US 7529305

US Patent 7529305: Concise Summary

Title: Combination of space-time coding and spatial multiplexing, and the use of orthogonal transformation in space-time coding

Current Assignee: Malikie Innovations Ltd.

Inventors: Wen Tong, Michail G. Bakulin, Vitaly B. Kreyndelin, Alexander M. Shloma, Yuriy S. Shinakov

Filing Date: October 27, 2000

Issue Date: May 5, 2009

Abstract: The patent proposes combining space-time coding and spatial multiplexing, and the use of orthogonal transformation matrices. This combination ensures that each bitstream contributes to the signal on each antenna.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1 (Transmitter Apparatus): This claim describes a transmitter designed to handle multiple (M) symbol substreams. It includes a space-time coding block that creates M space-time coded symbols for every set of M input symbols. A key feature is that each symbol from the M substreams is represented across all M space-time coded streams, and this representation occurs at different times for each stream, due to a delay arrangement. These M space-time coded streams are then transmitted by M respective antennas.
• Claim 8 (Transmission Method): This claim outlines a method for transmitting data. It involves demultiplexing an input symbol stream into M symbol substreams, followed by coding and modulation of each substream. A space-time coding function then produces M space-time coded symbols per input set, ensuring each symbol of the M substreams is represented in all M space-time coded streams. A delay function is implemented so that the time of representation for each symbol in the M space-time coded streams is different. Finally, these M space-time coded streams are transmitted via separate antennas, with the M space-time coded symbols containing a representation of an input symbol transmitted at different times.

CAFC 2026 Dockets: No authoritative information regarding US patent 7529305 was found in the CAFC 2026 dockets.

Known litigation involving US patent 7529305B1 includes both District Court cases and a PTAB Inter Partes Review (IPR). The current assignee of the patent is Malikie Innovations Ltd. [cite: US7529305B1, Google Patents "Current Assignee"].

Here is a list of known litigation:

1. PTAB Case:

   • Plaintiff(s): Unified Patents [cite: US7529305B1, Google Patents "Family has litigation"]
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated, but typically the patent owner (Malikie Innovations Ltd.) would be the respondent.
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Case Number: IPR2026-00003 [cite: US7529305B1, Google Patents "Family has litigation"]
   • Filing Date: Implied to be 2026 by the case number IPR2026-00003.
   • Outcome or Current Status: Filed (Settlement) [cite: US7529305B1, Google Patents "Family has litigation"]

2. US District Court Cases:

   • Jurisdiction: Washington Western District Court

   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated.

   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated.

   • Case Number: 2:24-cv-01490 [cite: US7529305B1, Google Patents "Family has litigation"]

   • Filing Date: Implied to be 2024 by the case number 2:24-cv-01490.

   • Outcome or Current Status: Litigation [cite: US7529305B1, Google Patents "Family has litigation"]

   • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated.

   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated.

   • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00163 [cite: US7529305B1, Google Patents "Family has litigation"]

   • Filing Date: Implied to be 2025 by the case number 2:25-cv-00163.

   • Outcome or Current Status: Litigation [cite: US7529305B1, Google Patents "Family has litigation"]

   • Jurisdiction: Georgia Northern District Court

   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated.

   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated.

   • Case Number: 1:25-cv-03600 [cite: US7529305B1, Google Patents "Family has litigation"]

   • Filing Date: Implied to be 2025 by the case number 1:25-cv-03600.

   • Outcome or Current Status: Litigation [cite: US7529305B1, Google Patents "Family has litigation"]

   • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated.

   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated.

   • Case Number: 1:17-cv-00155 [cite: US7529305B1, Google Patents "Family has litigation"]

   • Filing Date: Implied to be 2017 by the case number 1:17-cv-00155.

   • Outcome or Current Status: Litigation [cite: US7529305B1, Google Patents "Family has litigation"]

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US Patent 7529305, which was terminated due to settlement. This outcome means the patent owner and petitioner resolved their dispute, and the patent claims were not adjudicated by the PTAB.

IPR2026-00003 — Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v. Malikie Innovations Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-08
• Status: Terminated-Settled. The proceeding was concluded due to a settlement between the parties before a Final Written Decision was reached.
• Judge panel: Information not publicly available for terminated-settled cases without an institution decision.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103) were not adjudicated due to the settlement. To determine the petition grounds, the full petition filing would need to be reviewed.
• Institution decision: This case did not reach an institution decision as it was terminated as settled.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued due to settlement.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated on 2026-03-02 due to a settlement between Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. and Malikie Innovations Ltd. The terms of the settlement are typically confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: The settlement means that no claims of US7529305 were challenged or invalidated by the PTAB in this proceeding. For a defendant facing assertion, this means the patent's claims remain undiminished by this specific IPR. However, the settlement itself could imply a strategic decision by the petitioner rather than a full affirmation of patentability.

Strategic summary

All claims of US7529305 remain untested by the PTAB and are therefore not canceled or sustained by a PTAB FWD. The single IPR filed, IPR2026-00003, was terminated due to a settlement between the petitioner, Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al., and the patent owner, Malikie Innovations Ltd. This means the merits of the patentability challenge were not decided by the Board, and no claims were invalidated.

Given the settlement, the estoppel landscape under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) would apply to Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. and their privies, barring them from raising any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in IPR2026-00003. However, for a new defendant, the prior-art grounds that could have been asserted in this IPR are likely still available for a new IPR challenge, as the patent's claims were not confirmed patentable in a Final Written Decision. The involvement of Unified Patents in the litigation history (filing IPR2026-00003, which then settled) suggests a defensive aggregator was involved, aiming to address the patent.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US7529305, the absence of an adverse PTAB Final Written Decision means that the patent's claims have not been subject to a validity challenge before the PTAB. While IPR2026-00003 was filed, its settlement means the claims were not adjudicated. If you are a defendant, you should:

• Review the IPR2026-00003 petition itself to understand the specific prior art and arguments Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. initially raised. This can inform potential new challenges.
• Consider filing your own IPR petition against US7529305, if strong prior art grounds exist and the timing is appropriate. The current lack of PTAB-validated claims might make it an attractive target.
• Monitor any related district court litigation involving Malikie Innovations Ltd., as such cases might uncover additional insights into the patent's strengths and weaknesses or lead to further PTAB filings.
• Note that the patent is listed as "Expired - Lifetime" as of 2023-04-02, which means it cannot be asserted for new acts of infringement, but damages for past infringement may still be pursued.
• Since the patent is expired, any new IPR filings would typically not be possible. However, the existing terminated IPR provides some insight into prior challenges.
• Check the PTAB End-to-End system for any documents related to the IPR2026-00003 termination to ascertain if any specific claims were dropped from contention as part of the settlement, even if not formally invalidated.The user has provided a prompt requesting an analysis of PTAB proceedings for US Patent 7529305, specifically focusing on IPR2026-00003. I have already identified that this IPR was terminated-settled.

I need to use web search to gather more specific details for IPR2026-00003, such as:

• Judge panel (often not public for settled cases, but I should check)
• Petition grounds (which claims, what art, what statutory basis - this might require digging into the petition if public)
• Institution decision details (if it was denied or settled before institution)
• Final Written Decision (already know it wasn't issued)
• Settlement/termination details (date, if any public terms)
• Appeal (already know it wasn't appealed)
• Defensive value.

Then I will construct the Strategic Summary and Recommended Next Steps.

Based on the initial prompt and the provided "PTAB proceedings on file" section, the status for IPR2026-00003 is "Terminated-Settled" and the petitioner is "Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al.".

From the search results, I can confirm the status is "Terminated-Settled".
The termination date is 2026-03-02, as per the provided "PTAB proceedings on file".

Since the case was terminated-settled, there would be no institution decision, no judge panel (that reached a decision), and no Final Written Decision. The petition grounds would have been filed but not adjudicated. Settlement terms are generally confidential.

The patent is "Expired - Lifetime" as of 2023-04-02. This is a critical piece of information.

Let's refine the answers based on this understanding.

Regarding Judge Panel: For terminated-settled cases, the specific panel of Administrative Patent Judges that would have heard the case is typically not made public or is not relevant since no judicial decision was rendered. The search results did not provide specific judge names for this particular IPR.

Regarding Petition Grounds: Since the proceeding was terminated-settled before institution, the petition grounds were not evaluated by the PTAB. To know the specific claims, prior art, and statutory bases, one would need to access the IPR petition itself. The provided search snippets do not contain this level of detail for IPR2026-00003.

Regarding Institution Decision: The IPR was terminated due to settlement, meaning it did not reach an institution decision. The USPTO Open Data Portal categorizes such an outcome as "Settled Before Institution" for other IPRs.

Regarding Final Written Decision: No Final Written Decision was issued because the proceeding was terminated due to settlement.

Regarding Settlement/Termination: The proceeding IPR2026-00003 was terminated due to settlement on 2026-03-02. The specific terms of the settlement are confidential.

Regarding Defensive Value: The termination by settlement means no claims of US7529305 were challenged or invalidated by the PTAB in this proceeding. For a defendant, this means the patent's claims remain as originally issued, unaffected by this IPR.

Strategic Summary refinement:
The patent is expired as of 2023-04-02. This is a very significant detail. An expired patent cannot be infringed going forward, though past infringement claims can still be pursued.
The single IPR (IPR2026-00003) was terminated due to settlement, meaning no claims were cancelled or sustained by a PTAB FWD. All claims of US7529305 remain formally unchallenged by a PTAB ruling.

Recommended next steps refinement:
Given the patent is expired, the nature of future actions changes significantly.

• No new infringement actions can be brought for acts occurring after April 2, 2023.
• Any IPR-based defenses for future infringement are moot.
• Any current defendant would be facing allegations of past infringement (before 2023-04-02).
• The availability of prior art for an IPR is less relevant for future challenges, but understanding the prior art in the settled IPR could still be valuable for district court litigation defending against past infringement.
• Filing new IPRs on an expired patent is generally not possible or practical, as IPRs are typically used to clear the way for future product sales.

I need to make sure to explicitly mention the patent's expired status in the summary and next steps.

One minor point: The user prompt states "PTAB case IPR2026-00003 filed (Settlement)". This implies the filing date was 2025-10-08 and the status became "Terminated-Settled" on 2026-03-02. This is consistent with the provided information.

Let's proceed with generating the output, incorporating these refinements.## Proceedings overview
One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US Patent 7529305, which was terminated due to settlement. This outcome means the patent owner and petitioner resolved their dispute, and the patent claims were not adjudicated by the PTAB. As the patent expired on 2023-04-02, any defensive posture must account for this critical fact, as no new acts of infringement can occur.

IPR2026-00003 — Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v. Malikie Innovations Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-08
• Status: Terminated-Settled. The proceeding concluded due to a settlement between the parties on 2026-03-02, before a Final Written Decision was reached.
• Judge panel: Specific judge panel information is not publicly available for cases that settle before institution.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged, prior art asserted, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103) were not adjudicated by the PTAB due to the settlement. Details would be found in the petition itself.
• Institution decision: This IPR did not reach an institution decision as it was terminated as settled.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued due to the settlement.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated on 2026-03-02 due to a settlement between Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. and Malikie Innovations Ltd. The terms of the settlement are typically confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: The settlement means that no claims of US7529305 were challenged or invalidated by the PTAB in this proceeding. For a defendant facing assertions, this implies the patent's claims were not judicially scrutinized for patentability in this particular IPR. However, it's crucial to note that the patent itself is expired.

Strategic summary

US Patent 7529305 expired on 2023-04-02. Therefore, all claims of US7529305 are now expired, and the patent can no longer be asserted for new acts of infringement occurring after this date. The single IPR filed against this patent, IPR2026-00003, was terminated due to settlement. This means that no claims were canceled or sustained by a PTAB Final Written Decision; all claims of US7529305 remained formally unchallenged by a PTAB ruling throughout its enforceable life.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) would apply to Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. (and their privies), barring them from raising any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in IPR2026-00003. However, since the patent is expired and no claims were found unpatentable, this estoppel primarily affects the petitioner's ability to challenge the patent on those specific grounds in other forums for past infringement. For a new defendant, the prior-art grounds that could have been asserted in this IPR are theoretically still available for defending against claims of past infringement.

Recommended next steps

Given that US Patent 7529305 expired on 2023-04-02, the strategic considerations are significantly altered.

• For Defendants Facing Assertion: Any current assertions would be for alleged infringement that occurred prior to April 2, 2023. The expiration means the patent cannot be asserted for any activities after this date.
• Validity Challenges: While the patent is expired, a defendant facing allegations of past infringement might still challenge the validity of the claims in district court. Reviewing the petition from IPR2026-00003, if publicly accessible, could provide valuable insights into potential prior art and invalidity arguments that were considered by Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al.
• PTAB Activity: There are no active PTAB proceedings on US7529305. Furthermore, filing new IPR petitions on an expired patent is generally not possible or practical, as IPRs are primarily designed to clear the way for future product sales by challenging the validity of in-force patents.
• Litigation Context: Focus on the statute of limitations for past infringement claims and the specific window of alleged infringement in any demand letter or complaint.

Inventors

• Wen Tong (Nortel Networks Ltd)
• Michail G. Bakulin (Nortel Networks Ltd)
• Vitaly B. Kreyndelin (Nortel Networks Ltd)
• Alexander M. Shloma (Nortel Networks Ltd)
• Yuriy S. Shinakov (Nortel Networks Ltd)

All named inventors were employed by Nortel Networks Ltd at the time of filing. No unusual patterns of inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing are evident from the provided data.

Original assignee

The original assignee, as named on the issued patent, was Nortel Networks Ltd. Nortel Networks was a multinational telecommunications and data networking equipment manufacturer. Given the patent's subject matter in wireless communication (space-time coding and spatial multiplexing), it is highly probable that Nortel Networks shipped products embodying the claims as part of their core business offerings. Nortel Networks filed for bankruptcy protection in 2009 and subsequently sold off its business units and patent portfolio.

Assignment timeline

The following assignment timeline is reconstructed from the "Legal Events" section of the Google Patents page for US7529305B1, as direct access to the USPTO Assignment Center is not available. Correspondent information is not detailed in the provided Google Patents data.

• 2003-09-24 (effective date not explicitly stated) / recorded N/A — Reel N/A

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: TONG, WEN; BAKULIN, MICHAIL G.; KREYNDELIN, VITALY B.; SHINAKOV, YURIY S.; SHLOMA, ALEXANDER M. (inventors)
  • Assignee: NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITED
  • Correspondent: Not provided in the source data.
  • Context: Initial assignment from inventors to the corporate entity.

• 2011-07-29 (executed) / recorded 2011-10-28 — Reel 027164/0356

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITED
  • Assignee: ROCKSTAR BIDCO, LP
  • Correspondent: Not provided in the source data.
  • Context: Acquisition of Nortel Networks' patent portfolio following its bankruptcy proceedings.

• 2012-02-29 (executed) / recorded 2012-04-10 — Reel 028018/0848

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: ROCKSTAR BIDCO, LP
  • Assignee: 2256355 ONTARIO LIMITED
  • Correspondent: Not provided in the source data.
  • Context: Internal transfer within the Rockstar consortium.

• 2012-03-02 (executed) / recorded 2012-04-10 — Reel 028020/0474

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: 2256355 ONTARIO LIMITED
  • Assignee: RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED
  • Correspondent: Not provided in the source data.
  • Context: Transfer within the Rockstar consortium, specifically to the entity that became BlackBerry.

• 2013-07-09 (executed) / recorded 2014-10-16 — Reel 034012/0031

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED
  • Assignee: BLACKBERRY LIMITED
  • Correspondent: Not provided in the source data.
  • Context: Corporate name change of Research In Motion Limited to BlackBerry Limited.

• 2023-03-20 (executed) / recorded 2023-04-27 — Reel 063471/0474

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: BLACKBERRY LIMITED
  • Assignee: OT PATENT ESCROW, LLC
  • Correspondent: Not provided in the source data.
  • Context: Transfer to a patent escrow entity.

• 2023-05-11 (executed) / recorded 2023-06-16 — Reel 064015/0001

  • Conveyance: NUNC PRO TUNC ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: OT PATENT ESCROW, LLC
  • Assignee: MALIKIE INNOVATIONS LIMITED
  • Correspondent: Not provided in the source data.
  • Context: Transfer from escrow to Malikie Innovations Limited.

• 2023-05-11 (executed) / recorded 2023-06-19 — Reel 064066/0001

  • Conveyance: NUNC PRO TUNC ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: BLACKBERRY LIMITED
  • Assignee: MALIKIE INNOVATIONS LIMITED
  • Correspondent: Not provided in the source data.
  • Context: Corrective or parallel assignment directly from BlackBerry to Malikie Innovations Limited.

• 2023-03-20 (executed) / recorded 2023-09-05 — Reel 064806/0669

  • Conveyance: CORRECTIVE ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: BLACKBERRY LIMITED
  • Assignee: OT PATENT ESCROW, LLC
  • Correspondent: Not provided in the source data.
  • Context: Corrective assignment related to the initial transfer to OT Patent Escrow, LLC.

• 2023-05-11 (executed) / recorded 2023-09-05 — Reel 064807/0001

  • Conveyance: CORRECTIVE ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: OT PATENT ESCROW, LLC
  • Assignee: MALIKIE INNOVATIONS LIMITED
  • Correspondent: Not provided in the source data.
  • Context: Corrective assignment related to the transfer to Malikie Innovations Limited.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7529305
    2000 : Filed by Nortel Networks
    2003 : Assigned to Nortel Networks
    2009 : Issued to Nortel
    2011 : Assigned to Rockstar Bidco
    2012 : Assigned to 2256355 Ontario
         : Assigned to Research in Motion
    2014 : Name change to BlackBerry
    2023 : Assigned to OT Patent Escrow
         : Assigned to Malikie Innovations
         : Corrective assgmt OT Patent
         : Corrective assgmt Malikie

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. The patent has been transferred to entities (Rockstar Bidco, LP; OT Patent Escrow, LLC; Malikie Innovations Limited) whose names and associated litigation activity suggest they are licensing-focused entities rather than operating companies producing products embodying the claims. Malikie Innovations Ltd is the current assignee and is involved in multiple listed litigation cases related to this patent family [cite: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/[ptab](/ptab)/case/IPR2026-00003, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Washington%20Western%20District%20Court/case/2%3A24-cv-01490, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A25-cv-00163, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Georgia%20Northern%20District%20Court/case/1%3A25-cv-03600, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A17-cv-00155].
2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. Rockstar Bidco, LP, which acquired the patent on 2011-10-28 (Reel 027164/0356), is widely recognized as a patent assertion entity (often referred to as a "patent troll") that acquired the Nortel patent portfolio. The current assignee, Malikie Innovations Limited, is actively involved in multiple litigation cases concerning this patent family [cite: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2026-00003, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Washington%20Western%20District%20Court/case/2%3A24-cv-01490, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A25-cv-00163, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Georgia%20Northern%20District%20Court/case/1%3A25-cv-03600, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A17-cv-00155].
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear. Correspondent names and firms are not provided in the Google Patents legal events section, which is the sole source of assignment details for this analysis.
4. Cascading transfers — Present. There are two notable instances of cascading transfers. First, in 2012, the patent was transferred from Rockstar Bidco, LP to 2256355 ONTARIO LIMITED (recorded 2012-04-10, Reel 028018/0848), and then almost immediately to RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED (recorded 2012-04-10, Reel 028020/0474). Second, in 2023, the patent transferred from BLACKBERRY LIMITED to OT PATENT ESCROW, LLC (recorded 2023-04-27, Reel 063471/0474), followed by multiple corrective assignments and Nunc Pro Tunc assignments to MALIKIE INNOVATIONS LIMITED (recorded 2023-06-16, Reel 064015/0001 and 2023-06-19, Reel 064066/0001, and multiple corrective assignments recorded 2023-09-05).
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Present. The transfers to OT Patent Escrow, LLC (effective 2023-03-20, recorded 2023-04-27, Reel 063471/0474) and subsequently to Malikie Innovations Limited (effective 2023-05-11, recorded 2023-06-16, Reel 064015/0001) occurred around the patent's adjusted expiration date of 2023-04-02. These transfers immediately precede or are concurrent with ongoing and new litigation cases filed in 2024 and 2025 by Malikie Innovations Ltd [cite: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Washington%20Western%20District%20Court/case/2%3A24-cv-01490, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A25-cv-00163, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Georgia%20Northern%20District%20Court/case/1%3A25-cv-03600].
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Present. The original assignee, Nortel Networks Limited, underwent bankruptcy, and its patent portfolio, including US7529305B1, was acquired by Rockstar Bidco, LP, as evidenced by the assignment recorded 2011-10-28 (Reel 027164/0356).
7. Privateering — Unclear. While the initial transfer to Rockstar Bidco involved a consortium of operating companies, and the patent subsequently moved through BlackBerry, the final transfers to OT Patent Escrow, LLC and Malikie Innovations Limited suggest a focus on assertion for licensing revenue rather than an operating company using an NPE to sue on its behalf against competitors. More information on the agreements between Malikie and any operating companies would be needed to make a definitive call.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain ends with Malikie Innovations Limited, which is actively litigating the patent, rather than a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence. This verdict is supported by multiple strong signals. The patent was acquired from Nortel Networks in a bankruptcy fire-sale by Rockstar Bidco, LP (recorded 2011-10-28, Reel 027164/0356), a known patent assertion entity. The patent has since undergone cascading transfers, concluding with Malikie Innovations Limited (e.g., recorded 2023-06-16, Reel 064015/0001), which is a shell entity actively engaged in patent litigation, as shown by numerous listed lawsuits initiated after its acquisition [cite: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2026-00003, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Washington%20Western%20District%20Court/case/2%3A24-cv-01490, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A25-cv-00163, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Georgia%20Northern%20District%20Court/case/1%3A25-cv-03600]. The pre-litigation transfer to Malikie Innovations Limited around the patent's expiration date further reinforces its assertion-focused nature.

For verification of assignment records, refer to the USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 7529305, I will analyze the patent citations listed within the patent text itself. The core distinguishing features of US7529305's independent claims (Claims 1 and 8) include:

1. Processing M symbol substreams.
2. A space-time coding function that produces M space-time coded symbols.
3. Each input symbol from the M substreams being represented in all M space-time coded streams.
4. A delay arrangement/function ensuring that the representation of each input symbol in the M space-time coded streams occurs at different times for each of the M streams.
5. Transmission of these M space-time coded streams on M respective antennas.

The crucial aspect for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 will be whether the prior art discloses this specific combination of full diversity (each input symbol appearing in all output streams) with time diversity introduced by delays across the output streams for those representations.

Here are the patent citations for US7529305 and an analysis of their potential anticipation:

Prior Art Citations for US7529305:

1. US6377631B1

   • Full Citation: US6377631B1 to Cisco Systems, Inc.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: 1996-08-29; Publication Date: 2002-04-23
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a transmitter that incorporates spatio-temporal processing for transmitting data streams using multiple antennas. It focuses on applying a processing matrix to data streams before transmission through multiple antennas to improve signal quality and capacity in wireless communication systems.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US6377631B1 describes spatio-temporal processing and the use of a processing matrix with multiple antennas, which aligns with the general concept of space-time coding and spatial multiplexing. However, based on the title and general description, it is not immediately clear if it explicitly teaches the critical "delay arrangement" that ensures each input symbol is represented in all output streams at different times, which is a distinguishing feature of claims 1 and 8 of US7529305. Without further analysis of its claims and detailed description, it's difficult to definitively state anticipation of this specific aspect. However, it generally anticipates the broad concept of multi-antenna space-time processing.
     • Claims potentially anticipated: Broad concepts related to space-time coding and spatial multiplexing in multi-antenna systems.

2. EP0905920A2

   • Full Citation: EP0905920A2 to Lucent Technologies Inc.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: 1997-09-26; Publication Date: 1999-03-31
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a multiple antenna communication system and method thereof, particularly for space-time coding to achieve diversity and coding gain in wireless communication.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to US6377631B1, this patent covers the general field of multiple antenna systems and space-time coding for diversity. It is a general prior art reference for space-time coding. To anticipate claims 1 and 8 of US7529305, it would need to explicitly disclose the representation of each input symbol across all space-time coded streams at different times through a delay mechanism. This specific combination is not evident from the title.
     • Claims potentially anticipated: Broad concepts related to space-time coding and spatial diversity.

3. US6351498B1

   • Full Citation: US6351498B1 to NTT Mobile Communications Network Inc.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: 1997-11-20; Publication Date: 2002-02-26
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a robust digital modulation and demodulation scheme for radio communications involving fading, which includes methods for transmit diversity over multiple antennas.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent addresses robust digital modulation and transmit diversity. While it deals with transmit diversity, it doesn't immediately suggest the unique delay-based distribution of individual input symbols across all output streams at different times as claimed in US7529305.
     • Claims potentially anticipated: General transmit diversity schemes in fading channels.

4. US6678263B1

   • Full Citation: US6678263B1 to Hughes Electronics Corporation.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: 1998-09-18; Publication Date: 2004-01-13
   • Brief Description: This patent describes methods and constructions for space-time codes for PSK constellations for spatial diversity in multiple-element antenna systems.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent directly addresses space-time codes for spatial diversity, which is a closer match to the subject matter of US7529305. If this patent teaches the construction of space-time codes where each input symbol contributes to all output streams and is delayed differently across these streams, it could potentially anticipate claims 1 and 8. The term "space-time codes" is broad, and without reviewing the detailed claims of US6678263B1, it's hard to be conclusive. Many space-time block codes transmit symbols simultaneously or with simple permutations, not necessarily with the explicit time-offset representation of each input symbol across all transmit streams as highlighted in US7529305.
     • Claims potentially anticipated: Space-time coding, spatial diversity.

5. EP0993130A2

   • Full Citation: EP0993130A2 to Texas Instruments Incorporated.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: 1998-10-07; Publication Date: 2000-04-12
   • Brief Description: This patent describes space-time block coded transmit antenna diversity for WCDMA systems.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent explicitly mentions "space-time block coded transmit antenna diversity." Space-time block codes (STBCs) are a well-known form of space-time coding that achieve diversity. The Alamouti code, a popular STBC, distributes symbols across antennas and time slots. If this patent details an STBC that ensures each individual input symbol is represented across all M transmit antennas and, specifically, at different transmission times in a delayed fashion as described in US7529305, it would be highly relevant and potentially anticipatory for claims 1 and 8.
     • Claims potentially anticipated: Space-time coding, transmit antenna diversity, potentially claims 1 and 8 if it discloses the specific delay mechanism for individual input symbols across all streams.

6. US6775260B1

   • Full Citation: US6775260B1 to Texas Instruments Incorporated.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: 1999-02-25; Publication Date: 2004-08-10
   • Brief Description: This patent describes space time transmit diversity for TDD/WCDMA systems.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to EP0993130A2, this patent focuses on space-time transmit diversity for WCDMA. The relevance here depends on whether the specific diversity scheme employed in US6775260B1 incorporates the staggered, time-delayed representation of each input symbol across all transmit streams as a feature. This is a common area of research, and the precise implementation details would determine anticipation.
     • Claims potentially anticipated: Space-time transmit diversity schemes.

7. US7215718B1

   • Full Citation: US7215718B1 to AT&T Corp.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: 1999-04-28; Publication Date: 2007-05-08
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a combined channel coding and space-time block coding in a multi-antenna arrangement.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): The combination of channel coding and space-time block coding is a significant aspect. If this patent's space-time block coding scheme involves distributing each input symbol across all transmit antennas with differing delays, it would directly anticipate the core elements of claims 1 and 8 of US7529305.
     • Claims potentially anticipated: Space-time block coding, combined channel coding, potentially claims 1 and 8 if the specific delay aspect for individual symbols is present.

8. US6891897B1

   • Full Citation: US6891897B1 to Nortel Networks Limited.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: 1999-07-23; Publication Date: 2005-05-10
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a space-time coding and channel estimation scheme, arrangement, and method.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent, also from Nortel Networks (the original assignee of US7529305), focuses on space-time coding and channel estimation. Given the shared assignee, there might be conceptual overlap or a foundational relationship. The key here is whether this "space-time coding scheme" incorporates the specific delay mechanisms for individual symbols across multiple output streams, leading to their representation at different times on different antennas. If it does, it would be a strong anticipatory reference for claims 1 and 8.
     • Claims potentially anticipated: Space-time coding, channel estimation, and potentially claims 1 and 8 if the specific delay-based full diversity is taught.

9. US6473467B1

   • Full Citation: US6473467B1 to Qualcomm Incorporated.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: 2000-03-22; Publication Date: 2002-10-29
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a method and apparatus for measuring and reporting channel state information in a high-efficiency, high-performance communications system. It relates to feedback mechanisms in MIMO systems.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent primarily concerns channel state information (CSI) measurement and reporting, which is a different focus from the space-time coding and multiplexing scheme itself. While relevant to MIMO systems, it is unlikely to anticipate the specific encoding and transmission structure of US7529305's claims 1 and 8.
     • Claims potentially anticipated: Not directly anticipatory of claims 1 or 8, as its focus is on channel estimation feedback.

10. US7010029B1

    • Full Citation: US7010029B1 to AT&T Corp.
    • Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: 2000-04-13; Publication Date: 2006-03-07
    • Brief Description: This patent describes equalization of transmit diversity space-time coded signals.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent focuses on the receiver side (equalization) for space-time coded signals. While it acknowledges the existence of transmit diversity space-time coded signals, its primary teaching is not the method of generating those signals as claimed in US7529305. Therefore, it is unlikely to anticipate claims 1 or 8 directly.
      • Claims potentially anticipated: Not directly anticipatory of claims 1 or 8, as its focus is on receiver equalization.

11. US20040013211A1

    • Full Citation: US20040013211A1 to Lindskog Erik D.
    • Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: 2000-04-14; Publication Date: 2004-01-22
    • Brief Description: This patent describes a time-reversal block transmit diversity system for channels with intersymbol interference and a method thereof.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent uses "time-reversal block transmit diversity," which inherently involves a temporal aspect and diversity. If the "time-reversal" mechanism results in the individual input symbols being represented across all transmit antennas at different, staggered times, it would directly anticipate claims 1 and 8 of US7529305. The use of "block transmit diversity" suggests a coding scheme across blocks of symbols and antennas. This patent could be highly relevant.
      • Claims potentially anticipated: Space-time coding, transmit diversity, particularly claims 1 and 8 if the time-reversal mechanism results in the specific delay-based full diversity.

12. US7139324B1

    • Full Citation: US7139324B1 to Nokia Networks Oy.
    • Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: 2000-06-02; Publication Date: 2006-11-21
    • Brief Description: This patent describes a closed-loop feedback system for improved downlink performance. It focuses on feedback mechanisms to enhance performance in wireless communication systems.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to US6473467B1, this patent focuses on feedback systems and channel information. It is unlikely to anticipate the specific space-time coding and multiplexing scheme of US7529305's claims 1 and 8.
      • Claims potentially anticipated: Not directly anticipatory of claims 1 or 8, as its focus is on feedback systems.

13. US7050510B2

    • Full Citation: US7050510B2 to Lucent Technologies Inc.
    • Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: 2000-12-29; Publication Date: 2006-05-23
    • Brief Description: This patent describes an open-loop diversity technique for systems employing four transmitter antennas.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent describes an "open-loop diversity technique" for multiple transmit antennas. The priority date (2000-12-29) of this patent is after the priority date of US7529305 (2000-10-27). Therefore, US7050510B2 is not prior art to US7529305 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Summary of Most Relevant Prior Art:

The most relevant prior art documents would be those that explicitly teach the combination of distributing each input symbol across all M transmit antennas and ensuring those representations are transmitted at different times due to a delay mechanism. Based on titles and typical scope, the following are most likely to be highly relevant and require detailed examination for anticipation:

• EP0993130A2 (Space time block coded transmit antenna diversity for WCDMA)
• US7215718B1 (Combined channel coding and space-time block coding in a multi-antenna arrangement)
• US6891897B1 (Space-time coding and channel estimation scheme, arrangement and method)
• US20040013211A1 (Time-reversal block transmit diversity system for channels with intersymbol interference and method)

These patents are in the direct field of space-time coding and transmit diversity. A thorough review of their claims and detailed descriptions would be necessary to confirm if they explicitly disclose the specific "different times" and "delay arrangement" features for each input symbol in all output streams, as claimed in US7529305. Without that explicit disclosure, they would represent general prior art in the field but not necessarily anticipate the specific invention. US7050510B2 is not prior art to US7529305 due to its later priority date.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 7529305 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis identifies combinations of prior art references that would render the claims of US Patent 7529305 obvious, alongside the motivation a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have had to combine them.

Independent Claims under Analysis:

• Claim 1 (Transmitter Apparatus): Focuses on a transmitter that processes M symbol substreams, employing a space-time coding block to produce M space-time coded symbols. Crucially, each input symbol is represented in all M space-time coded streams, and this representation occurs at different times for each stream due to a delay arrangement. These streams are then transmitted by M respective antennas.
• Claim 8 (Transmission Method): Describes a method involving demultiplexing, coding/modulation, and a space-time coding function mirroring Claim 1's features: each input symbol is represented in all M space-time coded streams at different times, followed by transmission via M antennas.

The core inventive step, as described in the patent, is combining spatial multiplexing (achieving high spectral efficiency) with space-time coding (achieving coding/diversity gain) in such a way that each information symbol contributes to all transmitted streams at different times. The patent explicitly states that existing layered space-time coding approaches like BLAST, while spectrally efficient, lacked coding gain for individual symbols because each symbol was transmitted by only one antenna. [cite: US7529305B1, Description - Background of the Invention]

Prior Art References and Their Relevance:

1. Bell Labs Layered Space Time (BLAST): This technology is explicitly discussed in the "Background of the Invention" of US7529305B1. It is described as a known layered space-time coding approach that improves spectral efficiency through spatial multiplexing. The patent details its architecture (demultiplexer 10, coding/modulating blocks 12, transmit antennas 14) and acknowledges its advantage in spectral efficiency. [cite: US7529305B1, Description - Background of the Invention] However, the patent identifies a significant drawback: "That such a system has no improvement in SNR performance can be explained by noting that the data symbol s m is transmitted only by one antenna...Therefore, for symbol S m there is no coding gain." [cite: US7529305B1, Description - Background of the Invention]
2. US6678263B1 (Hughes Electronics Corporation, priority 1998-09-18): Titled "Method and constructions for space-time codes for PSK constellations for spatial diversity in multiple-element antenna systems." This patent explicitly teaches the design and use of space-time codes to achieve spatial diversity. These codes inherently involve encoding information symbols and distributing them across multiple transmit antennas over multiple time instances. This means that information from a single symbol is represented across multiple spatial outputs and at different times to maximize diversity gain. [cite: US6678263B1]
3. EP0993130A2 (Texas Instruments Incorporated, priority 1998-10-07): Titled "Space time block coded transmit antenna diversity for WCDMA." This reference directly discloses Space Time Block Codes (STBCs), which are a well-known class of space-time codes designed to achieve transmit diversity by spreading coded symbols across multiple antennas and time slots. [cite: EP0993130A2]

Obviousness Argument:

A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) in 2000 would have been motivated to combine the principles of BLAST with established space-time coding techniques (such as those disclosed in US6678263B1 or EP0993130A2) to achieve both high spectral efficiency and improved signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) performance.

Motivation:

The motivation for this combination is clearly articulated in US7529305B1 itself. The patent identifies that while BLAST offers "improved spectral efficiency," it lacks "improvement in SNR performance" for individual symbols because each symbol is transmitted by only one antenna, leading to "no coding gain" for that symbol. [cite: US7529305B1, Description - Background of the Invention] The patent then states, "It would be advantageous to have a layered space-time coding structure which provides the improved spectral efficiency, but which also provides improved SNR performance." [cite: US7529305B1, Description - Background of the Invention] This statement explicitly directs a PHOSITA to combine existing techniques to overcome the identified deficiency of BLAST.

Combination and Disclosure:

1. BLAST as a foundation: A PHOSITA would start with the known BLAST architecture for its spatial multiplexing capabilities. This provides the fundamental elements of Claims 1 and 8 related to processing "M symbol substreams," using a "demultiplexer," "coding and modulation," and transmitting via "M transmit antennas." [cite: US7529305B1, Description - Background of the Invention]
2. Integrating Space-Time Coding for Diversity/Coding Gain: To address the lack of SNR improvement in BLAST, the PHOSITA would look to known space-time coding schemes designed specifically for diversity and coding gain. References like US6678263B1 teach how to construct space-time codes that inherently distribute information from a single symbol across multiple transmit antennas and over multiple time intervals. [cite: US6678263B1] Similarly, EP0993130A2 describes space-time block codes for transmit antenna diversity, achieving the same goal. [cite: EP0993130A2]
3. Meeting Claim Elements:
   • "each symbol of the M symbol substreams is represented in all M space-time coded streams": This is a direct outcome of applying a space-time coding scheme like those in US6678263B1 or EP0993130A2. The purpose of these codes is precisely to spread symbol information across all available transmit antennas to maximize diversity. [cite: US6678263B1, EP0993130A2]
   • "a time of representation of the symbol in the M space-time coded streams is different for each of the M space-time coded streams" / "transmitted at different times": This temporal spreading is also a fundamental aspect of space-time coding, as exemplified by Alamouti's scheme (a basic STBC) where parts of symbols are transmitted at different times on different antennas. The inclusion of "delay elements" (as detailed in sub-claims like Claim 4 or Claim 9) is a standard architectural component for achieving this temporal diversity in space-time codes. US6678263B1, in its teaching of how symbols are arranged and sent over time, implicitly requires or discloses such temporal separation. [cite: US6678263B1]
   • "orthogonal transform adapted to produce M orthogonal outputs": Orthogonal transformations are a known method in multi-antenna systems and space-time coding for decorrelating signals and ensuring efficient transmission and reception. While the specific matrix in US7529305B1 is an example, the use of orthogonal or quasi-orthogonal mappings to achieve desired spreading and separability in space-time codes was well-understood by a PHOSITA.

Conclusion:

The combination of the layered spatial multiplexing architecture of BLAST (as known and described in US7529305B1's background) with known space-time coding techniques for diversity and coding gain (as described in US6678263B1 and EP0993130A2) would have been obvious to a PHOSITA. The clear motivation was to overcome the known deficiency of BLAST—its lack of coding gain for individual symbols—while retaining its spectral efficiency advantages. The implementation details, such as using orthogonal transformations and delay elements to ensure symbols are represented across all streams and at different times, were well-known mechanisms in the field of space-time coding to achieve temporal and spatial diversity.

To determine the requested information for US Patent 7529305, I will use the available data and general patent rules.

Patent Number: US7529305B1
Application Number: US10/399,859
Filing Date: October 27, 2000
Issue Date: May 5, 2009

1. Patent Term Adjustments (PTA) and Patent Term Extensions (PTE):

• Patent Term Adjustment (PTA): PTA is granted to compensate for administrative delays by the USPTO during prosecution. The Google Patents record for US7529305B1 indicates an "Adjusted expiration" date of April 2, 2023. This implies that there was a PTA granted. Without direct access to the USPTO's Patent Center or PAIR (Patent Application Information Retrieval) system, the exact calculation of this adjustment cannot be detailed, but the adjusted expiration date confirms its application. The PTA amount is usually provided with the Issue Notification Letter.
• Patent Term Extension (PTE): PTE is awarded to compensate for delays in obtaining regulatory approval for a patented product, primarily for pharmaceuticals. There is no information in the provided Google Patents data or general search results to suggest that US7529305 received a Patent Term Extension. PTE is distinct from PTA and is governed by different criteria.

2. Continuation Applications:

A continuation application is a second application for the same invention claimed in a prior non-provisional application and filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application.

• The Google Patents entry for US7529305B1 lists its application number as US10/399,859. Under the "Priority and Related Applications" section, there is one listed application claiming priority from the same priority date (2000-10-27) as US7529305B1:
  • PCT/RU2000/000426 (WO2002035762A1)
    This is an international (PCT) application that serves as the priority document for US10/399,859. The US patent itself (US7529305B1) is the result of a national stage entry of this international application or directly claims priority from it. There are no other US domestic continuation applications explicitly listed as being directly tied to US10/399,859 in the provided data.

3. Divisional Applications:

A divisional application is a later application for an independent invention carved out of a prior, larger application.

• The provided Google Patents information does not explicitly list any divisional applications for US7529305B1 (application number US10/399,859).

4. Related Family Members:

Related family members are patents or applications that claim priority to the same earlier application or are part of the same inventive lineage.

• The following are listed as "Worldwide applications" and are family members with the same filing date of 2000-10-27:
  • CNB008201080A (China)
  • DE60037759T (Germany)
  • WO2002035762A1 (International PCT application)
  • KR1020037005905A (South Korea)
  • EP00990885A (Europe)
  • AU2001230641A (Australia)
  • US10/399,859 (US application leading to US7529305B1)

5. Projected Expiration Date:

• For utility patents filed on or after June 8, 1995, the term generally expires 20 years from the earliest filing date, subject to any patent term adjustments or extensions.
• The earliest filing date for US7529305B1 (application US10/399,859) is October 27, 2000.
• Twenty years from this filing date would be October 27, 2020.
• However, the Google Patents record explicitly states an "Adjusted expiration" date of April 2, 2023. This adjusted date reflects any Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) granted to compensate for USPTO delays during prosecution.
• The patent status is listed as "Expired - Lifetime".

Therefore, the projected expiration date, inclusive of any PTA, was April 2, 2023. The patent is currently expired.