US 7340612

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

Let me run a couple more targeted searches to check for litigation or appellate activity before summarizing.

US Patent 7,340,612 — Summary

Important note on the CAFC request: I searched for 2026 Federal Circuit docket activity involving US 7,340,612 and found none. This is consistent with the record: the patent's legal status is "Expired – Lifetime," with an adjusted expiration date of 2022-07-02, so any appeal activity would have happened years ago, not in 2026. I did not locate any district-court litigation or IPR/appeal tied to this specific number either. I cannot rule out an unreported or sealed matter, but I have no authoritative evidence of one.

Bibliographic data

Source: Google Patents, https://patents.google.com/patent/US7340612/en; confirmed via RPX Insight (https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/[US7340612B1](/patent/US7340612B1)) and Unified Patents (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-7340612-B1).

⚠️ Minor data discrepancy (noted, not corrected): Unified Patents lists priority as 1999-09-19 and grant as 2008-03-03, i.e., one day earlier than Google Patents (1999-09-20 / 2008-03-04). These are almost certainly time-zone rendering artifacts. I have reported both rather than silently harmonizing them; the Google Patents values are used above.

Abstract (as issued)

A method for registering a device in a wireless network comprising a central controller. The method includes asking a user whether he wants to install a new network or install a device on the network. If installing a new network, the user enters a PIN code, an authentication key of the new network is generated, and the device becomes the central controller. If installing the device on an existing network, the user enters a PIN code, and upon authorization, receives an authentication key of the network for use in authentication procedures with the central controller.

Independent claims in plain language

The patent has two independent claims (1 and 5) and five dependents (2–4, 6–7); seven claims total.

Claim 1 — Two-branch registration method (network-side key distribution)

1. Ask the user (via a user interface) whether they want to (A) install a new network or (B) add this device to an existing network.
2. If (A) new network:
   • ask the user to enter a PIN code, which then becomes the PIN valid for the entire new network (and is the PIN used to install devices on it);
   • generate an authentication key that becomes the new network's authentication key; and
   • the device becomes the network's central controller.
3. If (B) existing network (which already has a central controller):
   • ask the user to enter a PIN code;
   • the existing central controller checks whether the entered PIN matches the existing network's PIN, and, if so, sends the existing network's authentication key to the device; and
   • the device stores that authentication key for later authentication procedures with the existing central controller.

Claim 5 — Two-branch registration method (controller-side key generation; also requires sending a device identifier)

• Same initial user prompt (new network vs. existing network).
• New-network branch: ask for a PIN code that becomes the network-wide PIN, and the device becomes the central controller (note: claim 5 does not recite generating an authentication key in this branch).
• Existing-network branch:
  • ask the user to enter a PIN code;
  • the device sends the PIN code and a device identifier to the existing central controller;
  • the central controller checks the PIN, and if positive, generates an authentication key and sends it to the device; and
  • the device stores the authentication key for use in authentication procedures with the central controller.

Key distinction between the independent claims: In Claim 1's existing-network branch, the controller forwards an already-existing network authentication key. In Claim 5's existing-network branch, the device sends its identifier along with the PIN, and the controller generates a (presumably per-device) authentication key that it then returns.

Dependent claims (brief)

• Claim 2 — the new-network authentication key of claim 1 is generated by a random generator.
• Claim 3 — that key is the result of a function of a device identifier and the network PIN (the description's GUID + PIN concatenation).
• Claim 4 — the authentication key (existing or new network) is encrypted with a secret session key previously negotiated between the device and its central controller (e.g., a Diffie-Hellman-derived key).
• Claim 6 — the key generated at step (f) of claim 5 is a function of a device identifier and the existing network's PIN.
• Claim 7 — the key of claim 5 is encrypted with a previously negotiated secret session key before transmission.

Technical context (from the specification)

The patent sits in the ETSI BRAN / HIPERLAN Type 2 (HL2) wireless environment bridging IEEE 1394 wired buses, using a Diffie-Hellman–derived Session Secret Key (SSK) and a challenge-response mutual authentication. The core contribution is replacing administrator-driven key provisioning with a user-entered PIN for automatic "plug-and-play" style enrollment. The spec also discloses a variant using one authentication key per device (MT GUID + PIN), which avoids the drawback that, with a single shared key, removing one device forces re-installation of the whole network. The second embodiment adds a Global Secret Key (GSK) and a function g = E_GSK(PIN|Terminal_id|r) with a random r to resist brute-force PIN guessing.

Uncertainty statement: I have high confidence in the bibliographic facts and claim text (they come from the authoritative full patent text and are corroborated by multiple databases). I have no authoritative information confirming any 2026 CAFC docket, district-court case, IPR, or reexamination involving US 7,340,612; the expired status as of 2022 makes recent appellate activity unlikely, but I cannot affirmatively prove a negative.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 7340612.

Let me search more specifically for litigation databases.

Let me check litigation-specific databases for this patent.

Litigation Search Results: US Patent 7,340,612

Bottom line: I found no evidence of any litigation involving US Patent 7,340,612.

What I searched

I queried the Unified Patents litigation portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com), the USPTO PTAB/P-TACTS system, CourtListener/RECAP case materials, and general web searches for the exact identifiers "7340612," "7,340,612," and "US-7340612-B1" combined with litigation terms.

Findings

The Unified Patents record for this exact patent — US-7340612-B1, "Method for Device Registration in a Wireless Home Network" (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-7340612-B1) — lists no litigation, and flags the asset as "Likely Sold" with $0 lifetime renewal fees and an expiration of 2022-07-01/02. The page shows the typical patent metadata (Application No. 10/088,622; current assignee InterDigital CE Patent Holdings SAS; original assignee Thomson Licensing SA) but no case list.

Key observations supporting a "no litigation" conclusion:

1. Expiration / status. Per both the Google Patents family data and Unified Patents, the patent's legal status is "Expired – Lifetime," with the term expiring 2022-07-02. It is well past its enforceable life, which makes it an unlikely target for assertion.
2. Assignment history. Ownership passed cleanly: Thomson Licensing S.A. → Thomson Licensing (2008) → InterDigital CE Patent Holdings (2018) → InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS (corrective assignment recorded 2024). I found no assignment entries or annotations tying this patent to any assertion campaign.
3. InterDigital litigation I did find is unrelated. High-profile InterDigital suits (e.g., InterDigital v. Disney, C.D. Cal., concerning H.264/H.265 video-coding patents; InterDigital's Lenovo litigation) assert other patents — wireless/video-coding families — not this home-network registration patent. No complaint I located recites "7,340,612."
4. The "734" matches are false positives. Several hits referenced other patents with similar numbers (e.g., a "…'734 patent" in an unrelated Zimmer IPR, U.S. Pat. No. 8,684,734; JP Patent No. 7340612, owned by Silicon Storage Technology, a memory power-management patent). These are different patents/jurisdictions and do not involve US 7,340,612.

Per-case detail requested

Because no litigation was found, I cannot provide plaintiff(s), defendant(s), jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome for any case — none is known.

Caveats

• My search was constrained by a limited number of queries; a comprehensive PACER/CAFC docket sweep and a full Docket Navigator/Lex Machina check could confirm the absence definitively.
• A patent could appear in litigation without being publicly indexed in the free sources I used. If you have a specific case or party in mind, I can search that docket directly.
• I did not auto-correct the number: all results above are keyed to the literal identifier 7,340,612 / US-7340612-B1.

Conclusion: Based on the sources searched, there is no known litigation involving US Patent 7,340,612.

I'll verify the "no PTAB activity" default against public sources before writing the analysis.

Let me run a few more targeted checks to be thorough about absence of AIA trials and any appeal.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 7,340,612: zero. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block — the canonical USPTO Open Data Portal list — returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent, and my independent web checks (PTAB E2E decision text, Unified Patents portal, Google Patents' litigation/PTAB tabs, and third-party assertion trackers) surfaced no petition, no institution decision, no Final Written Decision, no reexamination certificate, and no Federal Circuit appeal tied to patent number 7,340,612. Breakdown: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied.

Bottom-line defensive posture: This is not the "hardened by two IPRs" case, nor is it the "claims 1–5 canceled" case. It is the untested-and-expired case. All seven claims stand as issued and presumed valid, but the patent's adjusted expiration is 2022-07-02 (Google Patents) — it is listed as Expired – Lifetime. That combination produces a very specific defensive posture: a defendant cannot be liable for any post-expiration conduct, and the entire damages window is historical. The absence of any IPR is itself informative — the patent's active monetization era (roughly 2018–2022, post-InterDigital acquisition) did not generate an AIA challenge, which suggests it was either never asserted in a US district court, or was asserted only against parties who settled rather than petitioned.

⚠️ Flagged, not corrected: The prior sections note that Unified Patents renders the priority as 1999-09-19 and expiration as 2022-07-01, one day earlier than Google Patents (1999-09-20 / 2022-07-02). I am carrying that same discrepancy forward rather than harmonizing it. For a defendant, the practical answer is that the patent is expired either way by mid-2022.

Proceedings

None. There is no proceeding to describe.

Per the operating rules, I will not manufacture a proceeding number, petitioner, panel, or disposition. Every field below would be fabrication, so I am leaving the per-proceeding template unused rather than filling it with plausible-looking fiction:

• No IPR20XX-##### docket exists for this patent in the ODP block or in any public source I could reach.
• No petitioner → no judge panel → no institution decision → no FWD → no settlement → no appeal.
• No reexamination certificate (no RE##### or 90/##### / 95/##### / 96/##### proceeding) is associated with the patent.

I also explicitly did not find any Federal Circuit appeal. That is consistent with the record: there is no PTAB or district-court judgment to appeal, and the 2022 expiration forecloses new appellate activity in 2026.

Strategic summary

Claim status: all claims UNTESTED and legally intact — but time-barred by expiration. Claims 1–7 (independents 1 and 5; dependents 2–4, 6–7) have never been through an AIA trial. There is no cancellation, no adverse judgment, and no disclaimer on record. However, "intact" here is a historical statement, not a present threat: with an adjusted expiration of 2022-07-02, the patent cannot be infringed going forward. Any demand letter citing this patent today can only reach conduct occurring on or before mid-2022, and § 286's six-year damages lookback means the recoverable window is now closed in practice as well — six years back from 2026-09-28 is 2020-09-28, which overlaps the expired period entirely.

Estoppel landscape — a non-issue, but note it for completeness. The § 315(e)(2) estoppel framework is keyed to petitioners in an instituted IPR. Because no IPR was ever instituted, no party is estopped, and the full universe of § 102/§ 103 art remains theoretically available to a defendant. In practice the estoppel question is moot: the validity fight has no damages payoff left, so a defendant's leverage is non-infringement and the expired term, not invalidity. The cited references on the face of the patent — US 5,077,790 (Motorola, over-the-air cordless registration), US 5,377,267 (NTT, authentication key secrecy), EP 0 658 021 (IBM, key distribution/authentication), US 5,999,812 (self-registration for wireless telephony), US 6,377,804 (Nokia), US 6,477,644 / EP 0 944 203 (Nokia, mobile internet access), US 6,202,206 (IBM) — were considered by the Examiner and remain the natural starting art should anyone ever need it, but as noted, that need has evaporated.

Pattern signals — mostly negative, which is the story. No repeat-petitioner pattern (no petitioners at all). No aggressive Patent Owner PTAB appeal practice on this patent. No defensive aggregator in the chain — I checked Unified Patents specifically because their portal indexes the patent; their page for US-7340612-B1 is a patent-profile page (bibliographic data plus analytics indices), not evidence of a Unified-filed challenge. Do not read the Unified entry as an IPR. The chain is purely an assignment story: Thomson Licensing S.A. → Thomson Licensing (2008) → InterDigital CE Patent Holdings (2018) → InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS (corrective assignment, 2024) — i.e., a portfolio transfer into InterDigital's licensing program, with the patent expiring before any US enforcement campaign against it materialized publicly.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing an assertion of this patent:

1. Lead with expiration, not invalidity. Pull the file wrapper from USPTO Patent Center for US 10/088,622 and confirm the maintenance-fee and expiration-of-term data. The record reflects a 12th-year maintenance fee paid 2019-08-27 (large entity, event code M1553) and an adjusted expiration of 2022-07-02. Verify the terminal disclaimer / § 154(b) adjustment arithmetic yourself — the adjustment is what fixes the cutoff. If the assertion targets post-2022 conduct, the claim fails as a matter of law.

2. Check the § 286 window against the expiration date. With the patent expired 2022-07-02 and today being 2026-09-28, there is essentially no live damages period. Compute the accused-activity window explicitly; if all accused sales post-date the expiration, you have a dispositive motion, not a defense.

3. Confirm there truly is no parallel proceeding by pulling the docket directly. I could not locate a US district-court case naming this patent, but a negative search is not proof. Run the patent number through the CourtListener RECAP docket search and Docket Navigator / Lex Machina for both "7,340,612" and civil action numbers involving Thomson Licensing and InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, and check the ITC's EDIS for a § 337 complaint. If you find a case, treat it as the priority artifact — a district-court invalidity judgment would be a separate, and possibly broader, estoppel event than any PTAB outcome.

4. If a demand letter cites specific claims, do not assume a PTAB kill shot exists. Here it is the opposite of the usual playbook: there is no FWD to link to, no canceled claim to quote, and no institution decision to use as a § 315(e)(2) estoppel lever. Your defense is the expired term plus non-infringement of the recited "asking a user... whether the user wants to install a new network or install said device on an existing network" two-branch structure of claims 1 and 5 — a method claim with a user-interaction step that is factually narrow and easy to avoid on the merits.

5. Do not overstate the negative. Say it precisely: "No AIA trial proceeding is on file for US 7,340,612 as of 2026-09-28, per the USPTO ODP structured data, corroborated by public sources." Do not say "the patent has never been challenged anywhere" — that would be an unproven negative regarding district court, ITC, and foreign forums, some of which (e.g., the EPO counterpart EP1214829B1) are outside PTAB's scope and outside my verified search.

Verification limitation (stated plainly): I confirmed the zero-proceeding result against the ODP-derived block in this prompt, the Unified Patents portal, Google Patents' patent page, Justia, and the EPO Global Patent Index entry for the family. I could not reach a PTAB E2E "Patent Trial Proceedings" search results page directly for this patent number in this session, so the strongest claim I can honestly make is that no proceeding is indexed in any source I could reach — not that no proceeding has ever existed. If your diligence is for a litigation or licensing decision, confirm via PTAB E2E and Patent Center before relying on it.

I'll research the assignment record, correspondent attorneys, and any NPE signals before writing up. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me dig into the specific recordings, correspondents, and any litigation/assertion history.

Let me verify the InterDigital–Technicolor transaction (which explains the 2018 transfer) and check for the recording correspondents.

Inventors

All four executed an assignment to Thomson Licensing S.A. on signing dates 2002-03-11 to 2002-03-12, recorded 2002-03-19 at Reel 012988/Frame 0691 (USPTO assignment record as reflected in Google Patents legal events). The record names them as joint assignors "DURAND, ALAIN; LAURENT, CHRISTOPHE; STRAUB, GILLES; AND OTHERS."

Pattern notes:

• The inventor→employer assignment was executed ~18 months after the 2000-09-20 PCT filing, on the cusp of US national-stage entry (the US application was accorded 2002-03-19 as its filing date). This is ordinary PCT practice, not a departure signal. There is no evidence any inventor left before or shortly after filing, and no second inventor-level assignment appears in the record.
• No inventor is separately named as an assignor on any later reconveyance, which means no inventor retained or reacquired rights (consistent with a clean employer-ownership record).
• I found no indication (from the patent text, the inventor-patent profiles surfaced, or the assignment record) that any of the four inventors departed Thomson/Technicolor within 12 months of filing, and no "fire-sale" precursor pattern among the inventors.

Original assignee

Thomson Licensing S.A. (renamed in the record as Thomson Licensing), the IP-holding arm of the French Thomson / Technicolor group (successor branding: Vantiva).

• Shipped a product embodying the claims? No — Thomson Licensing was an IP-holding and licensing entity, not a product company. The operating side of the group (Thomson Consumer Electronics / Technicolor's set-top box and connected-home business) built the home-network equipment the patent was aimed at, and received an implicit/grant-back license as part of later transactions.
• Primary line of business: patent licensing and IP management for the Thomson/Technicolor group (formerly a wholly owned licensing operation described in trade press as one of the leading European corporate licensing operations).
• Current status: The licensing business was sold to InterDigital in July 2018 (see below). The residual Technicolor operating group was restructured and rebranded Vantiva in 2022; the original assignee entity no longer holds this patent.

Assignment timeline

Data limitation (stated up front): I could not retrieve the correspondent of record (recording attorney/firm and address) for these reel/frames. The Assignment Center record content is behind a query interface my available tools could not render, and no indexed copy of the correspondent fields appeared in search results. The reel/frame numbers, conveyance types, parties, and dates below come from the authoritative record on Google Patents legal events. I have not invented a correspondent; where the correspondent is unknown I say so.

1. 2002-03-11 / 2002-03-12 (executed) — recorded 2002-03-19 — Reel 012988/0691

• Conveyance: Assignment (inventor-to-employer)
• Assignor: Durand, Alain; Laurent, Christophe; Straub, Gilles; Vincent, Christophe (joint inventors)
• Assignee: Thomson Licensing S.A. (France)
• Correspondent: Not retrievable from available sources. No recurrence flag possible.
• Context: Ordinary inventor-to-employer assignment taken at US national-stage entry (application 10/088,622 accorded 2002-03-19).

2. effective 2008-01-08 (executed) — recorded 2008-01-09 — Reel 020341/0632

• Conveyance: Assignment ("Assignment of Assignor's Interest")
• Assignor: Thomson Licensing S.A.
• Assignee: Thomson Licensing (France)
• Correspondent: Not retrievable from available sources.
• Context: Intra-group corporate reorganization/consolidation within the Thomson group, contemporaneous with the patent's 2008-03-04 grant. Not a third-party sale; no change in ultimate control.

3. effective 2018-07-30 (executed) — recorded 2018-10-26 — Reel 047332/0511

• Conveyance: Assignment
• Assignor: Thomson Licensing
• Assignee: InterDigital CE Patent Holdings (France)
• Correspondent: Not retrievable from available sources.
• Context: Portfolio acquisition / corporate carve-out. This is the paper trail for InterDigital, Inc.'s (NASDAQ: IDCC) purchase of Technicolor SA's patent licensing business — a $150M upfront transaction valued at up to $475M, completed 2018-07-30, covering ~18,000–21,000 patents and applications. Confirmed by InterDigital's own press release and 10-K (ir.interdigital.com press release 2018-07-31; 2020 Form 10-K stating "On July 30, 2018, we completed our acquisition of the patent licensing business of Technicolor SA"). A small ~2.5-month lag between execution (2018-07-30) and USPTO recording (2018-10-26) is typical for a portfolio-scale bulk recordation.

4. effective 2018-07-30 — recorded 2024-02-28 — Reel 066703/0509 (corrective of Reel 047332/0511)

• Conveyance: Corrective Assignment ("Corrective Assignment to correct the receiving party name")
• Assignor: Thomson Licensing (confirming)
• Assignee: InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS (France)
• Correspondent: Not retrievable from available sources.
• Context: Administrative correction of the assignee's legal entity name (adding "SAS") — a paperwork cleanup, not a new transfer of rights. Notably it was recorded 2024-02-28, i.e., ~19 months after this patent's adjusted expiration (2022-07-02), confirming it is a housekeeping filing affecting a portfolio rather than any assertion-driven step.

Deal counsel note (not a recording correspondent): Irell & Manella LLP is publicly identified as having represented Technicolor in the July 2018 sale. That is transaction counsel, not necessarily the attorney who signed the Assignment Center cover sheet, so I do not treat it as the correspondent of record.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7340612
    1999 : Priority applications filed
    2000 : PCT application filed
    2002 : inventors assign to Thomson Licensing SA
    2008 : Patent issues
         : Intra group transfer to Thomson Licensing
    2018 : Technicolor sells licensing business
         : Portfolio recorded to InterDigital
    2022 : Patent reaches adjusted expiration
    2024 : Corrective assignment fixes assignee name

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The 2018 transferee, InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS, is a wholly owned subsidiary of publicly traded InterDigital, Inc. (NASDAQ: IDCC), sited at 3 rue du Colonel Moll, 75017 Paris — a corporate operating address, not a registered-agent mail-drop. There is no single-member Delaware/Texas LLC, no "IP Ventures"-style anonymous naming, and the transfer is documented in the acquirer's SEC filings. The chain does show a transfer from an operating group's IP arm to a licensing-only entity (Reel 047332/0511), which is a substantive shift to non-practicing ownership even though it lacks shell indicia. Partial, but not the classic shell pattern.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Unclear / partial. The current assignee's ultimate parent, InterDigital, Inc., does not appear on the enumerated public NPE lists (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, MOSAID/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation, Spangenberg). It is, however, a high-frequency, high-profile patent plaintiff with documented campaigns (e.g., InterDigital v. Lenovo, D. Del. 1:19-cv-01590; InterDigital v. Disney, C.D. Cal. 2:25-cv-00895; InterDigital v. Amazon.com Services, E.D. Va. 2:25-cv-00822; related PTAB IPR2026-00195). Critically, none of those suits name US 7,340,612 — they involve mobile and video-coding patents from the wireless and Technicolor video assets. So the owner class is an active monetizer, but there is no evidence this specific patent was ever asserted.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Insufficient data. This is the signal I most wanted and could not establish: I was unable to retrieve the correspondent of record for Reels 012988/0691, 020341/0632, 047332/0511, or 066703/0509. I therefore cannot say whether one attorney or firm ran multiple links. Recording here as not determinable, not as absent.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Only two substantive transfers exist, 10 years apart (2008 intra-group; 2018 carve-out). Nothing approaching chained LLC hops within <24 months. The 2024 filing is a name correction on the same 2018 transaction, not a new link in a cascade.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. I found no litigation naming US 7,340,612, so there is no suit to which the 2018 transfer could be "pre-litigation." The 2018 execution date (2018-07-30) precedes no identified complaint. Also note the patent expired 2022-07-02, foreclosing later assertion.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present (distressed sale, but not a bankruptcy auction). Technicolor was under real financial pressure when it sold (licensing revenue fell 42% in 2016 and to ~€131M in 2017, driven by MPEG-2/MP3 patent expirations), and the sale was negotiated in Dec. 2017 — but it proceeded as a going-concern asset purchase agreement, not a Chapter 7/11 sale or court-supervised auction. The private-law sale structure (upfront cash + earn-out + grant-back) is that of an ordinary corporate divestiture.

7. Privateering — Present (partial / structural). The 2018 deal has the hallmark economics of a captive-licensing arrangement: Technicolor transferred the portfolio to InterDigital, which runs the licensing/assertion, while Technicolor retained (a) a 42.5% share of all future cash receipts from InterDigital's new consumer-electronics licensing efforts (per InterDigital's press release and 10-K, running through Dec. 31, 2038) and (b) a perpetual grant-back license to the transferred patents. That revenue-share-plus-grant-back structure is the definitional shape of "privateering" — the originating operating company retains upside from another party's enforcement while insulating itself behind the licensee. Caveat: because this patent expired in 2022, it could only have contributed to the earn-out for ~4 years, and I found no assertion of it.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain terminates at InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS / InterDigital, Inc. — an active monetizer. It does not end at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. Unified Patents' own page for this patent carries a "Likely Sold" flag and lists the parent company as InterDigital, consistent with a monetization rather than a neutralization outcome.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

The patent is owned by InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS (a wholly owned subsidiary of publicly traded InterDigital, Inc.), a non-practicing licensing entity that does not make or sell any product embodying the 1999-vintage home-network registration claims, following the recorded transfer at Reel 047332/0511 (effective 2018-07-30, recorded 2018-10-26) out of Thomson Licensing. That transfer was not an anonymous shell flip and no suit naming US 7,340,612 was found, so this is a moderate, not high, confidence call. The supporting signals are (a) ownership passing to a pure licensing entity and (b) the 42.5% revenue-share plus perpetual grant-back structure of the Technicolor/InterDigital deal (Reel 047332/0511; InterDigital press release 2018-07-31 and 2020 Form 10-K), which is privateering-shaped. The confounding facts — a public, R&D-backed, non-shell owner; no assertion of this specific patent; a purely administrative 2024 corrective assignment (Reel 066703/0509); and non-bankruptcy, non-cascading transfers — are why I do not go higher. Signal 3 (repeat correspondent) is undetermined because the correspondent fields were not retrievable with the tools available.

Verify the chain directly at the USPTO Assignment Center / Patent Assignment Search (search patent 7340612): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. Unified Patents corroboration: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-7340612-B1.

Cross-reference note (no contradiction): This is consistent with the previously generated Patent Summary, which found no 2026 CAFC activity and an adjusted expiration of 2022-07-02. The 2024-02-28 corrective assignment (Reel 066703/0509) is post-expiration housekeeping and does not disturb that conclusion. One minor inconsistency to keep flagged: the previous section reported the Unified Patents priority date as 1999-09-19, and the Unified page indeed shows 1999-09-19 / grant 2008-03-03 / expiration 2022-07-01 — one day earlier than Google Patents across the board (time-zone rendering), which I have again reported rather than harmonized.

I'll research the prior-art citations for US 7,340,612. Let me run targeted searches on the key references.

Let me search the remaining prior-art references.

Prior Art Analysis — US 7,340,612 B1

Scope and method. I took the citation list directly from the authoritative full text of US 7,340,612 B1 (Google Patents, https://patents.google.com/patent/US7340612/en), which is the same record served by the USPTO PatentCenter/Global Dossier for Application No. 10/088,622. The patent's face lists 9 "Patent Citations" (US/EP) and 3 "Family Cites Families." I keyed every search to the literal identifiers below and excluded similarly numbered documents (e.g., JP 7340612, U.S. Pat. No. 8,684,734), which did not appear in this record and are irrelevant here.

Important caveats up front:

• The source text does not reproduce the examiner's X/Y/A relevance codes from the file wrapper, so the § 102 relevance judgments below are my own technical analysis, not the examiner's categorization. I hit my tool-step limit before I could pull the actual USPTO PatentCenter/PTAB file-wrapper rejection record; I flag this as a limitation.
• I fully retrieved and read the disclosures of US 5,077,790, US 5,377,267, US 5,999,812, EP 0 658 021 and EP 0 658 021 family. For US 6,377,804, US 6,477,644, US 6,202,206, US 6,651,105, EP 0 944 203, and the three family-cite references I relied on titles/abstract plus training knowledge; those entries carry lower confidence and are marked ⚠.
• All references are pre-AIA (application filed 2000-09-20; priority 1999-09-20). Statutory categories are applied accordingly.

1. The citation ledger

A. "Patent Citations" on the face of US 7,340,612 (9 references)

B. "Family Cites Families" (3 references)

(The much longer "Cited By" / "Families Citing" lists are forward citations — later patents citing the '612 patent — and are not prior art; I exclude them from the § 102 analysis.)

2. Reference-by-reference: description and § 102 potential

1. US 5,077,790 A — Motorola (verified). Portable cordless handset sends a registration request containing a pre-entered link identification number and portable identification number to a base station; the network controller checks whether the portable ID is in its database and whether the subscriber is approved, then sends a registration information signal containing a subscriber ID encrypted with the user's key code plus an unencrypted link ID; the portable decrypts and stores the registration data, then completes an authentication challenge. Relevant concepts: user-entered code + controller-side check + over-the-air delivery of protected registration data + storage by the device. § 102 potential: partial only. It does not disclose the new-network/existing-network user prompt, a PIN that becomes the network-wide code, or "the device becomes the central controller." Useful as a § 102(b) base for the (f)/(g)-type checking-and-storing sub-elements and as § 103 art.

2. US 5,377,267 A — NTT (verified). Roaming authentication in which a mobile station sends its ID to a second network; the second network exchanges a "tentative authentication key" with the home network, which enciphers it under a permanent authentication key shared with the subscriber; the subscriber decrypts the tentative key and uses it for local authentication — deliberately avoiding disclosure of the permanent key. Relevant concept: layered distribution of an authentication key used in later challenge/response. § 102 potential: weak for claims 1/5 (no user PIN, no install/network-creation branch); reasonable § 103 art for dependent claims 3–4/6–7 (key = f(shared secret)).

3. EP 0 658 021 A1/B1 — IBM (verified; closest structural analog). Wireless-LAN key distribution in which the first installed base station generates a network key (Knet) and a backbone key (Kb); subsequent remote stations and additional base stations are installed using that first-installed base station "while avoiding communicating said network key." Installation reads a universal address (UA) from an adapter PROM, the user communicates the UA/name to the network manager, and keys are distributed via a preliminary key K1. Relevant concepts: first-installed device bootstraps the network key; later devices are enrolled through the already-installed unit; device identifier is involved. § 102 potential: moderate — the strongest of the cited references, but it still lacks (a) the user-prompted choice between "install a new network" and "install a device on an existing network," and (b) a user-entered PIN that becomes the network-wide code. It anticipates the key-generation-at-first-installed-device concept but not the claims as a whole. Good § 102(b)/§ 103 art.

4. US 5,999,812 A — Himsworth (verified). Self-registration/authentication for wireless telephony: the device runs a "SID-seeking" routine whose control flow branches on whether the device is being activated for the first time or has been previously activated; identification/authentication data is validated against an authorizing entity (local or central database), and the device records valid/invalid system codes. Relevant concept: two-branch device activation logic (first-time vs. subsequent). § 102 potential: weak — the branch is machine-driven, not the recited user prompt, and there is no PIN-as-network-code or "device becomes central controller." Best used as § 103 art for the branching architecture.

5. US 6,377,804 B1 — Nokia (⚠ title/abstract verified only). Method of operating a mobile telephone in overlapping GSM/UMTS coverage, registering with the GSM network for one service set and the UMTS network for another (roaming-for-service). Relevant concept: selective network registration. § 102 potential: very weak / background only. No PIN, no network-creation, no key distribution. I could not retrieve the full text before my search limit; treat the description as provisional.

6. EP 0 944 203 A2 — Nokia (⚠ not retrieved). "Mobile internet access." § 102 potential: weak / background. Note a date problem: its publication date is 1999-09-22, two days after the 1999-09-20 priority date, so under pre-AIA § 102(a)/(b) it is likely not available as prior art on the priority date (it could only matter if the invention date is later). I could not verify its disclosure.

7. US 6,477,644 B1 — Nokia (⚠ not retrieved). The US counterpart of EP 0 944 203 ("Mobile internet access"), filed 1998-02-09, granted 2002-11-05. Because it is a US patent with a filing date before the priority date, it is citable under pre-AIA § 102(e) despite granting later. § 102 potential: weak / background; likely directed to mobile data access rather than PIN-based device enrollment.

8. US 6,202,206 B1 — IBM (⚠ not retrieved). Simultaneous installation and configuration of programs/components across a network of server and client computers. Relevant concept: automated network installation/configuration. § 102 potential: weak for the wireless/PIN claims; possibly minor § 103 art for the "installation" framing.

9. US 6,651,105 B1 — IBM (⚠ not retrieved). Seamless networking support for mobile devices using serial communications (IEEE 1394-adjacent). Relevant concept: background on serial-bus device networking — the very environment the '612 specification discusses. § 102 potential: background only; no PIN/registration teaching.

10. WO 92/12584 A1 / EP 0 565 528 B1 — Motorola (verified family). Same disclosure as reference #1 (foreign/PCT publication of US 5,077,790; priority 1990-12-31, published 1992-07-23). § 102(b) printed publication. Same partial relevance as #1.

11. US 5,467,398 A — Motorola (⚠ not retrieved). "Method of messaging in a communication system." Relevant concept: secure messaging/key management in a wireless system. § 102 potential: background/weak; likely § 103 art at most.

12. US 5,513,171 A — AT&T (⚠ not retrieved). Dynamically deriving a telephone network-management database from network data. Relevant concept: network database management. § 102 potential: background only.

3. Which references are "most relevant"

Ranking by evidentiary value against the '612 claims:

1. EP 0 658 021 (IBM) — the only cited reference that expressly teaches the first-installed device generating the network key and enrolling later devices through it, i.e., the closest approach to claim 1's new-network/existing-network architecture. Missing: the user prompt and the network-wide user-entered PIN.
2. US 5,077,790 / WO 92/12584 (Motorola) — teaches user-entered code + controller check + over-the-air transmission of protected key material + device storage + subsequent authentication, i.e., the (e)–(g) loop. Missing: the new-network branch and "device becomes central controller."
3. US 5,999,812 (Himsworth) — teaches two-branch device activation (first-time vs. subsequent). Missing: it is machine-driven, not user-prompted, and no PIN/network-key.
4. All remaining references (Nokia, IBM 6,202,206 / 6,651,105, Motorola 5,467,398, AT&T 5,513,171) are background/§ 103 material.

4. Per-claim § 102 assessment

Claim 1 (independent). Anticipation requires a single reference disclosing all of: (a) the user prompt new-network vs. existing-network, (b) PIN that becomes the network-wide code, (c) auth-key generation, (d) device becomes central controller, (e)–(g) PIN check → send network auth key → store. No cited reference discloses (a)+(b)+(d) together. EP 0 658 021 comes closest on (c)/(d) (first installed base = key generator/central node) but is silent on the user prompt and the PIN. Conclusion: none of the cited references anticipates claim 1; the combination of EP 0 658 021 + US 5,077,790 + US 5,999,812 is the natural § 103 attack.

Claim 5 (independent). Adds the device sending PIN and a device identifier, and the controller generating (rather than forwarding) the key. US 5,077,790 discloses sending a portable ID + user-entered code to the controller, and EP 0 658 021 discloses using a device UA and controller-side key generation — but neither combines them with the user-prompted two-branch install flow. Conclusion: none anticipates claim 5.

Dependent claims:

• Claim 2 (random-generator key): anticipated by nothing cited specifically; background.
• Claim 3 / Claim 6 (key = f(device ID, PIN)): § 103 combination of US 5,077,790 (key code + portable ID) and EP 0 658 021 (device address + network key). No single-reference § 102 hit.
• Claim 4 / Claim 7 (key encrypted under a previously negotiated session key): US 5,077,790 discloses encrypting the registration secret with the user's key code, and EP 0 658 021 and US 5,377,267 disclose encrypted key delivery predicated on a pre-shared key — these are the best § 102/§ 103 bases for the encryption sub-limitation, though the "Diffie-Hellman–negotiated session key" nuance as recited is not squarely met by any one reference.

5. Limitations of this analysis

• I could not retrieve the USPTO file-wrapper/PTAB record showing the examiner's actual § 102/§ 103 rejections or X/Y codes; the relevance grades above are my own.
• Descriptions for US 6,377,804, US 6,477,644, US 6,202,206, US 6,651,105, EP 0 944 203, US 5,467,398 and US 5,513,171 are based on titles/abstracts and general knowledge, not full-text review, and are marked ⚠. If you need claim-chart-grade certainty on those, a full-text pull of each is required.
• Because the '612 patent expired 2022-07-02 (Expired – Lifetime) and no litigation/IPR is on record for this number (consistent with the earlier section), a formal invalidity contention is academic — but the above is the correct prior-art ledger if one is needed for prosecution-history or defensive purposes.

I'll research the prior art references cited on this patent before building the § 103 analysis.

Let me get details on the remaining cited references, especially the IBM and NTT ones.

Obviousness Analysis — US 7,340,612 B1

"Method for device registration in a wireless home network"
Assessed under 35 U.S.C. § 103, using the prior art listed in the "Patent Citations," "Family Cites Families," and the specification's own background admissions.

Scope caveat up front. I could not retrieve the full text/claims of three cited references within my search budget — US 5,377,267 (NTT), US 6,202,206 (IBM), and US 6,651,105 (IBM). For those I rely on their titles and general knowledge of their subject matter and flag that reliance explicitly. For US 5,077,790 / WO 92/12584 (Motorola), EP 0 658 021 (IBM), US 5,999,812 (Himsworth), and US 5,467,398 (Motorola) I retrieved abstracts/description text. I build on the previously generated summary and litigation sections rather than repeating them; no contradiction was found between those sections and this analysis.

I. Analytical framework

• Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966): (1) scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences between prior art and claims; (3) level of ordinary skill; (4) secondary considerations.
• KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007): a combination is obvious where the elements were known, the combination is a predictable variation, there is a design incentive/market pressure, and there is a reasonable expectation of success. The prior art need not "teach away" from the combination; the test is whether the improvement is "more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions."
• In re Nomiya / In re Fout line: statements in an applicant's own specification about what "has been proposed" or what was previously known are admissions usable as prior art against the claims.

That last point matters enormously here, because the specification contains explicit admissions that go to the heart of the claims (see §III below).

II. Level of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

Given the 1999-09-20 priority date and the HIPERLAN/2 + IEEE 1394 context, a POSITA would have: a bachelor's degree in EE/CS (or equivalent) plus ~2–3 years' experience, or a master's with ~1 year, in wireless data networking and/or applied cryptography — including familiarity with WLAN security architecture (ETSI BRAN HIPERLAN/2, IEEE 802.11), Diffie-Hellman key exchange, symmetric session keys, and challenge-response mutual authentication. This is a predictable, well-populated art at the time, which lowers the bar for combining references.

III. The specification's own admissions (a de facto primary reference)

The patent's description repeatedly characterizes the claimed scheme as previously "proposed":

1. "It has been proposed that a single common key be used for the whole network, and that this key be based on the GUID of the first Central Controller registered in the network." → This is claim 1(c)/(d) and claim 3 (key = f(device ID, PIN)) in substance.
2. "It is proposed to use a same PIN code on all the devices for device installation. This PIN code is entered by the user and exchanged over the air interface. It is checked by the CC, that can then communicate the authentication key." → This is claim 1(e)–(g) (ask PIN → CC checks PIN → CC sends authentication key) and the claim 1 preamble's "existing network" branch.
3. "the device then builds an authentication key by concatenating its own GUID and the entered PIN code… The device can then start CC operation (i.e. act as an HL2 Access Point)." → This is claim 1(b)–(d) and claim 3.

Put differently, the specification frames the invention's contribution as combining two previously-proposed workflows (first-device-creates-network-key; later-device-downloads-key-via-PIN) under a user-prompted branch menu (A: install new network / B: install device on existing network). That structure is a very strong § 103 posture: the two branches, standing alone, are admitted prior art, and the delta is a user-interface selection between them.

IV. The cited prior art and what it teaches

V. The decisive limitation-by-limitation mapping

Claim 1

Claim 5

Claim 5 differs from claim 1 in (i) the device sends a device identifier with the PIN, and (ii) the CC generates the key (rather than forwarding an existing one).

• Motorola '790 has the portable send its identification number to the controller.
• EP 0 658 021 derives the download value via a logical function of the station's universal address (UA).
• US 5,377,267 (NTT) and the admitted HIPERLAN/2 challenge-response teach using the resulting key in authentication.

So the (device-ID + PIN) → key-generation mapping is squarely suggested by Motorola '790 + EP 0 658 021, with the identifier/PIN functional combination also being the admitted prior art ("concatenating its own GUID and the entered PIN code").

Dependent claims

VI. The combinations, and why a POSITA would have made them

Combination 1 (strongest) — Motorola '790 in view of IBM EP 0 658 021, further in view of the spec's admitted HIPERLAN/2 PIN scheme

• Motorola '790 supplies the remote-registration-with-central-authorization scaffold: device → central controller with an identifier; controller verifies; controller returns a credential over the air; device stores it.
• EP 0 658 021 supplies the "first device creates the network key and becomes the authority; later devices are added using a code without the network key being exposed" architecture — i.e., the two branches of claim 1.
• Motivation: Both references address the same problem — secure, administrator-free installation of new devices into a wireless network — and both use the same mechanism (a first-installed authority + a user-supplied code to authorize later attachments). A POSITA seeking "plug-and-play" home installation (the stated design goal of the patent and the context of IEEE 1394) would combine them. The "new network vs. existing network" prompt is nothing more than exposing EP 0 658 021's inherent first-vs-subsequent distinction to the user, which is an ergonomic/predictable choice, not an inventive one.
• Reasonable expectation of success: Both are wireless-LAN installation schemes; there is no incompatibility. The combination yields predictable results (KSR).

Combination 2 — Combination 1 + Himsworth '812

• Himsworth '812 adds the device-side behaviors: scanning for a network, attempting registration, and searching for a different provider on failure (maintaining valid/invalid lists). This maps to the existing-network branch and to the patent's "if the device does not get the authentication key, it shall look for another frequency… and try again."
• Motivation: Himsworth expressly targets self-registration with plural networks — the same "which network am I joining?" problem the two-branch prompt solves. Combining it with Combination 1 is a combination of references addressing the same field with complementary teachings.

Combination 3 (the § 103 "admissions" attack) — The specification's admitted prior art (single network key based on the GUID of the first CC + user-entered PIN checked by the CC) in view of EP 0 658 021

• Standing alone, the admissions supply nearly every element of both branches. The only arguable gap is the two-branch user prompt of claim 1(a)/(preamble) and claim 5(a).
• Motivation/obviousness of the gap: Once the first device must generate the key (EP 0 658 021 / admitted prior art) and later devices must receive it via a PIN (admitted prior art), the device must know which mode it is in; the prompt is the necessary and obvious consequence. This is close to an "obvious to try" situation with a discrete, small set of options.

Combination 4 (for claim 5's key-generation branch) — Motorola '790 + EP 0 658 021 + NTT '267 / Motorola '398

• Adds the challenge-response use of the downloaded key (claim 1/5 "use in authentication procedures") and the encrypted delivery of the key (claims 4/7).

VII. KSR "articulated reasoning" — motivations to combine

1. Same field of endeavor / same problem: All primary references address secure registration/provisioning of wireless devices without an administrator. KSR, slip op. at 17.
2. Same mechanism, established function: The "first device = authority" pattern (EP 0 658 021) and the "controller authorizes and returns credential" pattern (Motorola '790) each perform their known functions in combination, with predictable results.
3. Design incentive / market pressure: The patent itself states the goal is to reduce user involvement to "just entering a PIN code" for home plug-and-play. This is a recognized design driver that points directly at the combination.
4. Obvious to try / finite options: Where the first device must generate and later devices must receive, the "install new network vs. join existing network" selection is one of a small, predictable number of options.
5. Predictable variation of a known technique: Encrypting a downloaded key with a session key (claims 4/7) was expressly known (Motorola '398; Diffie-Hellman negotiation admitted in the spec).

VIII. Weaknesses, counterarguments, and secondary considerations

I want to be balanced and not present this as a foregone conclusion.

Possible nonobviousness arguments:

1. The two-branch prompt is not squarely disclosed. No single cited reference shows a user interface that asks "install a new network OR install this device on an existing network" as a branch-point that reconfigures the device's role (CC vs. MT). A patentee would argue this role-switching menu is the point of novelty. Counter: it is a predictable UI consequence of the known first-vs-subsequent distinction (Combination 1/3), and the two branches themselves are admitted prior art.
2. EP 0 658 021 arguably "avoids communicating the network key" (its stated aim). This could be framed as a teaching away from claim 1(f)'s "sending an authentication key of the existing network." Counter: EP 0 658 021 does deliver a network-key-derived secret (name′ → Knet(name)) to the newly installed station, so it does not truly teach away; and claim 1(f)'s "authentication key of the existing network" reads on a network-derived key.
3. Secondary considerations: The record shows no known litigation, no license-demand campaign, and an expired term (2022-07-02), per the previously generated sections and Google Patents. There is no evidence of record of commercial success, long-felt need, failure of others, or copying that is nexus-linked to the claims. Absent such evidence, the § 103 case is not rebutted. (Conversely, absence of litigation is not evidence of nonobviousness either — it is simply an absence of secondary-consideration evidence.)

Where the obviousness case is strongest vs. weakest:

• Strongest: claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 — each is a conventional implementation detail (random key generation; key = f(device ID, PIN); session-key encryption) individually taught or admitted.
• Strongest independent: claim 1, because both of its branches are effectively admitted prior art and the delta is a routine UI selection.
• Relatively weakest: the specific two-branch user-prompt limitation of claim 5(a) (and claim 1's preamble), which no single reference shows verbatim — but which is obvious under KSR in view of EP 0 658 021's first-vs-subsequent distinction plus Himsworth '812's first-activation-vs-reactivation distinction.

IX. Bottom line

On the cited prior art, claims 1–7 would likely be held obvious under § 103, primarily via:

Motorola US 5,077,790 (registration + central authorization + over-the-air credential download) in view of IBM EP 0 658 021 (first-installed device generates the network key and becomes the authority; later devices join via a code), optionally in view of Himsworth US 5,999,812 (self-registration / retry-on-failure), and further in view of Motorola US 5,467,398 and NTT US 5,377,267 for the encrypted key delivery and authentication-key-secrecy limitations of claims 4 and 7.

The combination is supported by (i) the same-problem/same-field relationship of the references, (ii) EP 0 658 021's express first-device-authority architecture, and (iii) the specification's own admissions that the core single-key/PIN scheme "has been proposed." The main residual vulnerability of the § 103 attack is that no reference discloses the literal "install a new network or install this device on an existing network" prompt — but that limitation is a predictable user-interface selection among a small number of known options, which KSR treats as obvious.

Confidence: High for the claim mappings grounded in retrieved reference text (Motorola '790, EP 0 658 021, Himsworth '812, Motorola '398) and for the spec-admission argument. Lower for US 5,377,267, US 6,202,206, and US 6,651,105, where I relied on titles/general knowledge because I could not retrieve their full text within the search budget — I did not fabricate their contents, and any of my characterizations of those three should be independently verified against the reference documents before being relied upon.

This is a technical obviousness assessment, not a legal opinion. A formal validity opinion would require the full texts of US 5,377,267, US 6,202,206, and US 6,651,105, and would need to consider the priority-date sufficiency of each reference.