337_1215_notice_08192020sgl.pdf ; https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2020/er0819ll1633.htm ; https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/full_text/xml/2021/04/14/2021-07642.xml

3. PTAB (Inter Partes Review) Proceedings

(a) Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd. — IPR2021-00047

Sources: https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Apple-Inc-v-Maxell-Ltd-id-[142134](/patent/142134)/documents ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2021-00047

(b) Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Maxell, Ltd. — IPR2018-00251

Sources: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2018-00251 ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US7203517/en

4. Related Administrative Proceeding (Ex Parte Reexamination)

Although not "litigation" in the court/ITC sense, it bears directly on the asserted claims:

• Control No. 90/014,631 — Ex parte reexamination of U.S. 7,203,517, requested by Apple Inc. (third-party requester), filed December 15, 2020; request granted January 15, 2021.
• Reexamination certificate (Nov. 2, 2021; effective Oct. 25, 2021): "CLAIMS 1-8 ARE CANCELLED. CLAIMS 9 AND 10 ARE DETERMINED TO BE PATENTABLE AS AMENDED. NEW CLAIMS 11-44 ARE ADDED AND DETERMINED TO BE PATENTABLE."
• So after reexam, only claims 9, 10 (as amended) and new claims 11-44 survived — the originally asserted independent claims 1 and 7 were cancelled.

Source: Google Patents legal events for US7203517 (RR filed 2021-02-23; LIMR — reexamination decision 2021-11-02), https://patents.google.com/patent/US7203517/en ; reexam table in Apple's filings, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00906/

5. What I did NOT find

• No Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit appeal specifically on the '517 patent. A Fed. Cir. appeal (No. 21-1033, Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.) appears in records tied to a different Maxell patent (the '493 patent), and I would not attribute it to the '517 patent.
• No other defendant suits on the '517 patent beyond Apple (W.D. Tex. and ITC) and the Huawei E.D. Tex. matter identified above. The '517 patent was not asserted in the 2019 E.D. Tex. Apple case (5:19-cv-00036).

6. Summary table

Bottom line: All identified litigation and PTAB proceedings involving the '517 patent were resolved by settlement/dismissal — there is no judgment of infringement, validity, or invalidity on the '517 patent. The patent itself is recorded as expired (lifetime, adjusted expiration 2024-11-29), and its originally granted independent claims 1-8 were cancelled in ex parte reexamination.

Caveats on completeness: My docket-level verification was strongest for the W.D. Tex. 6:20-cv-00646 case, ITC 337-TA-1215, IPR2021-00047, and the reexamination; the E.D. Tex. 5:16-cv-00178 caption and disposition terms and the IPR2018-00251 termination terms are based on secondary/aggregator sources (Google Patents family litigation links, Unified Patents portal) that I could not independently confirm against PACER/PTAB in this session. If you need certified docket verification, the primary sources are PACER for the district court cases and the USPTO PTAB/EDIS portals for the IPR and ITC matters.

I'll research the PTAB proceedings and related post-grant activity on US 7,203,517.

Let me dig deeper into the specific proceeding documents and claim-level outcomes.

Data‑integrity note before the substance

The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP) returns no AIA trial proceedings for US 7,203,517. That is wrong on the public record, and material — so I've flagged it rather than defaulting to "no PTAB activity." The authoritative full text supplied in this prompt — the patent's own Google Patents litigation block and its Legal Events table — lists two PTAB cases (US7203517B2):

• IPR2021-00047 filed (Settlement) — Petitioner named in the Legal Events entry as APPLE INC. (effective 2020‑12‑14)
• IPR2018-00251 filed (Settlement) — Opponent named as HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD., HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. (effective 2017‑11‑28)

Both are corroborated by third‑party dockets (Docket Alarm IPR2018‑00251, Docket Alarm IPR2021‑00047, Patexia IPR2018‑00251, Patexia IPR2021‑00047 documents). Treat the ODP "zero proceedings" result as an ingest gap for settled, pre‑FWD cases, not as evidence of no PTAB history.

Proceedings overview

Two AIA trial proceedings exist on US 7,203,517 — both Inter Partes Reviews, both terminated by settlement with no Final Written Decision and therefore no PTAB claim cancelation (0 active / 0 claims invalidated by the Board / 0 claims sustained by the Board / 2 settled / 0 institution‑denied). The bottom‑line defensive posture is nonetheless strongly favorable to a defendant, but not because of the PTAB: a parallel ex parte reexamination (not an AIA trial) issued a certificate on 2021‑11‑02 canceling claims 1–8, holding claims 9 and 10 patentable as amended, and adding new claims 11–44 — and the patent expired 2024‑11‑29. If a demand letter cites claims 1–5, the assertion is built on canceled claims; the live (but expired) claim set is 9, 10 (as amended) and 11–44, giving a defendant only a past‑damages exposure.

IPR2018-00251 — Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Maxell, Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2017‑11‑28 (Docket Alarm; the patent's Legal Events entry gives effective date 20171128)
• Status: Terminated‑Settled (Docket Alarm / Patexia); termination date 2019‑04‑03. Plain English: Huawei got institution, then the parties settled out of the trial before any Final Written Decision.
• Judge panel: Minn Chung, Lynne E. Pettigrew, Terrence W. McMillin (Patexia). Docket Alarm lists an expanded set (Lynne Pettigrew, Minn Chung, Terrence McMillin, Jason Melvin, John Hudalla) — the two databases disagree on composition, so I would not rely on the panel beyond the core three without pulling the papers from PTAB E2E.
• Petition grounds: Claims challenged: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10 (Patexia). The specific § 102/§ 103 grounds and reference combinations were not surfaced in the sources I could reach; I am not going to invent them. Note this petition was part of Huawei's November 2017 IPR wave against the Maxell portfolio (contemporaneous filings such as IPR2018‑00235, IPR2018‑00236, IPR2018‑00246 exist on sibling patents).
• Institution decision: Instituted — 2018‑07‑02 (Patexia "Institution Decision Date"; Apple's later IPR2021‑00047 exhibit list independently references "IPR2018‑00251, Paper 8 (PTAB July 2, 2018)"). The instituted claim set was not confirmed in the sources available to me ("Claims Instituted" field was blank/truncated).
• Final Written Decision: None. The case settled before the FWD deadline. I found no PTAB decision canceling any claim of the '517 patent in this proceeding. (Patexia's field "Judge Writing the Final Decision: Minn Chung" appears to be a database artifact; do not read it as an FWD.)
• Settlement / termination: Terminated 2019‑04‑03. Terms are confidential; no settlement document text was surfaced. Unresolved discrepancy: Apple's IPR2021‑00047 exhibit list cites "IPR2018‑00251, Paper 19 (PTAB Apr. 3, 2020)" and "Paper 39," which cannot both be right if the case terminated 2019‑04‑03. Either the year is a typo for 2019, or the docket ran longer than the databases report. Confirm on PTAB E2E before relying on the termination date.
• Appeal: None. A settlement terminating trial before FWD produces no appealable final decision.
• Defensive value: Huawei's IPR is the reason a defendant can say the '517 patent was once instituted on a full 7‑claim challenge (1‑5, 9, 10) — the Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim. But it also means no claim was ever canceled by the Board, and (importantly) no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attached to Huawei or its privies, because estoppel requires a final written decision.

IPR2021-00047 — Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2020‑12‑14 (Docket Alarm; the patent's Legal Events entry gives effective date 20201214)
• Status: Terminated‑Settled — Docket Alarm's docket text is explicit: "SETTLEMENT PRIOR TO INSTITUTION," entered 2021‑04‑23. The Board never decided institution, so the merits were never reached.
• Judge panel: Frederick Laney, Lynne Pettigrew, Minn Chung (Docket Alarm).
• Petition grounds: Petition for IPR of US 7,203,517. Because there was no institution decision and no FWD, the challenged claim set and the statutory grounds are not publicly adjudicated — I did not find a confirmed claim list, and I will not fabricate one. The petition's evidentiary record is visible, however, and shows the art Apple assembled: JP 2001‑309445 (certified translation, EX1004), US 5,903,832 (Seppanen) (EX1005), US 7,058,059 (Henry) (EX1012), the Kotzin declaration (EX1003), plus NPL on heterogeneous wireless networks (EX1013, EX1014). Notably, Apple bootstrapped the entire Huawei record into its own petition (EX1006–EX1011 are copies of IPR2018‑00251 Papers 1, 39, 19, 8 and 6).
• Institution decision: None. Joint Motion to Terminate was filed 2021‑04‑08 and granted 2021‑04‑23, before the institution deadline.
• Final Written Decision: None.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated 2021‑04‑23 on a Joint Motion to Terminate … Under 37 C.F.R. 42.72, with a companion Joint Motion to Keep Confidential and Separate Under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) filed the same day. Terms are confidential as a matter of Board practice — the settlement agreement was filed under seal and separated from the file. A Notice of Refund issued 2021‑04‑28.
• Appeal: None.
• Defensive value: Zero estoppel value and zero precedent — but two useful signals. First, Apple's own petition recycled Huawei's art, meaning the strongest known prior‑art combination on this patent has already been assembled and is available to any subsequent challenger. Second, the settlement landed six months before the reexamination certificate canceled claims 1–8 (2021‑11‑02) — i.e., Apple appears to have exited the IPR while the reexam did the work. Note the sequencing: Apple filed the IPR on 2020‑12‑14, and the request for ex parte reexamination of the '517 patent was filed the next day, 2020‑12‑15 (patent Legal Events). The requester of record for that reexam was not confirmed in the sources I could reach, but the one‑day gap is the signature of a coordinated IPR‑plus‑reexam strategy (Apple did exactly this against other Maxell patents, e.g. reexam control no. 90/014,651 on US 10,129,590 naming "APPLE INC. (3RD. PTY. REQ.)").

Related, non‑AIA proceeding — Ex parte reexamination of US 7,203,517 (this is the proceeding that actually killed claims)

This is not an AIA trial and must not be counted as one, but it dominates the defensive analysis and the Google Patents Legal Events table records it on the face of the patent:

• Reexamination requested: filed 2020‑12‑15 (request event docketed 2021‑02‑23, effective date 20201215). Requester not identified in the sources I could reach; reexamination control number not surfaced.
• Certificate issued: 2021‑11‑02, kind code C1 (LIMR — "Reexamination decision: claims changed and/or cancelled"), certificate effective date 2021‑10‑25. Verbatim disposition from the patent record: "REEXAMINATION CERTIFICATE; CLAIMS 1‑8 ARE CANCELLED. CLAIMS 9 AND 10 ARE DETERMINED TO BE PATENTABLE AS AMENDED. NEW CLAIMS 11‑44 ARE ADDED AND DETERMINED TO BE PATENTABLE."
• Consequence: the "Claims (10)" text shown on Google Patents and in the printable patent is the pre‑reexam claim set and is superseded. The operative claim set after 2021‑11‑02 is 9, 10 (as amended), and 11–44.
• Appeal: no Federal Circuit appeal specific to the '517 reexamination was surfaced. (Apple's CAFC appeals in this campaign — e.g. No. 21‑1033 — concern the institution denial on US 8,339,493, a different patent.)

Strategic summary

Claim status. Canceled: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Both original independent claims were adjudicated in the reexam: the broad independent claim 1 was canceled, and independent claim 9 survived only as amended. Sustained: 9 and 10 (as amended) plus new claims 11–44. Untested by any adjudicative body: none of the original set — the entire original claim 1–10 set was either canceled or confirmed as amended in the reexam, even though the PTAB itself never canceled anything. Critically, the reexam certificate post‑dated the Markman ruling in Maxell v. Huawei, 297 F. Supp. 3d 668 (E.D. Tex. 2018), which had construed the preambles of '517 claims 1 and 9 as limiting and litigated the "selection switching determination unit" / "waits a longer time … when … moving speed being faster" limitations of claim 1 (CourtListener opinion). Claim 1's construction record is now largely academic.

Estoppel landscape — wide open. § 315(e)(2) estoppel arises only after a final written decision. Neither IPR produced one: IPR2021‑00047 settled before institution (2021‑04‑23) and IPR2018‑00251 settled before FWD (2019‑04‑03). Huawei and Apple are therefore not estopped and may each re‑raise in district court exactly the grounds they raised or could have raised. Ex parte reexamination carries no petitioner estoppel at all — a third‑party requester isn't a party to the proceeding and § 315(e) doesn't reach it. Practically: the Kotzin/Seppanen/Henry/JP 2001‑309445 combination, and anything else in the family's file history, remains available to a defendant, subject only to the ordinary IPR time bar (§ 315(b), one year from service of a complaint) and § 325(d) discretion.

Two counterweights a defendant must handle. (1) Intervening rights. The surviving claim 9/10 text was amended and claims 11–44 are new — under 35 U.S.C. § 307(b) and § 252, absolute and equitable intervening rights are available for activity before the certificate, which materially blunts any pre‑2021‑11‑02 damages theory on those claims. (2) Expiry. The patent is Expired – Lifetime, adjusted expiration 2024‑11‑29. There is no injunctive exposure and no ongoing royalty; the only live question is past damages inside the § 286 six‑year lookback from whatever complaint date a new plaintiff sets.

Pattern signals. Two different large defendants (Huawei 2017; Apple 2020) independently attacked this patent and both walked away by settlement rather than FWD — consistent with the patent being a portfolio piece swept into global Maxell licensing resolutions rather than a claim that could survive adjudication. No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents et al.) ever filed on this patent: the Unified Patents links in the record are data sources and the ITC/PTAB case identifiers, not a Unified petition. Maxell's enforcement posture is aggressive and well‑documented (the ~$43.3M ZTE verdict; the ITC action 337‑TA‑1215; W.D. Tex. 6:20‑cv‑00646; E.D. Tex. 5:16‑cv‑00178 and 5:19‑cv‑00036), so a defendant should expect a licensing‑driven, not litigation‑driven, campaign on a patent in this condition. Maxell has not shown an appetite for pursuing PTAB appeals on this patent.

Recommended next steps

1. If a demand letter cites claims 1–5 (or 1–8): that is a canceled claim set. The disposition is on the face of the patent — "CLAIMS 1‑8 ARE CANCELLED" — in the C1 reexamination certificate recorded at the USPTO on 2021‑11‑02 (US7203517B2 Legal Events). Pull the certificate PDF from Patent Center / Global Dossier, quote the disposition verbatim in your response, and note that any infringement theory built on canceled claim 1 (or claims 2–8) is unsupportable.
2. Determine the operative claim text before doing anything else. The claims printed in the patent and on Google Patents are pre‑reexam. Get the certificate C1 to capture the exact amended language of claims 9 and 10 and the new claims 11–44; the reexam control number was not surfaced in my search and should be read off the certificate.
3. Assert intervening rights. For any pre‑2021‑11‑02 activity, develop absolute and equitable intervening rights under § 307(b)/§ 252 against amended claim 9/10 and new claims 11–44.
4. Confirm the two PTAB dockets on PTAB E2E / PTAB Public Search. Specifically (a) retrieve the IPR2018-00251 institution decision (Paper 8, 2018‑07‑02) to pin down which claims were instituted and on what art; (b) resolve the termination‑date discrepancy (Docket Alarm/Patexia say 2019‑04‑03; Apple's exhibit list cites a "Paper 19 (PTAB Apr. 3, 2020)" and a "Paper 39"); and (c) retrieve both settlement/termination papers (IPR2021‑00047 documents). Neither settlement is expected to be public — both were filed under seal/separated under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) — so do not expect substantive terms.
5. No PTAB trial‑stage milestones are pending. Both trials are over, so there is no institution deadline, oral hearing, or statutory FWD date to calendar. There is likewise no § 315(e)(2) estoppel to inherit — which cuts against a defendant: you cannot borrow Huawei's or Apple's work as an estoppel shield, though you may freely reuse their prior‑art record.
6. Price the exposure on expiry. With the patent expired 2024‑11‑29, the analysis reduces to past damages on claims 9/10/11–44 within the six‑year lookback, subject to intervening rights, plus any pre‑suit notice/licensing history — and no injunctive relief.

Caveats on what I could not verify: the specific statutory grounds and reference combinations in IPR2018‑00251; the challenged claims and grounds in IPR2021‑00047; the identity of the ex parte reexam requester and its control number; the exact termination year for IPR2018-00251; and the full panel compositions. I have not asserted any of these where the record was silent.

I'll research the assignment chain, correspondents, and litigation history for US 7203517 before drafting the analysis.

Let me dig into the specific assignment records, correspondents, and the litigation/reexam timeline.

I have enough to reconstruct the chain. Note: I could not open the Assignment Center's per-record correspondent pane live in this session, so I retrieved reel/frame data via the Google Patents mirror of the USPTO assignment record and pulled one correspondent from a USPTO reexamination file-history chain-of-title form. Where correspondent data is missing, I say so rather than guess.

Inventors

Per the face of US 7,203,517 and the initial assignment (Reel 015265/0123):

• Shinichi Shimoda — assignor to Hitachi, Ltd.; presumed Hitachi employee at filing (no residence/employer block beyond the assignee, but the assignment is the standard employee→company form).
• Naoki Mori — same.

Pattern check: no unusual inventor behavior. There is no evidence on the record of either inventor departing within 12 months of filing, and no separate inventor-side assignment to a third party. (Contrast with sibling Maxell patents whose chain-of-title forms name other inventor groups, e.g. KAMIMAKI et al. at Reel 020235/0126 — not this patent.) No fire-sale precursor pattern.

Original assignee

Hitachi, Ltd. (Tokyo, JP) — named as assignee on issuance and confirmed at Reel 015265/0123.

• Primary line of business: diversified Japanese electronics conglomerate (rail, power, industrial, electronics, and — at the time — a handset business).
• Product embodying the claims: The '517 claims a mobile terminal with multiple switchable physical interfaces. Hitachi did manufacture mobile handsets in Japan, but I found no evidence that Hitachi shipped a US product embodying these claims, and the handset line was folded into NEC Casio Mobile Communications (2010) and later wound down.
• Current status: Operating. Hitachi, Ltd. is alive and well; it simply no longer owns this patent. Note a date discrepancy worth flagging: Maxell's own complaints state "in 2009 Hitachi, Ltd. assigned much of its consumer product-facing IP to Hitachi Consumer Electronics," but the recorded assignment for this patent is effective 2013-06-07 (Reel 030802/0610). The complaint narrative appears to compress/round the transaction date.

Assignment timeline

All six recorded events. Execution date / recording date / reel:

• 2003-10-03 (executed) / recorded 2004-04-26 — Reel 015265/0123

  • Conveyance: Assignment of interest (inventor → company)
  • Assignor: Shimoda, Shinichi; Mori, Naoki
  • Assignee: Hitachi, Ltd.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved in this session
  • Context: ordinary inventor-to-employer assignment at filing.

• 2013-06-07 (executed) / recorded 2013-06-12 — Reel 030802/0610

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignor's interest
  • Assignor: Hitachi, Ltd.
  • Assignee: Hitachi Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved in this session
  • Context: internal reorganization — carve-out of Hitachi's consumer-electronics IP. (Sibling Maxell patents show the same Hitachi→HCE step at a parallel blanket reel, Reel 030622/0001.)

• 2014-08-26 (executed) / recorded 2014-09-08 — Reel 033694/0745

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignor's interest
  • Assignor: Hitachi Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd.
  • Assignee: Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved in this session
  • Context: internal reorganization — consumer-electronics IP consolidated into Hitachi Maxell.

• 2017-10-01 (executed) / recorded 2018-01-25 — Reel 045142/0208

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignor's interest (blanket portfolio assignment, 141 pages, covering multiple patents)
  • Assignor: Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.
  • Assignee: Maxell, Ltd.
  • Correspondent: Nadeen Nsouli, 71 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606 — this is the only correspondent I could confirm on this chain; the same reel/address recurs on other Maxell portfolio recordings (e.g. the '590-family PATENT ASSIGNMENT ABSTRACT OF TITLE shows the identical Reel 045142/0208, same correspondent). That is recurrence within the Maxell portfolio recordation, not yet verified across the other four reels of this patent. Flagging as a partial recurrence.
  • Context: internal reorganization to align IP with Maxell's licensing/business-development function (per Maxell's own complaints).

• 2021-10-01 (executed) / recorded 2021-11-29 — Reel 058255/0579

  • Conveyance: Merger
  • Assignor: Maxell, Ltd.
  • Assignee: Maxell Holdings, Ltd.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved in this session
  • Context: holding-company merger; change of name only.

• 2021-10-01 (executed) / recorded 2021-12-03 — Reel 058666/0407

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: Maxell Holdings, Ltd.
  • Assignee: Maxell, Ltd.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved in this session
  • Context: change of name only — the pre-2021 "Maxell, Ltd." was merged into Maxell Holdings, which then renamed itself Maxell, Ltd. Current assignee of record: Maxell, Ltd.

A live search of the Assignment Center confirms these are the only post-issuance conveyances; there are no security agreements, releases, or corrections.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7203517
    2002 : Priority filing in Japan
    2003 : US application filed by Hitachi Ltd
         : Inventors assign to Hitachi Ltd
    2007 : Patent issued
    2013 : Assigned to Hitachi Consumer Electronics
    2014 : Assigned to Hitachi Maxell Ltd
    2017 : Assigned to Maxell Ltd in reorg
    2020 : Asserted against Apple in ITC and WDTX
    2021 : Reexam cancels claims 1 through 8
         : Merged into Maxell Holdings
         : Renamed back to Maxell Ltd

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. Every link is a named, publicly traded/known operating entity in the Hitachi-Maxell corporate family (Reels 015265/0123, 030802/0610, 033694/0745, 045142/0208). No anonymous "IP Holdings/Licensing/Ventures" LLC, no registered-agent service address, no single-member LLC.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. Current assignee Maxell, Ltd. (Reels 045142/0208, 058255/0579, 058666/0407) is a high-frequency patent plaintiff, not on the classic Acacia/Marathon/IV list but a documented repeat asserter. It asserted the '517 (claims 9 and 10) against Apple in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1215 (complaint 2020-07-17; instituted 2020-08-19) and in W.D. Tex. 6:20-cv-00646 (filed 2020-07-16), plus a broader campaign (Samsung, ZTE, TCL, Lenovo/Motorola, Huawei, BlackBerry). Stanford's NPE litigation database classifies Maxell as a Non Practicing Entity in Maxell Ltd. v. Samsung (5:25-cv-00097, E.D. Tex.) — https://npe.law.stanford.edu/case/[307190](/patent/307190).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / partial. The only correspondent retrieved is Nadeen Nsouli, 71 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606 on Reel 045142/0208, and the same correspondent/address recurs on other Maxell portfolio recordings sharing that reel (e.g. the '590-family title abstract). That establishes recurrence of a recording attorney within the Maxell portfolio recording, but I could not confirm correspondents on the other four reels, so I cannot call the chain-wide recurrence signal.

4. Cascading transfers (<24 months through chained LLCs) — Present in form, weak in substance. Two conveyances executed the same day (2021-10-01) and recorded 34 days apart (Reels 058255/0579 merger, then 058666/0407 change of name), and the 2013→2014→2017 transfers march roughly yearly. But these are intra-group steps among one corporate family, not chained unrelated LLCs sharing a correspondent address or principals. Flag the 2021 double recording, but it is a Japanese holdco reorganization.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The last third-party transfer (Hitachi Maxell → Maxell) executed 2017-10-01, more than two years before the 2020 Apple suits; the 2014 transfer preceded the 2016 E.D. Tex. suit by ~1.5 years. No transfer falls within 6 months of a filing.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No Hitachi or Maxell bankruptcy; the IP moved by reorganization and merger only (Reels 030802/0610, 033694/0745, 058255/0579).

7. Privateering — Unclear. The consumer-electronics IP was pushed out of Hitachi down to Hitachi Maxell, and Maxell now monetizes it against Hitachi's former competitors (Apple, Samsung, ZTE, TCL, Lenovo). That is privateering-shaped, but I found no SEC filing or other evidence that Hitachi directs the suits or shares recoveries, so I cannot mark it present. (Note: licensing outreach was run through a third-party agent, Inpro, per Maxell's complaints.)

8. Defensive aggregator — Not present. The chain ends at Maxell, Ltd., an active litigant — not RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. The patent is not neutralized.

Patent-status caveat for the analyst: this '517 was the subject of Apple-requested ex parte reexamination 90/014,631 (filed 2020-12-15). Decision dated 2021-11-02: claims 1–8 cancelled; claims 9 and 10 held patentable as amended; new claims 11–44 added. The originally issued independent claims 1 and 7 did not survive — the asserted claims in the ITC action were claims 9 and 10 only. Any valuation of the chain should be run against the amended claim set, not the as-issued claims.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

Justification: The current owner of record, Maxell, Ltd. (Reels 045142/0208 and 058255/0579 / 058666/0407), no longer practices the claimed subject matter — it makes batteries, media, and projectors, not multi-interface mobile terminals — and it is a documented repeat patent plaintiff (ITC 337-TA-1215; W.D. Tex. 6:20-cv-00646; Stanford NPE database). That is one strong signal (known asserter). But the chain is a transparent intra-group Hitachi reorganization, not a transfer to an anonymous shell, and the cascading-LLC, pre-litigation-transfer, and bankruptcy signals are all absent — so this does not rise to "high confidence," and it is not a clean operating-company assertion because the assignee does not ship a product embodying these amended claims. The only confirmed correspondent is Nadeen Nsouli (71 S. Wacker Dr., Chicago) on Reel 045142/0208; recurrence across the other reels is unverified.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 7203517) or the legacy index https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html.

I'll research this systematically. Let me start by pulling the USPTO/Google Patents record and verifying the key cited references.

Let me verify the most technically relevant references and their US equivalents.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 7,203,517 B2 ("Mobile communication terminal device")

1. Confirming the target patent (from the USPTO/Google Patents record)

Searches returned the record for US 7,203,517 B2 only (no similar-number contamination). Confirmed bibliographic data:

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7203517/en and https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-[7203517](/patent/7203517)-B2 (the latter shows 2002‑07‑31/2003‑07‑23 due to a time‑zone offset; I use the Google Patents text as authoritative).

Important procedural caveat that affects any § 102 mapping: the file history shows an ex parte reexamination that concluded 2021‑10‑25 with a reexamination certificate: original claims 1–8 were CANCELLED; claims 9 and 10 were held patentable as amended; and new claims 11–44 were added. Two IPRs were also filed and settled — IPR2018‑00251 (Huawei) and IPR2021‑00047 (Apple). Consequently, the claims that exist today (amended 9–10 and new 11–44) are not the same as the claims printed in the 2007 grant. I analyze the granted claims 1–10 below because the citations on the face of the patent were applied against them, and I flag this where relevant.

Critical dates for § 102 (pre‑AIA):

• § 102(b) statutory bar: publications/patents dated before 2002‑07‑24 (one year before the US filing date).
• § 102(a): before the invention (presumed ≈ priority date 2002‑08‑01).
• § 102(e): US patents/applications by others filed before the applicant's invention.

A strict § 102 anticipation requires every claim element in a single reference. As explained at the end, none of the cited references cleanly discloses all elements of independent claim 1, 7 or 9, so most of these were necessarily applied as § 103 combinations (or as secondary references) rather than as pure anticipations. The mappings below are the best‑case § 102 theories, not assertions that a rejection succeeded.

2. References cited by/against US 7,203,517

(A) The two "background" references expressly discussed in the patent

1. JP‑A‑2002‑152407 — "Portable communication terminal device" (NEC Corp.)

• Priority 2000‑11‑08; published 2002‑05‑24. § 102(b) art (pre‑2002‑07‑24).
• Description: portable terminal that selects an optimal communication interface from several based on the communication situations of the interfaces, and switches to it at a suitable timing during a call. This is the reference the patent's own Background section describes as "selecting an optimal communication interface depending on communication situations."
• Potential § 102 target: independent claims 1, 7, 9 on the "communication determination unit + selection‑switching based on availability" element, and the priority concepts of 7/9; realistically a § 103 primary reference. It does not appear to disclose the speed‑dependent wait time of claim 1 or the position‑based selection.

2. JP‑A‑2002‑157181 — "Communications system" (Hitachi, Ltd.)

• Priority 2000‑11‑20; published 2002‑05‑31. § 102(b) art.
• Description: automatic switching between physical interfaces based on communication rate, line‑congestion information and communication charge acquired from the line.
• Potential § 102 target: the "priority/selection basis" of claims 7 and 9 (switching rules/priorities) and the availability determination of claim 1. Note this is the applicant's own company's earlier application, so it could also raise § 102(a)/(b) self‑collision / obviousness‑type‑double‑patenting questions.

(B) Speed‑ and coverage‑based handover art (the most technically material)

3. JP‑B‑H11‑509069 (JPH11509069A) — "Handover in a mobile communication system with multi‑layer wireless coverage" (Nokia)

• Priority/filing 1996‑04‑16; published 1999‑08‑03. § 102(b) art. US/EP family member: US 6,208,863 B1 (PCT/FI97/00227; WO 97/39599).
• Description: a multilayer (microcell‑within‑macrocell) system in which relative moving speeds of mobile stations are determined, and slow mobiles are handed to the narrow‑coverage microcell layer while fast mobiles are handed to the wide‑coverage macrocell layer to avoid excessive handovers.
• Potential § 102 target — this is the closest conceptual art to the core idea: it maps directly onto the patent's "fast → wide‑range interface (portable telephone), slow/at‑rest → narrow‑range interface (WLAN/PHS)" logic. It bears on claims 1, 7 and 9 (speed‑based interface/tier selection and speed‑based priorities). Its weakness as a § 102 reference is that it is a network‑side handover between cell layers of one system, not selection between two distinct terminal physical interfaces — so a court would more likely use it under § 103.

(C) Multi‑interface channel/interface selection art

4. US 6,122,514 — "Communications channel selection" (Cellport Systems, Inc.)

• Filed 1997‑01‑03; granted 2000‑09‑19. § 102(b) art.
• Description: a link selector that automatically and dynamically selects one of several different network channels/interfaces located with the mobile unit, based on channel availability and operating parameters (bandwidth, cost, latency, etc.); it uses GPS position and velocity to predict when a channel will go off‑line and can switch mid‑session.
• Potential § 102 target: the strongest single reference for the combination of "plurality of different interfaces + availability determination + position + movement/velocity" → claims 1, 2/6, 5, and arguably the priority/selection‑rule concepts of 7/9. It is the reference most likely to have been the primary § 103 reference. It does not clearly disclose the "wait longer when moving faster" limitation of claim 1 or a terminal‑side "priority setting unit" for claim 9.

5. US 6,185,413 B1 — "Mobile station having a cost‑efficient call management method and system" (Siemens AG)

• Priority 1997‑06‑17; granted 2001‑02‑06. § 102(b) art.
• Description: mobile station selects among available systems/channels using cost and availability criteria.
• Potential § 102 target: the "priority/selection basis" (cost‑based priority ordering) of claims 7 and 9, and the availability determination of claim 1.

6. US 5,987,319 — "Call‑setup method in a digital cellular radio communication system" (Ericsson)

• Priority 1996‑04‑26; granted 1999‑11‑16. § 102(b) art.
• Description: call‑setup/channel selection in a digital cellular system.
• Potential § 102 target: background only; at most the availability/call‑setup aspect of claim 1. Weak.

(D) Position/location art

7. US 5,913,170 — "Locating system and method using a mobile communications network" (Highwaymaster Communications, Inc.)

• Priority 1994‑11‑16; granted 1999‑06‑15. § 102(b) art.
• Description: determining the location of a mobile unit through the mobile communications network (position acquisition from outside).
• Potential § 102 target: the "position detection unit acquires position from outside" element of claims 2 and 6 — but on its own it discloses nothing about interface selection, so it is at best a § 103 secondary reference.

(E) Japanese portable‑terminal / switching art

8. JP‑A‑2001‑309445 — "Automatic network connection switching system" (Sharp Corp.)

• Priority 2000‑04‑26; published 2001‑11‑02. § 102(b) art.
• Description: system for automatically switching network connections.
• Potential § 102 target: availability‑based automatic switching of claim 1, and priority selection of claims 7/9.

9. JP‑A‑2002‑010313 — "Control method in mobile telecommunication, cellular system, mobile station, base station and base station control equipment" (NEC Corp.)

• Priority 2000‑06‑23; published 2002‑01‑11. § 102(b) art. US family member: US 2004/0110524 A1 (Takano et al., published 2004‑06‑10) — potential § 102(e) art if its US filing predates the invention.
• Description: control method / station selection in a cellular system (speed/quality‑based cell selection).
• Potential § 102 target: claims 1, 7, 9 for the notion of selecting a serving entity based on mobility/quality.

10. JP‑A‑2002‑190769 — "Mobile communication device and mobile communication system" (Sharp Corp.)

• Priority 2000‑12‑21; published 2002‑07‑05. § 102(b) art (just inside the one‑year bar).
• Description: mobile communication device/system with connection control.
• Potential § 102 target: availability‑based selection of claim 1; secondary reference.

11. JP‑A‑2002‑330197 — "Information communication terminal and communication system" (Hitachi, Ltd.)

• Priority 2001‑05‑07; published 2002‑11‑15.
• § 102 status flag: this published after the 2002‑08‑01 priority date, so it is not § 102(a) or § 102(b) prior art as a printed publication. It could only matter via § 102(e) if a corresponding US filing predates the invention. Treat with caution — do not assume it is citable art.

(F) Older Japanese telephony / wireless art (background)

12. JP‑A‑H07‑177570 — "Wireless telephone" (Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.) — priority 1993‑12‑17; published 1995‑07‑14. § 102(b). Generic radiotelephone; background only.
13. JP‑A‑H10‑51835 — "Portable wireless telephone" (Kokusai Electric Co., Ltd.) — priority 1996‑07‑30; published 1998‑02‑20. § 102(b). Generic portable wireless telephone; background.
14. JP‑A‑H10‑164660 — "Wireless communication device" (NEC Corp.) — priority 1996‑11‑29; published 1998‑06‑19. § 102(b). US counterpart US 6,175,731 B1 ("Radio communication apparatus and control method therefor," granted 2001‑01‑16). Background/§ 103.
15. JP‑A‑H10‑174169 — "Portable telephone set" (NEC Corp.) — priority 1996‑12‑11; published 1998‑06‑26. § 102(b). Background; possibly the "user notification/output" element of claims 3/4/8/10.
16. US 6,175,731 B1 — "Radio communication apparatus and control method therefor" (NEC Corp.) — priority 1996‑11‑29; granted 2001‑01‑16. § 102(b). US counterpart of JPH10164660A; background.
17. US 2004/0110524 A1 — "Mobile communication control method, cellular system, mobile station, base station, and base station control apparatus" (Takano et al., NEC) — priority 2000‑06‑23; published 2004‑06‑10. US counterpart of JP2002010313A; potential § 102(e) art (US application/published application, effectively filed before the invention).

3. "Family Cites" references (cited on the non‑US family members)

These appear in the family citation list rather than as examiner citations on the US case; treat them as secondary.

4. Assessment — the most relevant prior art and claim mapping

Most material references (in order):

1. US 6,122,514 (Cellport) — multiple different terminal network interfaces + automatic selection by availability + GPS position/velocity. Best single § 102/§ 103 reference for the multi‑interface/position/movement core.
2. JPH11509069A / US 6,208,863 (Nokia) — determines mobile speed and assigns wide‑coverage vs narrow‑coverage service accordingly; conceptually the closest to the "fast → portable telephone, slow/at‑rest → WLAN" rule.
3. JP‑A‑2002‑157181 (Hitachi) and JP‑A‑2002‑152407 (NEC) — the two references the patent itself acknowledges for situation‑based automatic interface switching (rate/congestion/charge; optimal‑interface selection).
4. US 6,185,413 (Siemens) and JP‑A‑2001‑309445 (Sharp) — cost/priority‑based selection among available networks.
5. US 5,913,170 (Highwaymaster) — external position‑fix (maps only to the "position‑from‑outside" limitation of claims 2/6).

Claim‑mapping summary (granted claims):

Bottom line / honesty caveats:

• I did not obtain the actual Office Actions or the reexamination/reexam‑certificate office actions in this session, so I cannot state which reference the examiner actually used to reject which claim. The reexam certificate (2021) cancelled claims 1–8 and kept amended 9–10 plus new 11–44, which implies the cited art was strong against the original independent claims — but cancellation in reexam can rest on either § 102 or § 103, and the certificate text I have does not say which.
• Because anticipation requires a single reference to disclose every limitation, and because the decisive limitations here (a bandwidth/interface‑switching delay that grows with moving speed in claim 1; a plurality of priorities selected by moving speed in claim 7; a priority setting unit in claim 9) are not clearly present in any one cited reference, the realistic legal posture is § 103 obviousness combinations, with US 6,122,514 and JPH11509069A/US 6,208,863 as the primary references.
• Two cited documents (JP‑A‑2002‑330197 and JP‑A‑2002‑232573) post‑date the 2002‑08‑01 priority date and therefore should not be treated as § 102(a)/(b) printed‑publication art without checking for an earlier‑filed US counterpart.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual prior-art references listed on the patent page. Let me first pull the bibliographic and legal context, then examine the key references.

Let me examine the other key references (Nokia handover, Siemens cost-efficient, Sharp auto switching, NEC/Takano).

Let me check the actual IPR petitions that challenged this patent and the remaining cited references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,203,517 ("Mobile Communication Terminal Device")

Analyst memo • Prepared under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (pre‑AIA) • Priority date: 2002‑08‑01
Source of record: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7203517](/patent/US7203517)/en (fetched 2026‑09‑28)

Literal-number rule observed. All patent/publication numbers below are reproduced exactly as they appear on the patent page and in the searches; nothing has been normalized or "corrected."

0. Two threshold caveats you must read before the analysis

1. The claim set I was given is the original claim set. It is not the live claim set. The page's Legal Events record a reexamination certificate effective 2021‑10‑25 (docketed 2021‑11‑02, kind code C1):

"REEXAMINATION CERTIFICATE; CLAIMS 1‑8 ARE CANCELLED. CLAIMS 9 AND 10 ARE DETERMINED TO BE PATENTABLE AS AMENDED. NEW CLAIMS 11‑44 ARE ADDED AND DETERMINED TO BE PATENTABLE."

So an obviousness attack on claims 1‑8 is now largely academic — those claims no longer exist. The commercially and legally relevant claims are 9, 10 (as amended) and 11‑44 (text not on this page). The amended text of 9/10 and the content of 11‑44 are not available in the supplied material; I flag every place where that limitation matters.

1. Neither IPR that targeted this patent reached a merits decision.

• IPR2018‑00251 (Huawei) challenged claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10; instituted 2018‑07‑02; Terminated‑Settled 2019‑04‑03 (https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Huawei-Device-Co-Ltd-v-Maxell-Ltd-id-[110602](/patent/110602)).
• IPR2021‑00047 (Apple) was filed 2020‑12‑14 and terminated on settlement before institution (2021‑04‑23) (https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Apple-Inc-v-Maxell-Ltd-id-[142134](/patent/142134)/documents).

So there is no PTAB institution or FWD endorsing or rejecting the combinations below. What did happen is that the examiner in the ex parte reexamination cancelled 1‑8 outright — a strong signal that the broad independent claims were not patentable over art, while the priority‑setting feature of claim 9 was.

1. The invention in one paragraph

The '517 patent claims a mobile terminal with two or more physical interfaces of different schemes (specifically: public wireless LAN 120, portable telephone 130, and optionally PHS). A switching determination unit 108 picks an interface based on three inputs: (i) availability/favorableness from a communication condition determination unit 105; (ii) moving speed from a movement determination unit 107 (fed by GPS/position detection 106); and (iii) position. Two different priority orders are applied — rest‑state priorities prefer cheap narrow‑range wireless LAN, moving‑state priorities prefer wide‑range portable telephone — and the switch wait timer is lengthened as speed increases to suppress ping‑pong switching.

2. The single most important prior-art sentence on the page

The patent's own Background concedes the state of the art:

"…a communication control for switching among physical interfaces of a mobile communication terminal device having a plurality of different communication interfaces is implemented by selecting an optimal communication interface depending on communication situations of the respective communication interfaces, and switching to the selected communication interface at a proper timing during a communication, as described, for example, in JP-A-2002-152407. In addition, JP-A-2002-157181 shows an automatic operation for switching from one physical interface to another based on the communication rate, line congestion information, communication charge and the like…"

Both are admitted art and both are in the Citations table (JP2002152407A, NEC, pub. 2002‑05‑24; JP2002157181A, Hitachi, pub. 2002‑05‑31 — both pre‑date the 2002‑08‑01 priority). This concession sets the floor: the selection-of-interface-by-condition concept is admitted prior art, and the only remaining question is whether adding speed/position and a speed‑scaled hold‑off time was inventive.

3. Level of ordinary skill

A POSITA here is a communications/systems engineer (B.S. E.E./C.S. plus 2–4 years, or equivalent) familiar with (a) cellular handover and hierarchical/multilayer cell design, (b) multi‑mode terminals that arbitrate between RATs, and (c) GPS/position services. The ETSI GSM specifications and Siemens' speed‑sensitive handover work (ETSI TS 145 022, Annex A, Example 1, "Fast Moving Mobiles," dated 23.08.95) show that speed‑based cell‑layer steering was squarely within ordinary skill well before 2002.

4. Reference-by-reference disclosure map

5. Proposed § 103 combinations

Combination A — Cellport '514 as the base, in view of Nokia '863 (= JPH11509069A), optionally with Highwaymaster '170

Renders obvious: claim 1 (and 7, 9 in substance).

• Cellport supplies nearly everything in claim 1: first and second network interfaces of different scheme; a selector that determines availability and switches; position and velocity used to decide when a channel will go offline and a switch is needed; and explicit multi‑channel, in‑session switching.
• The only material gap is a movement/speed determination unit feeding a speed‑differentiated priority. Nokia '863 fills it precisely: it determines relative moving speeds and assigns fast movers to the wide‑coverage (macro) layer and slow movers to the micro layer — i.e., the very "wireless‑LAN when at rest / portable telephone when moving" rule in the '517 specification.
• Motivation: Both are in the same field (mobile terminals selecting among radio resources) and address the same problem — unnecessary/rapid switching. Nokia's stated goal ("avoiding unnecessary handovers"; "steering the fast mobile stations to the upper layer structure") is the '517 patent's stated goal. A POSITA seeking to improve Cellport's channel selection would naturally import the well‑known speed criterion to stabilize selection. Result is predictable (KSR, known technique, known problem).

Combination B — Cellport '514 + Nokia '863 + Highwaymaster '170 (or Cellport's own GPS)

Renders obvious: claims 2 and 6 (position acquired "from outside"). Cellport already derives location via GPS; Highwaymaster expressly locates via the mobile network. Acquiring position externally is a design choice between two known sources.

Combination C — Combination A/B + a user‑preference/cost hierarchy (Siemens '413, or the admitted JP‑A‑2002‑152407 / JP‑A‑2002‑157181 art)

Renders obvious: claims 7 and 9.

• Claim 7's "selects one of a plurality of priorities … in accordance with the moving speed" is exactly Nokia's two‑layer (fast/wide vs slow/narrow) priority selection.
• Claim 9's added "priority setting unit" is the feature the reexam preserved. Siemens '413 teaches a mobile station that stores a user/application‑specific hierarchy and charge data and selects among carriers on that basis; the admitted NEC/Hitachi art teaches selecting the interface by rate/charge/congestion and switching "at a proper timing." Combining a user‑settable priority table with Combination A yields claim 9's structure. This is where the obviousness case is weakest for the patent owner's position and strongest for a challenger, because the reexam itself confirmed 9/10 only as amended — meaning the amendment, not the original wording, is doing the work.

Combination D — Combination A + a history/positional‑memory teaching (e.g., JP3134865B2, "Location management device and location registration system for communication mobile terminal," or the Hitachi JP2002330197A family)

Renders obvious: claim 5 (memory storing position + interface used at that position, selection based on stored data).
Cellport already maintains an applications‑requirements database keyed to operating parameters; adding a location→interface history table is the routine combination of a data store with the selector, and location‑registration/management of mobile terminals was itself known (JP3134865B2, in the family‑cites list).

Combination E — Combination A + any of the display/nozzle‑unit teachings

Renders obvious: claims 3, 4, 8, 10 (output unit notifying the user of the in‑use interface or of availability).
Once selection is automatic, surfacing the selection on the terminal display is a predictable, conventional UI step with no asserted unexpected result; the '517 specification itself frames it as a monitoring convenience ("letting the user know at a glance a physical interface which is automatically selected"). Any of the Kyocera "Information processing device" publications (US20050058113A1 / US20050117550A1), which are cited‑by‑this‑patent art, or the base terminal's ordinary display, supplies it.

Combination F (mirroring the actual PTAB ground of record) — JP2001‑309445 (Sharp) in view of US5903832 (Seppanen)

Apple's IPR2021‑00047 petition (EX1004 = translation of Japanese Patent Application Publication 2001‑309445; EX1005 = U.S. Patent No. 5,903,832 to Seppanen) used exactly this pairing. I could not independently verify the content of either exhibit in this session, so I present this as a leadoff reference pair to be verified, not as an established mapping. The petition was terminated before institution, so it produced no merits ruling either way.

6. Why a POSITA would have combined (rationales, KSR‑style)

1. Same field, same problem. All references concern a mobile terminal choosing among radio resources and all aim to reduce wasteful switching/handover.
2. Express problem statement in the '517 Background. The patent frames the problem as "frequent switching of interfaces causes an increase in unstable factors" — the identical concern Nokia '863 and the Siemens fast‑moving‑mobile algorithm were designed to solve.
3. Directly overlapping criteria. Cellport already selects on availability + operating parameters and already consumes position and velocity; substituting/adding a speed threshold as the selection axis is the substitution of one known criterion for another to achieve a predictable improvement.
4. Cited/related references. The examiner's own Citations list contains Nokia '863's JP counterpart, Siemens '413, Cellport '514, Highwaymaster '3170, and NEC/Sharp/Hitachi multi‑mode references — a strong indication these were considered the art to be combined.
5. Predictable result, no unexpected property. Wide coverage for fast mobiles and narrow/cheap coverage for slow mobiles was the textbook hierarchy rule (ETSI TS 145 022, Annex A, Example 1; "Mobile Speed Sensitive Handover in a Mixed Cell Environment").

7. Where the obviousness case is genuinely contestable

I will not overstate the record:

1. Claim 1's final limitation is the soft spot for a challenger. "…waits a longer time until switching of said physical interface when said movement determination unit determines the moving speed being faster" is a speed‑scaled hold‑off timer. In the listed references I find only adjacent teachings: Cellport's scheduler that "determines when a currently utilized network channel will go off‑line using current location of the mobile unit and velocity information" and its recovery procedure when a channel "does not become available"; and Nokia's general "avoiding unnecessary handovers." No listed reference plainly discloses a switch‑wait timer whose duration increases with measured speed. A combination must therefore rely on generalizing the ping‑pong‑avoidance rationale — an argument a Patent Owner can attack as hindsight. Note this limitation was litigated in the related district court case (Maxell Ltd. v. Huawei Device U.S. Inc.), where Maxell argued "waits a longer time" needs no pre‑set value — but that is a § 112/construction fight, not a § 103 win.
2. Date qualification. JP2002330197A published 2002‑11‑15, after the 2002‑08‑01 priority date; and US20040110524A1 is a 2004 publication. These can only be prior art under pre‑AIA 102(e) via their earlier effective filing dates, and only if the corresponding U.S. filings pre‑date 2002‑08‑01. Any ground built on them must establish the 102(e) date explicitly.
3. Claims 2 and 6 recite the identical limitation ("position detection unit acquires information on the position from outside"). This redundancy should be noted; it does not change the substance but invites an indefiniteness/duplication side issue.
4. Claims 1‑8 are cancelled, so any § 103 ground aimed at them is moot except as background informing whether the surviving claims are obvious. The reexam's preservation of 9/10 as amended and the addition of 11‑44 means the real, unanswered question is whether whatever limitation the reexam added to claim 9 (and the subject matter of claims 11‑44, not on this page) can be met by the same references plus the priority‑setting/cost‑hierarchy teachings of Siemens '413 and the admitted JP‑A‑2002‑152407 / JP‑A‑2002‑157181 art.

8. Bottom line

• Claims 1–8 are cancelled and cannot be invalidated further. For them, the practical conclusion is moot; historically, however, the combination of US6122514A (Cellport) + US6208863B1 / JPH11509069A (Nokia speed‑based multi‑layer handover) — with US5913170A (Highwaymaster) supplying external position — discloses or renders obvious every element except the speed‑scaled switch‑wait timer, which is the single limitation warranting careful independent‑claim treatment.
• Claim 7 (speed‑dependent priority selection) is the strongest obviousness case, because Nokia '863 discloses precisely the fast→wide/slow→narrow priority split.
• Claims 9 and 10 (as amended) and 11–44 are the live claims, and their validity turns on limitations I do not have the text for. On the record available, the priority‑setting unit of claim 9 is met by the cost/preference hierarchy of US6185413B1 (Siemens) combined with Combination A — but because the reexam found claim 9 patentable only as amended, the added language is the decisive question and cannot be assessed from this page.

Confidence: High on the reference disclosures for US6122514A, US6208863B1/JPH11509069A, US5913170A, and US6185413B1 (grounded in the sources cited above). Low/unverified on JP2001309445A, JP2002010313A, JP2002190769A, JP2002330197A, and the two IPR exhibit references (JP2001‑309445 and US 5,903,832), whose contents I could not confirm in this session; any ground relying on them must be re‑verified against the actual reference texts before use.