US 7260587

US Patent 7260587, titled "Method for organizing digital images," was filed on December 22, 2003, and issued on August 21, 2007. The original assignee was Eastman Kodak Co, with the current assignee listed as Intellectual Ventures II LLC. The patent lists Carl A. Testa, Andrew Sailus, Kenneth D. Corby, Leanne M. Capozzi, Dale F. McIntyre, and Joseph A. Manico as inventors.

Abstract:
The patent describes a computer software product and a method for organizing and searching images. It involves obtaining digital images from scanned hard copy prints, analyzing these images based on predetermined criteria (derived from scanned information), categorizing them according to these criteria, and then providing goods and/or services in line with the predetermined criteria.

Independent Claims Overview:
The full text of the claims for US7260587 was not explicitly provided in the initial authoritative patent text. Therefore, a plain-language overview of each independent claim cannot be provided with certainty based on the available information.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
Searches for CAFC 2026 dockets related to US patent 7260587 did not yield any specific results for cases filed or scheduled in 2026. The search provided general information about accessing case records and scheduled cases for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, but no direct linkage to this patent for the specified year.

Known litigation involving US patent 7260587 is detailed below, based on the provided patent text and search results.

1. Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One

• Plaintiff(s): Intellectual Ventures
• Defendant(s): Capital One
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
• Case Number: 1:13-cv-00740-AJT-TRJ
• Filing Date: July 3, 2013
• Outcome or Current Status: Not explicitly available in the provided search results.

2. US case filed in North Carolina Western District Court

• Jurisdiction: North Carolina Western District Court
• Case Number: 3:13-cv-00358
• Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s), Filing Date, Outcome or Current Status: Not available in the provided search results.

3. US case filed in Ohio Southern District Court

• Jurisdiction: Ohio Southern District Court
• Case Number: 1:13-cv-00378
• Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s), Filing Date, Outcome or Current Status: Not available in the provided search results.

4. PTAB case (Final Written Decision)

• Case Number: CBM2014-00033
• Outcome or Current Status: Final Written Decision (as indicated in the patent text).
• Plaintiff(s) (Petitioner), Defendant(s) (Patent Owner), Filing Date: Not available in the provided search results.

5. US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

• Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Case Number: 14-1515
• Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s), Filing Date, Outcome or Current Status: Not available in the provided search results.

6. US case filed in New York Southern District Court

• Jurisdiction: New York Southern District Court
• Case Number: 1:13-cv-05386
• Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s), Filing Date, Outcome or Current Status: Not available in the provided search results.

7. US case filed in Delaware District Court

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
• Case Number: 1:13-cv-01274
• Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s), Filing Date, Outcome or Current Status: Not available in the provided search results.

8. US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

• Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Case Number: 14-1506
• Note: Initial searches for "14-1506" yielded results related to Pantone colors, not patent litigation. While the patent text lists this as a CAFC case related to the patent family with a Unified Patents link, specific details confirming its status as a patent litigation case for US7260587 were not found in the search snippets.
• Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s), Filing Date, Outcome or Current Status: Not available in the provided search results.

Proceedings overview

One PTAB proceeding, CBM2014-00033, has been identified for US Patent 7260587. This proceeding resulted in a Final Written Decision, but the outcome regarding claims invalidated or sustained is not specified in the provided information. Therefore, a definitive bottom-line defensive posture cannot be fully assessed without further details on the FWD.

CBM2014-00033 — {Petitioner} v. {Patent Owner}

• Type: Covered Business Method
• Filed: Not explicitly available in the provided patent text or search results.
• Status: Final Written Decision
• Judge panel: Not available in the provided patent text or search results.
• Petition grounds: Not available in the provided patent text or search results.
• Institution decision: Not available in the provided patent text or search results.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): The patent text only indicates that a "Final Written Decision" was issued for CBM2014-00033. The specific claims that were canceled, sustained, or held patentable are not detailed in the provided information.
• Settlement / termination: Not available in the provided patent text or search results.
• Appeal: Not available in the provided patent text or search results.
• Defensive value: Without knowing the outcome of the Final Written Decision at a claim-level, it is difficult to determine the defensive value. If claims relevant to an assertion were invalidated, it would significantly weaken the patent owner's position.

Strategic summary

The information provided indicates one Covered Business Method (CBM) proceeding, CBM2014-00033, which concluded with a Final Written Decision. However, the details of which claims of US7260587 were canceled, sustained, or left untested are not available. This lack of specificity prevents a comprehensive understanding of the patent's current scope after the PTAB proceeding.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, if CBM2014-00033 did invalidate any claims, the petitioner (and their privies) would be barred from raising any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in that proceeding, as per § 315(e)(2). However, without the specifics of the petition grounds and the FWD, it's impossible to identify which prior-art grounds are still available for a defendant facing assertion today.

No pattern signals, such as multiple IPRs from the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner, can be discerned from the limited information. The listing of Unified Patents as a petitioner in PTAB data suggests a defensive aggregator's involvement, but further details are needed to confirm the extent of their actions related to this patent.

Recommended next steps

The most crucial next step is to obtain the full Final Written Decision for CBM2014-00033 to understand the claim-level outcomes. This document would explicitly state which claims, if any, were invalidated or confirmed. Accessing the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal using the proceeding number CBM2014-00033 would be necessary to retrieve this information. The disposition of claims in the FWD will directly inform any defensive strategy against assertions of US7260587.

Inventors

The inventors named on US Patent 7260587 are Carl A. Testa, Andrew Sailus, Kenneth D. Corby, Leanne M. Capozzi, Dale F. McIntyre, and Joseph A. Manico. At the time of filing, it is highly probable that all listed inventors were employed by Eastman Kodak Co., the original assignee, given common industry practices for patent applications.

Original assignee

The original assignee of US Patent 7260587 was Eastman Kodak Co. Historically, Eastman Kodak was a prominent manufacturer of photographic film, chemicals, and cameras. They also developed and shipped products embodying claims related to digital imaging and photofinishing services. Eastman Kodak Company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in January 2012 and emerged in September 2013 as a smaller company focused on commercial printing and imaging services.

Assignment timeline

The following is a chronological list of recorded assignments for US Patent 7260587. Reel/Frame and Correspondent information is not available in the provided patent text.

• 2012-02-21 (executed) / recorded 2012-02-21

  • Conveyance: Reassignment (Security Interest)
  • Assignor: EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, PAKON, INC.
  • Assignee: CITICORP NORTH AMERICA, INC., AS AGENT
  • Correspondent: Not available in provided text.
  • Context: Securitization of intellectual property assets by Eastman Kodak.

• 2013-02-01 (executed) / recorded 2013-02-01

  • Conveyance: Reassignment (Patent Release)
  • Assignor: CITICORP NORTH AMERICA, INC., WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
  • Assignee: NPEC INC., LASER-PACIFIC MEDIA CORPORATION, QUALEX INC., KODAK REALTY, INC., KODAK IMAGING NETWORK, INC., KODAK PORTUGUESA LIMITED, FAR EAST DEVELOPMENT LTD., CREO MANUFACTURING AMERICA LLC, KODAK AMERICAS, LTD., EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, PAKON, INC., FPC INC., KODAK (NEAR EAST), INC., EASTMAN KODAK INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL COMPANY, INC., KODAK AVIATION LEASING LLC, KODAK PHILIPPINES, LTD.
  • Correspondent: Not available in provided text.
  • Context: Release of security interest, likely returning control of the patents to various Kodak entities during bankruptcy restructuring.

• 2013-04-10 (executed) / recorded 2013-04-10

  • Conveyance: Reassignment (Assignment of Assignors Interest)
  • Assignor: EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY
  • Assignee: INTELLECTUAL VENTURES FUND 83 LLC
  • Correspondent: Not available in provided text.
  • Context: Transfer of patent rights as part of Eastman Kodak's bankruptcy proceedings and sale of its digital imaging patent portfolio.

• 2013-05-28 (executed) / recorded 2013-05-28

  • Conveyance: Reassignment (Assignment of Assignors Interest)
  • Assignor: INTELLECTUAL VENTURES FUND 83 LLC
  • Assignee: INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC
  • Correspondent: Not available in provided text.
  • Context: Internal transfer within the Intellectual Ventures patent assertion ecosystem.

• 2023-08-15 (executed) / recorded 2023-08-15

  • Conveyance: Reassignment (Release by Secured Party)
  • Assignor: INTELLECTUAL VENTURES FUND 83 LLC
  • Assignee: MONUMENT PEAK VENTURES, LLC
  • Correspondent: Not available in provided text.
  • Context: Transfer of interest, likely a sale of the patent from the Intellectual Ventures portfolio to another entity.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7260587
    2003 : Application filed by Eastman Kodak
    2007 : Patent granted
    2012 : Assigned to CITICORP (Security Interest)
    2013 : Released to Kodak Entities
         : Assigned to Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC
         : Assigned to Intellectual Ventures II LLC
    2023 : Assigned to Monument Peak Ventures LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present.
   • The patent was transferred to Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC (2013-04-10) and Intellectual Ventures II LLC (2013-05-28), both known patent licensing/assertion entities operating via shell companies. The subsequent transfer to Monument Peak Ventures, LLC (2023-08-15) also fits this pattern, as Monument Peak Ventures, LLC is identified as a patent asserter.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Present.
   • Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC (2013-04-10) and Intellectual Ventures II LLC (2013-05-28) are well-known patent assertion entities. Monument Peak Ventures, LLC (2023-08-15) is also identified as an NPE.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear.
   • Correspondent information is not available in the provided authoritative text.
4. Cascading transfers — Present.
   • Multiple consecutive assignments occurred in a short period in 2013: from Eastman Kodak Company to Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC (2013-04-10) and then to Intellectual Ventures II LLC (2013-05-28), all within two months. This followed a security interest transfer and release earlier in 2012-2013.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Present.
   • The transfer to Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC occurred on 2013-04-10, and to Intellectual Ventures II LLC on 2013-05-28. The first listed litigation, Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One, was filed on July 3, 2013. Both transfers happened within three months of the first recorded lawsuit related to the patent.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Present.
   • Eastman Kodak Company, the original assignee, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in January 2012. The assignment to Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC in April 2013 occurred during or shortly after Kodak's bankruptcy proceedings and its sale of patent assets.
7. Privateering — Not present.
   • There is no information to suggest privateering. The transfer from Eastman Kodak to Intellectual Ventures appears to be an outright sale of assets during bankruptcy, not an arrangement for assertion on Kodak's behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present.
   • The current assignee, Monument Peak Ventures, LLC, is a known patent asserter, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence
This patent exhibits multiple strong NPE signals: it was acquired from Eastman Kodak during their bankruptcy fire-sale (2013-04-10), transferred to a known patent assertion entity (Intellectual Ventures II LLC, 2013-05-28), and subsequently to another identified NPE (Monument Peak Ventures, LLC, 2023-08-15). Furthermore, the transfers to the Intellectual Ventures entities occurred less than three months before the first recorded infringement lawsuit related to the patent.

Verification link: USPTO Assignment Center Search for US7260587

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 7260587, I will use the USPTO Patent Public Search tool. The patent text itself (from Google Patents) also lists "Prior art keywords" and "Prior art date," which can provide some initial context, and more importantly, direct citations to other patents are usually listed within the patent document itself.

As the full list of cited references is not available in the provided text, I'll state that without access to the full patent document's "References Cited" section, I cannot definitively list and describe all prior art cited by the examiner or applicant.

To provide the most relevant prior art as requested, I would typically access the full patent document for US7260587 from the USPTO website and examine its "References Cited" section. This section explicitly lists all patents and non-patent literature considered by the patent examiner during prosecution and disclosed by the applicant in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS).

Assuming the patent document on Google Patents is authoritative and contains this information, and given the prompt's instruction to interpret patent numbers and identifiers literally, I'll need to locate the "References Cited" section within the provided patent text.

Since the authoritative patent text provided does not explicitly include a "References Cited" section with individual patent citations, I cannot fulfill the request to provide full citations, publication/filing dates, brief descriptions, and potential anticipation claims for each prior art reference. Without this explicit list of cited prior art within the provided patent document, I cannot accurately identify the "most relevant prior art" as per the patent's own references.

Due to the absence of a "References Cited" section or a detailed list of specific prior art documents in the provided authoritative patent text for US7260587, a comprehensive obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103, including combinations of specific prior art references and motivations for such combinations, cannot be performed.

The "Prior art keywords" listed for US7260587 on Google Patents are "images", "digital", "hard copy", "customer", and "instruction". While these keywords provide a general thematic context, they do not constitute specific patent or non-patent literature references that can be combined for an obviousness argument.

To conduct a proper obviousness analysis, it is necessary to identify:

1. The scope and content of the prior art.
2. The differences between the claimed invention and the prior art.
3. The level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Secondary considerations of obviousness (e.g., commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others).

Without explicit prior art references, I cannot analyze whether a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine known elements to arrive at the claimed invention, nor can I explain why such a combination would have been obvious.