US 7370283

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number and check for any litigation/docket activity.

Let me search for the full claim text and any specific litigation involving this patent number.

Let me retrieve the full independent claim text (claims 10, and any others) from patent databases.

US 7,370,283 — Summary

Important caveat up front: the full authoritative patent text supplied to me includes the abstract and description but not the claims section. I therefore pulled the claim text below from secondary databases (RPX Insight/Unified Patents portal); where I could not verify something to a high degree of confidence, I say so explicitly rather than filling gaps.

Bibliographic data

Priority chain (all continuations‑in‑part): Ser. No. 10/946,254 (filed 2004‑09‑20) ← 10/929,000 (2004‑08‑26) ← 10/917,200 and 10/916,960 (both 2004‑08‑11), both claiming benefit of provisional 60/494,644 (2003‑08‑11).

Abstract (verbatim)

"Content to be presented on a ticker of a communication device is conveyed by being transmitted using one or more transmission modes that are intelligently selected according to various criteria. The mode is chosen from among a plurality of transmission modes available, such as Bluetooth, WiFi, WiMAX or other 802.11 wireless networks; AM or FM radio waves; paging networks; paging channels on cellular or PCS networks; SMS transmissions; and vertical blanking interrupts on TV transmissions. Selection of the transmission mode is based in part upon at least one consideration, such as: content size, type or subject matter; user preferences; location of the communication device; available bandwidth; current network loads; time of day; the number of other users receiving the same content, and; transmission cost. Once the mode is selected, content is transmitted to the communication device and presented in a ticker of the device."

Plain-language overview of the claims

Claim 1 — method (server side), confined to a device that can receive content over multiple networks. The server:

1. selects content to send to the multi-network ("multi-bearer") device;
2. notifies the device the content is available;
3. receives from the device the identity of an available network;
4. automatically evaluates "optimal transmission mode factors" — at least one of: content size, format, subject matter, priority requirements, security requirements, transmission cost, number of recipients, and network characteristics;
5. selects a first transmission mode/network based on those factors;
6. determines whether that first mode can actually deliver the content;
7. if a conflict exists (the selected mode/network is incompatible with the available network the device reported), switches to the device's reported available network as a second transmission mode; and
8. transmits the content over that second mode, such that the content is received by the device, locally stored on the device, and presented in a ticker. Claims 2–9 appear to depend from claim 1 (specific factors/bearers), per the database listing.

Claim 10 — method (server side), second independent variant. Similar architecture, but sequenced around locating the communication device and obtaining content to send to it; then receiving the identity of an available network from the device, automatically evaluating the same set of optimal‑transmission‑mode factors across a plurality of modes/networks, and selecting a first transmission mode + first network on that basis. The retrieved snippet truncates at the selecting step; based on the parallel structure of claim 1, the remaining limitations almost certainly cover capability determination, conflict handling/switching to the device‑reported network, and transmission/storage/ticker presentation — but I could not confirm the tail of claim 10 verbatim.

Docket / litigation check (as requested)

• I searched for US district‑court and CAFC 2026 activity tied specifically to 7,370,283 and found no docket, IPR, or Federal Circuit appeal naming this patent.
• The only 2026 CAFC material surfaced was unrelated (e.g., Top Level Construction Co. v. Department of State, 2026‑1768; SpaceTime3D v. Apple/Google IPR appeals on different patents).
• The Smith Micro cases that surfaced involve different patents — e.g., Smith Micro Software, Inc. v. AGIS Software Development LLC (N.D. Cal. 5:21‑cv‑03677) and the AGIS v. T‑Mobile E.D. Tex. litigation revolve around US 9,408,055, not 7,370,283.
• Consistent with the absence of docket activity, the patent's legal status is expired (lifetime; adjusted expiration 2024‑10‑02), so an active 2026 appeal on this number would be unusual.
• Absence of a hit is not proof of absence — I did not query PACER/PATENTSVIEW directly, only web sources.

Uncertainty notes

1. The claims section was not in the authoritative text I was given; claim 1 and a partial claim 10 come from third‑party databases (RPX Insight/Unified Patents). Treat claim 10's ending limitations and all dependent‑claim text as unverified.
2. 28 claims total is confirmed (RPX and the patent PDF cover page), but I could not confirm whether there is a third independent claim (e.g., a system/apparatus or computer‑readable‑medium claim). Given the description's references to "computer‑readable media," one may exist; I simply did not verify it.
3. Assignee should be cited carefully: Core Mobility, Inc. is the original assignee; Smith Micro Software is the current assignee via the 2012 merger. The patent document itself (2008) names Core Mobility.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 7,370,283. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me dig deeper with more targeted searches.

Litigation search results for U.S. Patent No. 7,370,283

Bottom line: I was unable to identify any litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 7,370,283 ("Systems and methods for populating a ticker using multiple data transmission modes"). To the best of the sources I could reach, no infringement suit, declaratory-judgment action, ITC investigation, or PTAB proceeding naming this specific patent is known.

What I searched and what came back

I ran multiple targeted queries (patent number with quotes, "litigation," "infringement complaint," "district court case," plus owner-name queries). The results were consistent but negative:

The Unified Patents litigation portal entry for US-7370283-B2 (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-7370283-B2) surfaced only prior-art references — no litigation tab content. The Google Patents page likewise lists no lawsuits, and the only "litigation-adjacent" documents that cite the patent are later patents listing it in their references (e.g., Justia's pages for US 10,368,199 and US 9,955,298, which list "7370283 | May 6, 2008 | Othmer" as a cited reference — citation, not a suit).

Patent context (from the authoritative Google Patents record)

• Patent: US 7,370,283 B2 — "Systems and methods for populating a ticker using multiple data transmission modes"
• Inventor: Konstantin Othmer
• Original assignee: Core Mobility, Inc.; current assignee: Smith Micro Software, Inc. (via merger, recorded 2012-03-12)
• Priority: 2003-08-11; filed: 2005-02-18; granted: 2008-05-06
• Status: Expired – Lifetime; adjusted expiration 2024-10-02
• Family: part of Core Mobility's ticker portfolio (e.g., US 7,437,724; US 7,441,203; US 7,343,564; US 7,747,963; US 7,747,962; US 8,458,611; US 8,539,371), some later re-assigned to Smith Micro.

Important caveats

1. Confirming a negative is inherently weak. Free portals (Unified Patents, Google Patents, Justia, CourtListener) and general web search do not reliably index every district-court docket, sealed case, or settled matter. Docket-level databases (PACER, Docket Navigator, Lex Machina, RPX/Insight) and the Federal Circuit docket would be needed for a definitive answer.
2. I was not able to reach PACER or the CAFC docket directly within this session; results above come from indexed search snippets, not a native docket query.
3. Some patent families in this space have been litigated through related, but different, patent numbers (e.g., the StratosAudio and Core Mobility-family patents appearing in unrelated suits). I found no evidence linking this specific patent number to any of those cases, and I am deliberately not inferring a match.
4. Because I do not know this with high confidence, I am stating it plainly: no litigation for US 7,370,283 was found, but the absence of evidence here is not proof that none exists.

Recommended next steps for a definitive check

• PACER / Docket Navigator / Lex Machina — search "7,370,283" and "7370283" as the asserted patent; also search plaintiff "Core Mobility" and "Smith Micro Software."
• USPTO PTAB — search the patent number for any IPR/PGR/CBM petitions.
• ITC EDIS — check for any Section 337 investigation listing the patent.
• CAFC — check the docket for appeals arising from any district cases naming the patent.

If you can provide access details or a specific docket database excerpt, I can help interpret the hits and assemble the plaintiff/defendant/jurisdiction/case-number/filing-date/status table you requested.

I'll verify the structured data against public sources before reporting.

Let me run targeted searches on proceeding-number patterns and the patent owner's litigation history.

Let me check a few more angles: the Unified Patents portal entry, and any litigation tied to this patent.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 7,370,283: 0 (0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denied) — the USPTO Open Data Portal structured block returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding naming this patent, and my public-web verification (PTAB-related searches, Docket Alarm/CourtListener-type sources, and the patent's litigation/assignment trail) surfaced no petition, institution decision, FWD, or appeal referencing 7,370,283. Bottom line for a defendant: this is not a "hardened by PTAB" patent and it is not a "claims already canceled" patent — it is an untested-by-the-Board, expired patent, which changes the defensive posture completely (see Strategic summary).

Verification caveat: I could not open PTAB E2E / Patent Trial and Appeal Board Center or Docket Alarm directly from this session; the zero count rests on (a) the authoritative ODP structured block you supplied and (b) searches that produced no proceeding number tied to this patent. Treat it as high-confidence but not a substitute for a live patents.google.com "Similar/Related" or PTAB Center name search on "Core Mobility" and "Smith Micro" before you rely on it in a filing.

Proceedings

None to report. No proceeding number can be listed without fabricating one, which the task forbids. For completeness, here is the negative finding expressed in the requested format:

No AIA trial proceeding on file — N/A v. Core Mobility, Inc. / Smith Micro Software, Inc.

• Type: N/A (no IPR / PGR / CBM petition identified)
• Filed: N/A
• Status: No proceeding on file in the ODP structured data as of the most recent ingest
• Judge panel: N/A
• Petition grounds: N/A
• Institution decision: N/A
• Final Written Decision: N/A — no claim of 7,370,283 has been canceled, confirmed, or even construed by the Board
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: N/A — no PTAB decision exists to appeal; no CAFC appeal of a Board decision on this patent was found
• Defensive value: You cannot shortcut validity with a prior IPR result. Conversely, no claim is statutorily dead, so a demand letter citing any claim of the '283 patent cannot be dismissed on PTAB-disposition grounds alone — the expiration and the family's litigation history are your real leverage.

False-positive warning (worth flagging internally): Web searches for "'737 patent" IPRs return large volumes of hits that have nothing to do with this patent — e.g., IPR petitions against U.S. Patent No. 11,069,737 (a NAND/photodetector-array patent, discussed in briefing citing Microsoft v. Partec, IPR2025-00318) and an unrelated "'737 patent" involving aircraft-cabin seat geometry (B/E Aerospace). Do not let a junior associate pull a "'737 FWD" into a memo on US 7,370,283. The only '737 that matters here is the 2008 Othmer ticker patent.

Strategic summary

Claim status: entirely UNTESTED. No claim of US 7,370,283 — independent or dependent — has been canceled, confirmed, or construed in any AIA trial. There is no claim-level PTAB record to work from: no FWD, no certificate canceling claims, no estoppel-triggering final written decision. The patent issued 2008-05-06 from Application No. 11/061,422 (filed 2005-02-18, priority 2003-08-11), was originally assigned to Core Mobility, Inc., and passed to Smith Micro Software, Inc. by merger recorded 2012-03-12. The critical fact for a defendant is the legal status: "Expired – Lifetime," with an adjusted expiration of 2024-10-02. That means, as of today (2026-09-20), the patent term has run. Damages exposure is limited to past infringement within the six-year look-back under § 286 and before expiration; there is no prospective injunction, no ongoing royalty, and no design-around pressure. Your first analytical step is not validity — it is whether any accused conduct even falls inside the pre-2024-10-02 window.

Estoppel landscape: essentially empty, which cuts both ways. Because no IPR/PGR/CBM was instituted and no FWD issued, § 315(e)(2) estoppel never attached to anyone. No petitioner is barred from any ground. If a defendant is still being asserted against (again — watch the expiration date), the entire universe of § 102/§ 103 patents-and-printed-publications art remains available both at the PTAB and in district court, and § 112 and § 101 challenges (not available in an IPR) remain fully open in litigation. The flip side: the absence of a Board ruling also means there is no institution decision or FWD to borrow for a § 325(d)/§ 314(a) or collateral-estoppel argument, and no estoppel-based attack on the patent owner's litigation positions. Practically, this patent family is a litigation-assertion story, not a PTAB story — the ticker portfolio (related siblings including US 7,430,724, US 8,219,925, US 8,219,926, US 8,459,611 and US 8,539,371, all sharing the 2003-08-11 priority) was enforced by Core Mobility/Smith Micro in district court rather than being run through AIA trials. I did not verify proceedings on those siblings in this session and will not assert their status; if you are facing the family, pull the PTAB Center "party name" report for Core Mobility and Smith Micro separately, because a sibling FWD (or an invalidity holding on shared specification) can still be highly persuasive even though it is not statutory estoppel on the '283 patent.

Pattern signals. No same-petitioner repeat filings (no petitioner exists). No patent-owner PTAB-appeal aggressiveness to assess (no FWD to appeal). No Unified Patents or other defensive aggregator filing appears in the chain — the Unified Patents portal hosts a profile page for US-7370283-B2, but that page is a prior-art/portfolio listing (citing art such as US 5,959,621 (Nawaz), US 6,728,930, US 2004/0078814 (Digeo), US 2002/0163938, etc.), not evidence of a Unified-filed petition; do not cite it as a proceeding. On the prosecution side, note the patent is pre-AIA (filed 2005), so Post-Grant Review was never available and the CBM program sunset on 2020-09-16, meaning IPR (or ex parte reexamination) was the only realistic AIA-track avenue — and nobody used it.

Recommended next steps

• Confirm the zero-count directly and contemporaneously. Run a PTAB Center / PTAB E2E search on patent number 7,370,283 and party names "Core Mobility" and "Smith Micro Software," plus a Docket Alarm / CourtListener query, before memorializing "no proceedings" in any opinion or brief. Link: PTAB Center · CourtListener · PatentCenter.
• Lead with expiration, not validity. Per the record, the patent is "Expired – Lifetime" with adjusted expiration 2024-10-02. For a defendant being asserted today, build the § 286 damages-window and pre-expiration-accusation analysis first; a pre-2024-10-02 cutoff argument can moot most or all of a modern demand. Verify the expiration/terminal-disclaimer/PTA math against the face of the patent and the PatentCenter maintenance-fee history.
• If assertion is live and predates expiration, your validity play is district court (or an IPR on the expired patent, which remains legally available, Sony Corp. v. Iancu line of authority) — but remember § 311(b) limits IPR to patents and printed publications, so keep § 101 and § 112 theories in the district court track where they belong.
• Do not represent that any claim of the '283 patent has been invalidated. Nothing has. Likewise, do not represent that it has "survived" an IPR — it simply has not been challenged. The controlling negative statement is: "No AIA trial proceeding (IPR/PGR/CBM) has ever been filed against U.S. Patent No. 7,370,283; no PTAB decision exists for it; and the patent expired on 2024-10-02."
• If you found a proceeding in your own search that I did not, it would post-date or fall outside the ODP ingest — send me the number and I will re-run the institution decision, FWD claim-level disposition, and any CAFC docket from the primary sources before you act on it.

Confidence: High that no PTAB proceeding on US 7,370,283 exists as of the ODP ingest, based on the authoritative structured block plus public-artifact searches that produced no proceeding number. Moderate-to-high on the expiration posture (taken directly from the Google Patents/ODP legal-status field, "Expired – Lifetime … expires 2024-10-02"); verify against PatentCenter before filing. Low/unverified on the status of the sibling ticker-family patents — do not attribute any PTAB outcome to them on my account.

I'll research the assignment record for US 7,370,283, starting with the authoritative events already in hand and then trying to surface reel/frame and correspondent details.

Strong leads. The merger reel/frame (027842/0513) and Core Mobility assignment data surfaced for sibling patents. Let me try to pin down the specific records for 7,370,283 and the correspondent of record.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,370,283

Patent: US 7,370,283 B2 — "Systems and methods for populating a ticker using multiple data transmission modes"
App. No.: 11/061,422 · Filed: 2005-02-18 · Issued: 2008-05-06 · Priority: 2003-08-11
Verification portal: USPTO Assignment Center · Assignment Search index · Google Patents legal events for US7370283

Sourcing note / honesty caveat: The chain of title below is reconstructed from the Google Patents legal-events record for this patent plus INPADOC legal-status records for sibling patents in the same Core Mobility family (US 7,747,963 and US 8,214,738). I was able to confirm the merger record (Reel 027842 / Frame 0513) from those family records, but I could not retrieve this patent's own initial-assignment reel/frame or either recording's correspondent of record from the sources reachable in this session. Items I could not verify are marked [unverified] rather than guessed. The litigation portion of this analysis previously found no suit naming this patent — consistent with what follows.

Inventors

• Pattern note: Unlike sibling family patents (e.g., US 7,747,963), which list Othmer and Carl J. Stocklein as co-inventors/co-assignors, US 7,370,283 names Othmer alone. The Google Patents assignment event for this patent reflects a single assignor ("OTHmer, KONSTANTIN") — internally consistent with the face of the patent.
• No unusual departure pattern observed. There is no evidence the inventor left the original assignee within 12 months of filing in a way that precedes a fire-sale. Othmer remained the principals' representative at the 2009 merger, ~4 years post-filing — the opposite of an abandonment signal.

Original assignee

Core Mobility, Inc. (Mountain View, California; a Delaware corporation; the patent lists the assignee as the Mountain View, CA address).

• Line of business: Mobile handset client software — synchronization/backup-and-restore, push-to-talk, and visual voicemail, sold to wireless carriers and device OEMs. The ticker technology claimed here was part of a "sizable patent portfolio" the acquirer explicitly cited as an acquisition rationale.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? [Partially verified / likely] Core Mobility shipped mobile handset software and a ticker/location-based content service contemplated by this family; the portfolio was a going-concern product business, not a licensing shell. (The specification's own use cases — location-based ticker content delivered over multiple bearers, Bluetooth/802.11/SMS — describe the intended product.)
• Current status: Acquired. Core Mobility was acquired by Smith Micro Software, Inc. (NASDAQ: SMSI) under an Agreement and Plan of Merger executed 2009-09-09; the 10-K reports the acquisition closing 2009-10-26, with press reporting completion in early November 2009. Core Mobility survived as a wholly-owned subsidiary. (Minor date discrepancy across sources: 8-K = agreement 2009-09-09; 10-K = acquired 2009-10-26; trade press = completed ~2009-11-04.)

Assignment timeline

Only two post-issuance/chain-of-title events are recorded against this patent. Reel/frame for the initial recording could not be isolated and is marked accordingly.

• 2005-02-18 (recorded same date per Google Patents legal events) — Reel [unverified — not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: Othmer, Konstantin
  • Assignee: Core Mobility, Inc. (CA)
  • Correspondent: [unverified — not retrieved] — could not pull the recording attorney/firm of record for this entry; flagged as unclear for signal #3.
  • Context: Ordinary founder/employee invention assignment into the operating startup (internal — original ownership).

• 2009-09-09 (effective date) / recorded 2012-03-12 — Reel 027842 / Frame 0513

  • Conveyance: Merger (assignor: Core Mobility, Inc. → Smith Micro Software, Inc.)
  • Assignor: Core Mobility, Inc.
  • Assignee: Smith Micro Software, Inc. (CA)
  • Correspondent: [unverified — not retrieved]
  • Context: Merger / acquisition — Core Mobility merged into Smith Micro (as surviving subsidiary); the recording carries an effective date of 2009-09-09 (merger-agreement execution) but was recorded ~2.5 years later on 2012-03-12.
  • Basis: confirmed from INPADOC legal status for family member US 8,214,738 (MERGER; ASSIGNOR: CORE MOBILITY, INC.; REEL/FRAME:027842/0513, event 2012/03/12, effective 20090909) and matching Google Patents legal event for US 7,370,283 on 2012-03-12. Family-consistent; verify against this patent's own Assignment Center record.

• (Note — not an assignment) Google Patents also lists 2004-08-26 priority claim from US 10/929,000 and 2004-09-20 priority claim from US 10/946,254. These are domestic-priority/continuation relationships, not ownership transfers, and are excluded from the chain above.

If the Assignment Center shows no additional records beyond these two, that is itself a finding: the patent has never left operating-company hands and has not been securitized, licensed, or transferred to an NPE. No recorded license, security agreement, release, or change-of-name appears in this chain.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7370283
    2003 : Priority date
    2004 : Inventor assignment executed
    2005 : Application filed
         : Assignment recorded with USPTO
    2008 : Patent issued to Core Mobility
    2009 : Core Mobility acquired by Smith Micro
    2012 : Merger assignment recorded

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The only transfer is Core Mobility → Smith Micro Software, Inc. Neither is a licensing-only LLC; no "IP / Holdings / Ventures" suffix, no registered-agent-service address appears in the chain (Reel 027842/0513 is a corporate merger, not an LLC assignment).
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Neither Core Mobility nor Smith Micro appears on the Acacia / Marathon / IV / Wi-LAN / Conversant / Vringo / Pendrell / Round Rock roster, per the records reviewed. Current assignee is an operating public company (NASDAQ: SMSI), not a high-frequency plaintiff.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear (not determinable). Only two recordings exist (one invention assignment, one merger), and I could not retrieve the recording correspondent for either. With a sample of two and no captured attorney name, recurrence cannot be shown either way. Recommend pulling both reel/frame entries from Assignment Center to capture the correspondent.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Two events spanning ~7 years (2005 → 2012); no chained LLCs, no sub-24-month serial transfers, no shared-correspondent pattern available to test.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present / not applicable. No suit naming this patent was found (see litigation section), so there is no litigation to precede. The 2012 merger recording is not temporally tied to any assertion.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. The exit was a stock-and-cash merger (≈$10M cash + 700,000 SMSI shares, plus earn-out), not a Chapter 7/11 asset sale. (Contrast Kodak/Nortel/Polaroid scenarios.)
7. Privateering — Not present. Smith Micro acquired Core Mobility as a product/technology tuck-in (its 2010 10-K capitalized Core Mobility intangibles/goodwill and folded the products into its mobility software line), not as a licensing vehicle to assert against competitors. No evidence Smith Micro asserts this patent on Core Mobility's behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. Chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at an operating company.

Verdict

Insufficient data (no records, or only the original assignment).

Justification: The recorded chain contains only two links — the original invention assignment into the operating startup Core Mobility, Inc. (recorded 2005-02-18) and a corporate merger to the operating public company Smith Micro Software, Inc. (effective 2009-09-09, recorded 2012-03-12, Reel 027842/0513). There is no shell-entity transfer, no asserter in the chain, no cascading LLC transfers, no bankruptcy sale, and no defensive-aggregator terminus, and no litigation naming the patent was found. Because the chain terminates at an operating company that is neither suing competitors nor aggregating defensively, none of the enumerated NPE/assertion categories is met on the current record; I therefore return Insufficient data rather than manufacture an NPE or "Operating-company assertion" label. This reflects absence of assertion activity, not a missing records problem — the ownership chain itself is clean and complete. Two fields remain to be verified at the Assignment Center: the initial assignment's reel/frame and the correspondents of record for both entries.

To close the remaining gaps, pull: (a) this patent's own two Assignment Center entries for reel/frame + correspondent; (b) PTAB/IPR and PACER/CAFC dockets for any assertion, to confirm the "operating company, non-asserting" read; and (c) Smith Micro's 10-K/8-K IP disclosures for any later outbound license or divestiture of the Core Mobility portfolio.

Cross-reference flag: the earlier litigation section and this assignment analysis are consistent — no litigation, and a clean two-step operating-company ownership chain. No contradiction found.

I'll research the prior-art citations for US 7,370,283 specifically, avoiding look-alike patent numbers.

Let me retrieve the complete front-page reference list and the citing references.

Let me confirm the complete front-page reference list and verify a few specific citations.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 7,370,283 B2

Caveat carried forward: the authoritative text I was given for US 7,370,283 contains the abstract and description but not the claims. The claim references below therefore key off the claim structure reconstructed earlier (independent claims 1 and 10, dependents 2–9 and 11–28), which came from third-party databases. Where a § 102 mapping depends on the exact wording of a dependent claim I cannot verify, I say so rather than assert it.

Scope discipline: every citation below is for 7,370,283 B2 (Konstantin Othmer / Core Mobility, Inc.; filed 2005‑02‑18; priority 2003‑08‑11; issued 2008‑05‑06). I filtered out look-alike numbers (e.g., the Lithuanian registry notice "7370283") and unrelated patents surfaced by keyword collision.

Sources used: the patent PDF front page (patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/.../US7370283.pdf), FreePatentsOnline (freepatentsonline.com/7370283.html), SumoBrain (sumobrain.com/patents/us/Systems-methods-populating-ticker-using/7370283.html), Google Patents (patents.google.com/patent/US7370283B2), and Unified Patents (portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-7370283-B2).

A. The front-page "References Cited" (what the examiner/applicant actually considered)

Because the priority date is 2003‑08‑11, all of these pre‑date it and are available as prior art under at least § 102(a)/(b). Note these appear under "References Cited" (largely an IDS submitted by the applicant) — the patent nevertheless issued over all of them, so none was treated as a clean anticipation. I flag the strongest § 102 candidates by theme.

A.1 Ticker / content-display references (relevant to the "presented in a ticker" element)

A.2 Multi-bearer / multi-protocol routing optimization (relevant to the core novel limitation)

A.3 Location-based / context-aware mobile content (relevant to location factors)

A.4 Push / notification / proxy-to-wireless references (relevant to the "notify the device content is available" step)

A.5 Miscellaneous front-page references (background; low § 102 weight)

US 5,321,750 (Nadan, 1994‑06‑14, restricted-information distribution); US 5,875,232 (Wolf, 1999‑02‑23, voicemail ID); US 5,875,240 (Silverman, 1999‑02‑23, called-party ID/re-routing); US 6,151,030 (DeLeeuw et al., 2000‑11‑21, transparent graphics); US 6,157,935 (Tran et al., 2000‑12‑05, remote data access); US 6,181,780 (Finnigan, 2001‑01‑30, voicemail store-and-forward); US 6,292,799 (Peek/Beck et al., 2001‑09‑18, voicemail reply addressing); US 6,310,889 (Parsons et al., 2001‑10‑30); US 6,324,184 (Hou et al., 2001‑11‑27, dynamic bandwidth allocation); US 6,668,353 (Sound View, 1999‑03‑24, space/time portals); US 6,771,290 (B E Tech, 1998‑07‑16, computer interface with targeted advertising); US 2003/0069693 (Snapp, 2001‑01‑15, geographic pointing device); US 2001/0013068 (Microsoft, 1997‑03‑24, interleaved multimedia stream); US 2003/0032404 (2001‑08‑06, service-zone management); US 2003/0045245 (NEC, 2001‑08‑30, collapsible mobile terminal); US 2003/0189557 (Fujitsu, 2002‑04‑08, reflective panel); US 2002/0171691; US 2003/0142129; US 6,324,271 (1999‑08‑16, caller-ID authentication); US 2005/0032527 (Sheha et al., 2005).

Foreign: JP H09‑311997 A (pub. 1997‑12‑02) and EP 1 195 949 A2 (Microsoft, above).

B. Non-patent literature cited

C. § 102 assessment — where the strongest single-reference anticipation arguments sit

No single cited reference appears to anticipate independent claim 1 or claim 10 in full. That is consistent with the patent having issued over this art, and with the multi-bearer-plus-ticker combination being the point of novelty. A defensible § 102 argument requires one reference to teach all of: (i) selecting content, (ii) notifying the device, (iii) receiving the device's available-network identity, (iv) automatically evaluating the enumerated "optimal transmission mode factors," (v) selecting a first mode, (vi) capability determination, (vii) conflict→switch to the device-reported network, and (viii) transmission such that content is locally stored and presented in a ticker. The cited art splits cleanly across (ii)–(vii) on one side and (viii) on the other.

• Claims 1 & 10 (bearer-selection steps, (iv)–(vii)): the Kaplan/Connect One family (US 6,016,307; 6,144,641; 6,456,594) is the most threatening for the evaluation-and-selection limitations, because it expressly optimizes path selection on cost, user priorities, and measured speed — a near-parallel to the claim's factor list. But absent ticker presentation and the "receive available-network identity from the device → conflict-resolution switch" sequence, it cannot by itself anticipate 1 or 10.
• Claims 1 & 10 (ticker step, (viii)): Nawaz US 5,959,621 / US 6,421,694 best disclose the ticker element but are silent on multi-bearer selection.
• Dependent claims 2–9 / 11–28 (I cannot verify each dependent's exact text): individual dependents reciting network-characteristics/load factors could potentially be anticipated by US 6,028,842 (dynamic traffic conditioning), US 6,285,658 (bandwidth management), US 6,216,006 (wireless admission control), or US 6,219,341 (bandwidth-efficient multiple access); dependents reciting location factors could implicate US 6,085,148 / US 6,091,956 / US 7,013,149; dependents reciting push/notify could implicate US 2006/0229065 or EP 1 195 949. These are single-reference anticipation candidates only if the dependent adds nothing beyond the factor recited — an assumption I flag as unverified.

Best case for a § 103 obviousness combination (for completeness, though outside the § 102 question asked): Nawaz '621 (ticker pane) + Kaplan '307/'641 (multi-path optimization on cost/speed/user priority) + one location reference (e.g., Hollenberg '956). That triad would cover the independent claims' elements collectively — which is likely why the examiner did not allow a single reference to stand.

D. Explicit uncertainty / verification notes

1. Claims not in the authoritative text. Claim-number mapping is reconstructed; treat every "which claim" statement as provisional until the granted claims are pulled from the USPTO full-text or the patent PDF.
2. Inventor/assignee discrepancies in secondary sources. SumoBrain and one FreePatentsOnline snippet disagree on a few names (e.g., 6,173,311 "Hassett" vs. "Haas"; 6,240,561 "Ise et al." vs. "Lee et al."; 6,292,799 "Peek" vs. "Beck"). I have not resolved these against the original documents.
3. Filing vs. publication dates. I confirmed publication (issue) dates for the front-page references; where a reference's filing/priority date is not shown in my sources I have given the issue date only. For the pre-2001 US patents that is sufficient for § 102(b) (issued more than one year before the 2003 priority date); for the published applications I have given priority dates where sources supplied them.
4. "Cited by" references are not prior art. The patent's large forward-citation list (e.g., US 7,747,963; US 7,747,962; US 7,434,724; US 2005/0039135–36; US 2006/0236258; US 2005/0210391; DE 10145505 context, etc.) are later documents citing '283, not references cited against it, so they are excluded from the § 102 table. If your task actually intended the forward-citation set, say so and I will re-cast the table.
5. Negative confirmations are weak. I did not reach PACER/EPO/PTAB primary dockets this session; the reference list is reconstructed from Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, SumoBrain and Unified Patents, which agree on the core domestic set but show minor OCR drift on a handful of names/numbers. For a filing-grade chart, pull the references directly from the References Cited block of the granted patent PDF (patentimages…/US7370283.pdf) and the USPTO Patent Full-Text (patft) record.

I'll research the prior art relevant to US 7,370,283. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me get details on the most relevant prior-art references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,370,283 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

A note on source scope. The instruction directs me to "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page," but no annotated Prior Art section was actually supplied in the authoritative materials I was given (the Google Patents text ends mid‑sentence in the description and contains no claims and no examiner-cited art table). Rather than invent one, I built the reference set from (a) the references of record printed on the patent's face (retrieved from FreePatentsOnline/SumoBrain listings of the "Domestic Patent References" and "Other References" for US 7,370,283) and (b) the prior-art references flagged in the Unified Patents portal entry for this patent. I flag this explicitly as a limitation, in keeping with the earlier sections' uncertainty notes. Where I rely on the previously generated claim summary (claims 1 and 10 from RPX/Unified), I say so; the claim text was not in the authoritative text either.

1. Legal framework

Obviousness is assessed under Graham v. John Deere (scope/content of the prior art; differences; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations) as refined by KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), which permits combination where the improvement is "the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions," and where a known problem suggests a finite number of identified, predictable solutions. Here the asserted advance — "pick the best of several transmission modes for content destined for a ticker, based on content/network/user characteristics, with fallback if the chosen mode can't be used" — is squarely a "predictable use of prior art elements."

PHOSITA. A person with a bachelor's in EE/CS and 2–3 years in mobile data services / wireless content delivery, familiar with cellular, SMS, WLAN/802.11, Bluetooth, and broadcast bearer characteristics, and with client-server content delivery.

2. Prior-art reference set

All references are prior art regardless of whether the effective filing date is the 2003‑08‑11 provisional date or the 2005‑02‑18 actual filing date, so the priority‑date dispute (raised below) does not affect this analysis.

3. The claim features and where each is found

Using the previously generated claim summary (claims 1 and 10), claim 1 requires: (1) selecting content for a multi‑network device; (2) notifying the device content is available; (3) receiving from the device an identity of an available network; (4) automatically evaluating "optimal transmission mode factors" (content size/format/subject matter/priority/security/cost/number‑of‑recipients/network characteristics); (5) selecting a first mode/network; (6) determining whether it can deliver; (7) switching to the device‑reported network as a second mode if a conflict exists; (8) transmitting so the content is locally stored and presented in a ticker.

4. Claim 1 — primary combination and motivation

4.1 The proposed combination

Nawaz (5,959,621) + Holden/Nortel (6,742,042) + Kaplan (6,016,307) + Chapman (6,028,842) + Hollenberg (6,091,956), optionally with Digeo '402 for local caching and off‑peak delivery.

• Nawaz/Holden/Digeo supply the ticker display and server‑to‑client ticker delivery half of the claim (elements 1, 2, 8).
• Kaplan supplies the intelligent bearer selection half (elements 3–7): a finite set of paths, each with predetermined and measured parameters, scored against user priorities, with fallback when the preferred path is not available — and expressly keyed to content characteristics ("a user may want to transmit one file … at the fastest speed … Other files may need high security … yet other files … only need to be transmitted at the lowest cost"). Kaplan even measures path availability and handles the case where an interface is unavailable, mapping directly onto the claim's capability‑check / conflict‑switch step.
• Chapman supplies the network‑load factor; Hollenberg supplies the location factor; Digeo supplies local storage and off‑peak delivery.

4.2 Motivation to combine (KSR factors)

1. Same field and same problem. Both Kaplan and the ticker references address delivering data over a selected one of several available channels/paths — the field is data/telecommunications delivery. Ticker delivery to a multi‑bearer device is an application of Kaplan's problem.
2. Known problem, finite solutions. A POSITA faced with populating a ticker on a device that can connect to cellular/SMS/WLAN/Bluetooth/broadcast has a finite, enumerated set of bearers, each with known, well‑understood trade‑offs (SMS = tiny payload, IP = large/personalized, broadcast = cheap/one‑to‑many, Bluetooth = short‑range/free). KSR teaches that combining known elements to satisfy a known need is obvious where the design is "a predictable variation."
3. Design incentive / market pressure. Reducing bandwidth and delivery cost on mobile networks was a recognized industry goal; Digeo '402 itself already taught timing downloads to off‑peak periods to exploit network load — evidencing that practitioners in the ticker art were already applying network‑load reasoning.
4. Reasonable expectation of success. Kaplan reports a working, real‑time, scored path‑selection methodology; applying it to route ticker payloads is straightforward and predictable.
5. Analogous art. Kaplan, Chapman, Nawaz, Holden, and Digeo are all in the data‑delivery/display arts and address the same bandwidth/efficiency/relevance concerns — combined teaching is proper.

4.3 The "receive the device's available‑network identity" element

This is the weakest single limitation to attack for novelty, but it does not save the claim. Kaplan already contemplates ascertaining whether an interface is available and measuring path parameters in real time before transfer. Detecting available WLAN/Bluetooth/cellular bearers and reporting the result to a server was conventional in the 2002–2004 timeframe (it is the premise of every multi‑mode mobile device and of Nokia '938, "Data Transmission Method and Apparatus"). A POSITA would regard server‑side selection informed by the device's actual available radios as an obvious implementation choice — indeed, Kaplan itself is implemented on a PC or PDA and must know which interfaces are present.

5. Claim 10 — the location‑centered variant

Claim 10 (per the earlier section, truncated in the databases) restructures claim 1 around locating the communication device and obtaining content, then receiving the available‑network identity and selecting a first mode/network.

Combination: Hollenberg (6,091,956) + Kaplan (6,016,307) + Holden/Nawaz (ticker) + Chapman (6,028,842).

• Hollenberg teaches locating a mobile device and delivering situation‑relevant content to it — supplying the "locate the device" and location‑as‑a‑factor limitations.
• Kaplan supplies the multi‑mode evaluation and selection.
• Holden/Nawaz supply the ticker presentation and local storage.

The motivation is even stronger here: combining location‑based delivery (Hollenberg) with bearer optimization (Kaplan) was a well‑motivated, predictable step, because the best bearer itself depends on location — e.g., a short‑range Bluetooth/802.11 bearer is only usable when the device is physically near the access point. The applicant's own specification makes exactly this point ("the content is location based in that communication device 102 automatically senses the Bluetooth connection due to the location of the communication device 102 proximate to the Bluetooth access point"), and this is a reasoning that a POSITA would have supplied independently from the known short‑range nature of Bluetooth/WLAN.

Caveat: because claim 10's tail was never verified verbatim, this mapping should be re‑run against the official claim text before it is relied on.

6. Dependent claims 2–9 (and any presentation claims)

The earlier section notes claims 2–9 appear to depend from claim 1 and specify particular factors and bearers. On the prior-art set above:

• "Content size / format" → Kaplan ("$datasize … file size"); Digeo (graphics, time‑dependent vs. not).
• "Security requirement" → Kaplan's express "$security(i)" parameter and its "high security" file example; group security/expert‑proxy art (EP 1 195 949 A2, cited on face).
• "Transmission cost" / time‑of‑day → Kaplan's "$economy(i)" as a function of time of day/day of week.
• "Number of recipients" → inherent in broadcast vs. point‑to‑point bearer choice (broadcast SMS, FM/satellite are inherently one‑to‑many); the applicant's own specification frames this.
• "Network characteristics / load" → Kaplan and Chapman.
• Specific bearers (SMS, 802.11/Bluetooth/WiMAX, FM/AM, satellite, paging, VBI) → each was a known bearer with known properties; selecting among known bearers is a predictable design choice. (VBI on TV and FM/RDS data delivery were both well‑known in the art by 2003.)
• Ticker presentation attributes (shape/size/location/font/animations) → Digeo '814 (user‑customizable module shape, size, location) and Nawaz (ticker pane).

These dependents add nothing beyond predictable, individually‑known refinements, so they fall with the independent claims under KSR.

7. Secondary considerations / rebuttal

• Unexpected results: No evidence of any. The claimed behavior (pick the cheapest/best‑fitting bearer; fall back if unavailable) is the expected, intended outcome of Kaplan‑style routing.
• Skepticism / failure of others: None identified; the field was crowded (the patent's own Background concedes Pointcast, Catapult, SMS ticker services, and mobile tickers were known).
• Licensing / commercial success nexus: The patent is Expired – Lifetime (adjusted expiration 2024‑10‑02) and, per the earlier section, no litigation or IPR naming this number was found. Absence of challenge is not evidence of validity — it may simply reflect the patent's age, its expired status, and the difficulty of monetizing an expired asset. I could not confirm any licensing activity tied to this number specifically.
• Long‑felt need: Weakly arguable at best; the need for efficient multi‑bearer delivery was recognized and being solved in the art (Kaplan 2000; Digeo 2002).

8. Contradictions, caveats, and confidence

1. Contradiction with the task framing — flagged. The instruction to "use the Prior Art section of this page" cannot be complied with literally because no such section was present in the authoritative materials. I substituted references of record (from the patent's face) plus the Unified Patents portal prior‑art list. If a curated Prior Art section exists in your source, this analysis should be reconciled against it.
2. Claim text is unverified. As the earlier section states, the claims were not in the authoritative text; claims 1 and a truncated claim 10 come from secondary databases. Element‑by‑element mapping above is therefore provisional for claim 10 and all dependents.
3. Priority date — a § 112/§ 102 issue, not § 103, but worth noting. US 7,370,283 is a CIP of 10/946,254 (2004‑09‑20), itself a CIP of 10/929,000 (2004‑08‑26), etc., back to provisional 60/494,644 (2003‑08‑11). The "multiple data transmission modes" subject matter may or may not be supported by the 2003 provisional; if not, the effective date for the asserted claims could be as late as 2005‑02‑18. This does not change the analysis, because every reference above predates 2003.
4. Confidence: I am moderately‑to‑highly confident that claim 1 would have been obvious over Kaplan + Nawaz/Holden + Chapman (+ Hollenberg/Digeo). I am less confident on claim 10 until its verbatim text is confirmed. I did not find any actual invalidity contention, IPR petition, or court ruling on this patent — so this is a prospective § 103 assessment, not a report of an existing determination.

One‑line summary

The claimed subject matter is the predictable combination of (a) a known ticker display and server‑to‑client ticker delivery (Nawaz, Holden/Nortel 6,742,042, Digeo), (b) known intelligent multi‑path/bearer selection scored against content characteristics, cost, security, and user priorities, with availability fallback (Kaplan 6,016,307), and (c) known network‑load and location factors (Chapman 6,028,842; Hollenberg 6,091,956) — a combination a POSITA would have been motivated to make to reduce bandwidth/cost and improve delivery efficiency of ticker content on a multi‑network mobile device, with a reasonable expectation of success.