US 8024036

I'll search for this patent number across USPTO resources and litigation dockets.

Let me dig deeper into the claims, litigation history, and CAFC docket activity.

Let me retrieve the actual claim text and check for any 2026 litigation/CAFC docket activity.

Patent Analysis: US 8,024,036 B2

Scope-of-search note

I searched for the literal string "8024036" and "US 8,024,036." Results also returned unrelated items that I have deliberately excluded, including JP 8024036 A (a 1996 Japanese publication), U.S. 7,884,403 ("the '403 patent," a magnetoresistive tunnel-barrier patent in an IPR), and various docket documents that merely cite other numbers. The record below is for US 8,024,036 B2 only.

Primary authoritative sources:

• https://patents.google.com/patent/US8024036/en (full text supplied)
• https://patents.justia.com/patent/8024036
• https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-20070225634-A1

Bibliographic data (all confirmed from the authoritative text)

Note: one third-party aggregator (Unified Patents) lists the priority date as 2007-03-18; the authoritative Google Patents/PTO record states 2007-03-19. I treat 2007-03-19 as controlling.

Key classifications: A61B 1/00156 (self-propulsion), A61B 1/00158 (magnetic-field positioning), A61B 1/041 (capsule endoscope imaging), A61B 5/07 (endoradiosondes), A61B 5/0031, A61B 5/4836 & 5/4839 (closed-loop diagnosis + drug delivery), A61N 1/36, A61N 1/37205 (microstimulators).

Abstract — ⚠️ uncertainty flag

The retrieved authoritative text was truncated before the front-page abstract, so I do not have the verbatim abstract string for this patent and will not fabricate one. The disclosed subject matter, per the patent's own Summary/Definitions section, is:

Devices, systems, and methods for performing actions with a lumen-traveling biological interface device — a device capable of self-propelling through a body lumen (e.g., a "body tube tree" such as the cardiovascular or respiratory system) to a target site, and then delivering a stimulus to, or recording a signal from, biological tissue at that site.

Independent claims — plain-language overview

⚠️ Uncertainty flag: the truncated fetch did not include the verbatim claim set (the "What is claimed is" section). The independent claims are nevertheless clearly reflected in the patent's own summary-of-invention paragraphs, which are worded in claim style. Based on that, the independent claims fall into method and device/system families:

Method claims (the dominant family):

1. Method of emplacing an electrical stimulation device — Cause a self-propelling electromagnetic stimulation device to travel within a body tube tree toward a target site; if a branch point with two or more branches is reached, cause the device to enter a selected branch; and cause the device to stop traveling upon reaching the target site.

2. Method of emplacing a neural stimulation device — Same three-step scheme (travel toward target → at a branch point, enter the branch leading toward the target → stop on arrival), but with a self-propelling neural stimulation device.

3. Method of emplacing a cardiac stimulation device — Same three-step scheme with a self-propelling cardiac stimulation device.

4. Method of configuring a bioelectromagnetic interface system — Move at least one bioelectromagnetic interface device through a body tube tree toward a target site using a self-propelling lumen-traveling device; detect arrival of the interface device at the target site; and move the lumen-traveling device away while leaving the interface device behind at the target site. (This is the "deliver-and-release" concept, supported by the grasper/device-release structure in FIG. 24 and the delivery/receiving structures in FIGS. 25A–25B.)

5. Method of emplacing a bioelectromagnetic interface system — Introduce a plurality of bioelectromagnetic interface devices into a body tube tree via at least one introduction site, each including an electromagnetic transducer (for sensing a bioelectromagnetic signal from target tissue and/or delivering an electromagnetic stimulus to it) plus a signal-processing portion or stimulus source; cause the devices to travel to a plurality of target sites in the vicinity of target tissue. A related variant adds the step of delivering an electromagnetic stimulus to the stimulation target with one or more of the devices.

Device/system family: the specification also describes lumen-traveling device claims built from a structural element (with lumen-wall-engaging portion and fluid-contacting portion), a propelling mechanism (e.g., rollers/wheels, inchworm expansion-and-retraction, walking legs, screw/spiral, paddles), motion control circuitry, a sensor, response initiation circuitry, and an active portion (stimulation, material release, ablation, etc.), with FIG. 41–43 logic diagrams and FIGS. 54–57 schematic device embodiments that appear tailored to apparatus claims. I cannot confirm the exact count or wording of these apparatus claims from the retrieved text.

CAFC 2026 docket search — result

No Federal Circuit 2026 docket activity involving US 8,024,036 was found. My searches for "8024036" Federal Circuit appeal 2026 returned zero results, and broader litigation searches surfaced only an unrelated party-name coincidence (Gearbox Software, L.L.C., a defendant in Symbology Innovations, LLC v. Valve Corp., 2:23-cv-00419, E.D. Tex. — not the same entity as assignee Gearbox LLC and not involving this patent).

Consistent with this, the patent's PTO status is Expired – Fee Related (adjusted expiration 2027-04-22), which is typical of a patent that has lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees rather than one in active appellate litigation.

⚠️ Caveat: my searches covered Google Patents, Justia, Unified Patents, PTAB/PTACTS documents, and general web results. I did not obtain a direct, authenticated query of the PACER/CAFC docket system or the USPTO PatentCenter/Assignment database for this specific patent number. A definitive "no 2026 CAFC docket" conclusion would require that direct docket query, which I could not complete within the search budget.

Family / continuity (for context)

The specification states the application is a continuation-in-part of US 11/403,230 ("Lumenally Active Device," filed 2006-04-12, incorporated by reference). The family listing shows numerous follow-on continuations claiming priority to this application, including US 8,660,642; US 8,694,092; US 9,198,563; US 9,408,530; and publications US 2012/0035434, 2012/0035437–35440, 2012/0035540, and US 2017/0027424.

Summary of uncertainties

1. No verbatim abstract was captured — I have paraphrased the disclosed subject matter instead.
2. No verbatim independent claim text was captured — the claim overview above is derived from the patent's claim-worded Summary section and its figures.
3. No confirmed 2026 CAFC docket — searches returned nothing, but I could not authenticate this against PACER/CAFC directly.
4. Priority-date discrepancy between sources (2007-03-18 vs. 2007-03-19) resolved in favor of the authoritative 2007-03-19.

I'll search litigation databases for this specific patent number.

No litigation surfaced yet. Let me run more targeted searches on the specific litigation databases.

Still nothing on-point. Let me try the litigation-specific portals and check the patent's own "litigation" listing.

Answer: Known litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 8,024,036

Bottom line: I found no litigation — district court, ITC, PTAB, or Federal Circuit — involving U.S. Patent No. 8,024,036.

I ran multiple targeted search queries against litigation-covering sources (Unified Patents Portal, Justia Dockets, CourtListener/RECAP, Docket Alarm/PTAB, and general web indices), searching the literal identifiers 8024036, 8,024,036, and US8024036 in combination with litigation terms, the patent title ("Lumen-traveling biological interface device"), the assignee ("Gearbox LLC" / "Invention Science Fund I" / "Searete"), and the lead inventor ("Bran Ferren"). None returned a case in which this patent is asserted, challenged, or otherwise at issue.

Because no litigation exists, there is no plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome to report for this patent.

What the searches did return (and why these are NOT this patent)

To be transparent about the near-misses, each of the following was excluded as an incorrect hit:

Note also that the Unified Patents Portal record for related family member US 2007/0225634 A1 ("Lumen-traveling Delivery Device") lists US-8024036-B2 in a related-patents/assignee table (priority 2007-03-18, assignee Gearbox LLC). That is a patent-family / ownership listing, not a litigation entry, and does not indicate any suit or PTAB proceeding.

Corroborating status evidence

The absence of litigation is consistent with the patent's prosecution/ownership record: U.S. 8,024,036 has a PTO status of Expired – Fee Related (adjusted expiration 2027-04-22) and has passed through Invention Science Fund I, LLC → Gearbox LLC by recorded assignment (2016-01-15). A patent that had been asserted in active litigation would ordinarily show up in the litigation trackers; it does not.

Caveats (limits on this conclusion)

1. Source coverage. My conclusion rests on indexed, publicly searchable litigation databases (Unified Patents Portal, Justia, CourtListener/RECAP, Docket Alarm, general web). I did not obtain an authenticated, real-time query of PACER, the CAFC docket (CM/ECF), the ITC EDIS, or the USPTO PTAB/PACER APIs directly. Definitive negative confirmation would require those direct docket queries.
2. Standard disclaimer. Under Fed. Cir. practice, settlement agreements and licenses are often confidential; a patent can be licensed (e.g., via Gearbox LLC's monetization activities) without any filed suit appearing in public dockets. Absence of litigation therefore does not necessarily mean absence of assertion activity (demand letters, licensing).
3. Consequence for the prior section. This is consistent with, and does not contradict, the earlier-generated CAFC-2026 analysis (which likewise found no 2026 Federal Circuit activity for this patent).

Conclusion: As of April 26, 2026, no litigation is known involving U.S. Patent No. 8,024,036.

I'll verify the structured "no proceedings" signal against public PTAB sources before writing up.

Let me run a few more targeted checks to rule out false positives and confirm the negative.

AIA Trial Proceedings — US 8,024,036 B2

Verification note: My structured source (USPTO ODP API, as reflected in the "PTAB proceedings on file" block) is the canonical list and it returns zero AIA trial proceedings for this patent. I attempted to corroborate this against PTAB E2E/PTACTS, PTAB Decisions, and general web sources. My search budget was exhausted mid-verification (the final batch of queries returned a hard stop before completing), so the negative below is grounded in the structured ODP data plus the searches that did complete. I did not obtain a direct, hand-typed query of PTAB E2E for this patent number within budget — flagging that as a residual (small) gap.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 8,024,036 B2: 0. There is no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition, no institution decision, no Final Written Decision, and no resulting Federal Circuit appeal naming this patent. The defensive posture for a defendant is therefore unusual and double-edged: the patent has never been battle-tested at the Board — which means it is not hardened, but it also means you would be the first to run a validity challenge, with no prior FWD to build on and no petitioner estoppel already in place to narrow the fight.

Do not read the zero as "this patent is weak." It is more likely a function of the patent being Expired – Fee Related (adjusted expiration 2027-04-22) and, per the prior section, never having surfaced as an asserted patent in a docketed infringement suit. Patents that are not being asserted do not attract IPRs — the two facts (no litigation, no IPR) are consistent with each other and tell you nothing about claim strength.

No proceedings to enumerate

Because the canonical list is empty, there is no "claims-invalidated, most-impactful-first" ordering to present. I will not manufacture proceeding numbers or panel names to populate this section.

⚠️ False-positive trap — three DIFFERENT "'036" patents circulating in PTAB/court records

Any defendant (or its counsel) researching this patent by the shorthand "the '036 patent" is highly likely to pull the wrong one. I surfaced at least three distinct collisions and am documenting them so they are not mistaken for proceedings against US 8,024,036:

1. A "'036 patent" in an IPR involving § 103 over Ogasawara + Bolle, where the Board adopted a POSITA having a degree in electrical engineering/computer science with experience in "image processing, image recognition, or a related field." (PTACTS document referencing "claims 1, 10, 12, 13, and 15 of the '036 patent" and a Sotera stipulation / Fintiv analysis.) The subject matter — image processing and recognition — does not match US 8,024,036, whose disclosure is a self-propelling lumen-traveling biological interface device. This is a different patent that merely shares the "'036" trailing digits. Source: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1547847](/patent/1547847)/

2. U.S. Patent No. 8,478,036 — asserted in Nantworks, LLC v. Bank of America Corp., No. 2:20-cv-07872 (C.D. Cal.), invalidated (in contentions) over Mault (US 2002/0047867) relating to food-image recognition/diet logging. Again a different patent — note the number is 8,478,036, not 8,024,036.

3. The Neenah v. Schwendimann line (IPR2020-01361/-01363, IPR2021-00016) concerns U.S. 6,723,773 — unrelated.

None of these is US 8,024,036. Proposition: there is no PTAB record naming this patent.

Strategic summary

Claim status across AIA trials: no claims are CANCELED, SUSTAINED, or TESTED — all claims are UNTESTED at the Board. Every claim of US 8,024,036 (both the method family described in the Summary — the electrical-stimulation, neural-stimulation, and cardiac-stimulation emplacement methods, the "configure a bioelectromagnetic interface system" deliver-and-release method, and the "emplace a bioelectromagnetic interface system" plurality methods — and any apparatus claims drawn to the structural element / propelling mechanism / response-initiation circuitry combination) survives unadjudicated. There is no PTAB certificate cancelling any claim, and no narrowing amendment arising from a trial. ⚠️ Because I do not have the verbatim claim set (a gap carried over from the earlier section), I cannot give a claim-by-claim number list here; the claim families are as previously identified.

Estoppel landscape — the board is clean. With no prior petitioner, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to anyone as against this patent. A first-moving defendant faces none of the IPR-estoppel complications that dominated Apple v. Caltech and Ironburg v. Valve; conversely, that first mover will create estoppel against itself going forward. Practically: all prior-art grounds — patents, printed publications, and (if a PGR-eligible window ever existed, which it does not now given the 2007/2009 dates) — remain fully available in a fresh IPR petition, subject only to the ordinary § 325(d)/Advanced Bionics and Fintiv discretionary filters and the 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) one-year bar running from service of a district-court complaint.

Pattern signals: none. There is no repeat petitioner, no patent-owner appeal of an adverse FWD (there is nothing to appeal), and no evidence of a defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) in the chain for this patent. Unified Patents' portal does list US-8024036-B2 among the Gearbox LLC portfolio, but that is a catalog entry, not a challenge — no Unified-filed IPR on this patent appeared in any search result. The prior section's caution stands: assignee Gearbox LLC (the patent-holding entity) is not the same as Gearbox Software, L.L.C., the videogame defendant in Symbology Innovations v. Valve (E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00419) and Quantum Technology Innovations v. Valve (E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00425). Those cases involve Gearbox Software and completely different patents.

Recommended next steps

1. State the negative plainly to the client: there is no PTAB proceeding on US 8,024,036. No FWD, no institution decision, nothing to link. Any memo or chart that cites an "IPR on the '036 patent" should be scrubbed — it almost certainly refers to a different patent (see the three collisions above).

2. Because no FWD exists, there is no disposition to quote and no canceling certificate to point to. A validity defense must be built from scratch. Before filing, run the art against the actual claim set (retrieve the verbatim "What is claimed is" text — a gap in the current record) and evaluate § 102/§ 103 exposure, plus § 112 written-description/enablement theories given the sprawling, prophetic-style specification.

3. Mind the clock and the economics. The patent is Expired – Fee Related (adjusted expiration 2027-04-22), so no new § 315(b) bar can be triggered by a fresh suit unless one is filed; but an expired patent can still be asserted for past damages within the § 286 six-year lookback. Weigh whether an IPR is worth filing at all versus a district-court invalidity case — and note that if you do file, you will be the first petitioner and will accept § 315(e)(2) estoppel exposure.

4. If a § 315(b) complaint is served, calendar the one-year petition deadline immediately — it is the only hard IPR clock that matters here, since no other trial milestones exist.

5. Residual verification gap (disclosed, not hidden): I could not complete a direct PTAB E2E / PatentCenter query within the search budget. Before relying on the zero-count in a filing or opinion, confirm it with a one-click PTAB E2E party/patent search and a PatentCenter "Patent Trial" tab check for 8,024,036. Given the ODP canonical list is empty and every corroborating search came back negative, I assess the probability of a missed proceeding as low.

I'll research the assignment record for this patent across the sources specified.

I've hit my search budget. Here is the reconstructed assignment record based on what I could retrieve.

Method note / limitation up front: my tooling returned only web_search, with no direct authenticated query of the USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) or Assignment Search (https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). Accordingly I could not capture reel/frame numbers or the correspondent-of-record fields as they appear on US 8,024,036's own assignment documents. The assignment events below are taken from the authoritative Google Patents legal-events record for this patent (supplied in the full text), and one batch reel/frame is corroborated from co-family records (Dimensions/Espacenet INPADOC). I flag every item I could not verify rather than invent it. This is a completeness gap, not a finding of "no records."

Inventors

Ten named inventors (from the authoritative front page):

Pattern note (contrary to the "departing inventors" red flag): the notable pattern here is not inventor flight within 12 months of filing. It is the opposite — a 10-inventor "invention-session" roster dominated by Intellectual Ventures principals and staff inventors (Ferren, Hillis, Jung, Myhrvold, Wood, Hyde, Ishikawa, Tegreene), plus one outside subject-matter specialist (Leuthardt, neurosurgery/BCI). This is the signature of an invention-holding entity generating and stockpiling filings, not a product company's engineering team. ⚠ I have flagged every employer attribution as unconfirmed-without-document because I could not pull employment exhibits (e.g., the inventor assignment to Searete LLC) in this pass.

Original assignee

Searete LLC was the original owner (the application is a continuation-in-part of US 11/403,230, "Lumenally Active Device," filed 2006-04-12, and the recorded 2011 assignment runs from Searete LLC). The issued patent names The Invention Science Fund I, LLC as assignee of record.

• Primary line of business: Searete LLC and Invention Science Fund I, LLC are non-operating invention/IP-holding entities, not manufacturers. Searete LLC is the well-documented Intellectual Ventures "invention" arm; Invention Science Fund I, LLC is a related holding entity. ⚠ I am asserting the IV linkage from the entities' well-known roles and from the portfolio profile below, not from a corporate-registry document retrieved in this session.
• Product embodying the claims: None identified. The claims cover a self-propelling lumen-traveling device; I found no commercial product, FDA clearance, or manufacturing activity tied to any assignee in this chain.
• Current status: neither Searete LLC nor Invention Science Fund I, LLC shows as an operating company on any source I retrieved; both persist as IP-holding vehicles within the same family. No bankruptcy, dissolution, or merger filing surfaced.

Assignment timeline

The authoritative Google Patents legal-events record shows the following recorded events for this patent. ⚠ Reel/frame unverified for both links (see method note). A third, earlier event (inventors → Searete LLC at filing, ca. 2007) is likely but was not captured and I will not state it as recorded.

• Executed date not captured / recorded 2011-05-23 — Reel not captured

  • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignors' Interest)
  • Assignor: Searete LLC
  • Assignee: The Invention Science Fund I, LLC
  • Correspondent: not captured — ⚠ cannot flag recurrence without the field
  • Context: internal reorg within the same IP-holding family — moving the application from the invention entity (Searete) into the holding entity (Invention Science Fund I) shortly before/around issuance.

• Executed 2016-01-13 / recorded 2016-01-15 — Reel 037540/0396 ⚠ batch reel corroborated on co-family patents; not confirmed on this patent's own face

  • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignors' Interest)
  • Assignor: The Invention Science Fund I, LLC
  • Assignee: GEARBOX, LLC (address of record: Washington)
  • Correspondent: not captured; the batch document is recorded as "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST; ASSIGNOR: THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND I LLC; REEL/FRAME: 037540/0396." ⚠ Note: this reel appears across a large multi-patent schedule (I corroborated it on US 8,109,923 and US 9,789,315, and in the Espacenet INPADOC event for US 2010/0185174 A1), i.e., a bulk portfolio transfer, not a patent-by-patent sale.
  • Context: transfer to a licensing/holding aggregator — ownership pushed from the Invention Science Fund holding entity into Gearbox LLC, a Washington LLC whose portfolio (neural modulation, vestibular stimulation, ocular power transmission, brown-adipose cooling, micro-bearings, ablation) is thematically unrelated and traces back to Searete/Invention Science Fund — the profile of a rights-management/aggregation vehicle, not an operating company. ⚠ IV affiliation of Gearbox LLC is inferred from entity profile and portfolio, not from a registry document.

No other recorded assignments (no security agreements, mergers, name changes, licenses, or corrections) appear on this patent's legal-events record in the sources retrieved.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8024036
    2007 : Priority application filed by Searete LLC
    2009 : Application filed
    2011 : Patent issued
         : Assigned to Invention Science Fund I
    2016 : Assigned to Gearbox LLC

(Text kept short and punctuation-free per parser constraints; the 2011 and 2016 lines each stack two events under one year.)

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present (qualified). Ownership passes Searete LLC → The Invention Science Fund I, LLC (rec. 2011-05-23) → Gearbox LLC (exec. 2016-01-13, rec. 2016-01-15). Every entity in the chain is an IP-holding vehicle with no product, and Gearbox LLC carries the "Holdings/Aggregation" profile. Qualification: the classic form of this signal (operating company → licensing-only LLC) is not met because there was never an operating company; the transfer is between non-operating vehicles from the start. No registered-agent address or single-member LLC certificate was retrieved, so I stop short of calling any of them a "shell" on naming alone.

2. Known asserter in the chain — unclear / present-as-IV-family. Searete LLC (assignor, rec. 2011-05-23) is a well-documented Intellectual Ventures–affiliated entity, and Intellectual Ventures is on the reference NPE list. Gearbox LLC, the current assignee, sits in the same Washington-based, Searete-descended portfolio. However, ⚠ I did not retrieve a document establishing Gearbox LLC as an IV affiliate or as a plaintiff in any suit, and Gearbox LLC does not, on its face, match a named entry on the specific asserter list provided. Call it present as IV-family association; unresolved as a named asserter.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not determinable. The Google legal-events record redacts the correspondent ("SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS"), and the co-family Espacenet entry likewise does not surface an attorney name. I cannot report a correspondent, and therefore cannot report recurrence. ⚠ This is the single most information-rich field for your framework and it is the one I could not obtain. Recommend a direct Assignment Center pull to fill it.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only two recorded post-filing assignments, spanning 2011-05-23 to 2016-01-15 (~4 years 8 months). That is well outside the "<24 months, chained LLCs" pattern.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No infringement suit naming US 8,024,036 was found (consistent with the earlier section's finding of no 2026 CAFC docket). There is therefore no transfer within 6 months of a suit to point to.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding involving Searete LLC, Invention Science Fund I, LLC, or Gearbox LLC surfaced.

7. Privateering — not present / unclear. No operating-company transferor exists in this chain, so the classic privateering fact pattern (operating co. → NPE asserting against competitors) is absent. ⚠ I cannot rule out downstream privateering by Gearbox LLC; no evidence found.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. Gearbox LLC is not one of those entities. The patent is not shown neutralized.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

The ownership chain runs entirely through non-operating IP-holding vehicles — Searete LLC → The Invention Science Fund I, LLC (recorded 2011-05-23) → Gearbox, LLC (executed 2016-01-13, recorded 2016-01-15, batch reel 037540/0396 on co-family patents) — with no product-shipping assignee and no product embodying the claims anywhere in the chain, and the assignor-side entities are documented Intellectual Ventures–affiliated invention/holding entities (an NPE-list family). That combination supports the structural NPE call. It is only moderate, not high, because no assertion (no suit, no license demand, no ITC complaint) was found, the correspondent-of-record could not be retrieved to test the repeat-player tell, and the reel/frame for this patent's own record is unverified — three gaps that a direct Assignment Center query should close.

Verify at:

• https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search application 12/319,881 or patent 8,024,036)
• https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• https://patents.google.com/patent/US8024036/en (legal events: 2011-05-23 reassignment; 2016-01-15 reassignment)

Two cross-reference flags against the earlier section: (a) the earlier section listed the 2011 assignor simply as "Searete LLC" and the current assignee as "Gearbox LLC" — that is consistent with what I found, and no contradiction arises; the added detail here is the 2016 execution date (2016-01-13) and the batch reel 037540/0396. (b) The earlier section's priority-date discrepancy (2007-03-18 vs 2007-03-19) persists in third-party data — the Unified Patents portal again showed 2007-03-18 for US-8024036-B2 in this pass; I continue to treat 2007-03-19 as controlling per the authoritative record.

I'll research the actual cited references on the face of US 8,024,036, since the supplied full text was truncated before the front-page citation tables.

Let me pull the actual front-page citation tables for US 8,024,036 itself.

I have partial citation data. Let me try to retrieve the specific "References Cited" list from the pre-grant publication of this application.

Prior Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 8,024,036 B2

0. Method, scope, and what I could vs. could not verify

Sources actually used for this section:

• The authoritative full text of US 8,024,036 (supplied) — which contains the specification's citations to prior documents.
• https://patents.justia.com/patent/8024036 — the "References Cited" list on the face of the patent (non-patent literature portion, confirmed).
• https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/[US8024036B2](/patent/US8024036B2) — the issued claim text for claims 1 and 11 (confirmed).
• Google Patents family records for the sibling applications that share this specification.

⚠️ Honest limitation (do not skip): I could not retrieve the verbatim front‑page "U.S. Patent Documents" table of US 8,024,036. The Google Patents fetch for this patent repeatedly truncated before the citation tables, and my tool budget expired before I could open the grant PDF directly. What follows therefore rests on (a) the documents cited in the specification of 8,024,036 itself — which for this Intellectual Ventures family are the same body of references that appear on the front page as "References Cited" — and (b) the confirmed NPL list. Exact issue dates and examiner-vs-applicant citation status are flagged as unverified rather than asserted. I have not invented any reference number.

Strict rule honored: Every identifier below is reproduced literally as it appears. I did not return results for transposed-digit look‑alikes (e.g., 8,240,362; 8,036,756) or for JP 8024036 A.

1. Correction / refinement to the previously generated sections

The earlier sections flagged that no verbatim claim text was captured and described the independent claims from the patent's claim‑styled Summary. That gap is now partly closed, and the issued claim 1 is narrower and more specific than the Summary language:

Claim 1 (verbatim, issued): "A method of emplacing a cardiac stimulation device, comprising: causing a self‑propelling cardiac stimulation device to travel within a body tube tree of a subject toward a target site; pushing or pulling one or more additional cardiac stimulation devices with the self-propelling cardiac stimulation device; if a branch point including two or more branches within the body tube tree is reached by the self-propelling cardiac stimulation device, causing the self-propelling cardiac stimulation device to enter a branch leading toward the target site; causing the self-propelling cardiac stimulation device to stop traveling upon reaching the target site; and delivering a cardiac pacing stimulus at the target site."

Claim 11 (verbatim, issued): "A method of emplacing a cardiac stimulation device, comprising: selecting a self‑propelling cardiac stimulation device sized to fit within a target site from an assortment of self-propelling cardiac stimulation devices of different sizes; … causing the self-propelling cardiac stimulation device to stop traveling upon reaching the target site and delivering a cardiac pacing stimulus at the target site."

This is a material refinement, not a contradiction, of the earlier "method of emplacing a cardiac stimulation device" description. The Summary paragraph omitted the two limitations that do the real work in the granted claims — (i) towing/pushing multiple stimulation devices and (ii) actually delivering a cardiac pacing stimulus. Any prior‑art chart built on the Summary wording alone would be over‑broad and would wrongly read on the claims. I flag this explicitly because it changes the § 102 analysis below.

2. § 102 legal framework that governs this analysis

• Governing law: pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 (application filed 2009‑01‑12, priority 2007‑03‑19; family priority back to 2004‑04‑19).
• Critical date for § 102(a)/(b) art: 2007‑03‑19 (and 2004‑04‑19 if the earlier family priority is perfected for a given claim).
• § 102(e) art = U.S. patents/publications with an earlier effective filing date, by "another."
• Key structural point about this patent's own citation list: nearly every cited patent is cited in the specification as "incorporated herein by reference." That matters: a document incorporated by reference becomes part of this patent's own disclosure, so it generally cannot "anticipate" the claims of the incorporating patent — the claims are supported by it. The proper § 102 role of these references is (a) as § 102(a)/(b) publications in their own right (all predate 2007), and (b) as evidence of the state of the art for § 103. I therefore identify below which narrow claim limitations each reference could realistically reach — in practice, almost never an independent claim.

3. Table 1 — Most relevant cited references, prioritized

Common thread, and the central finding: every one of these references is cited for a single structural sub‑element (a propulsion mode, a barrier, a sensor type, a tool). None of them, alone or in combination as cited, discloses the whole of issued claim 1 or claim 11 — in particular the combination of (a) a self‑propelling device navigating a branching body tube tree, (b) towing/pushing one or more additional cardiac stimulation devices, and (c) delivering a cardiac pacing stimulus at the target site.

4. The three references with the highest § 102 potential — and why they still fall short

1. U.S. Pat. No. 6,709,388 B1 (self‑propelling intraluminal device) — closest on the "travel through a body tube tree" limitation. It addresses a device that moves itself through a lumen. It does not disclose cardiac pacing, does not disclose towing additional stimulation devices, and does not disclose the bioelectromagnetic‑transducer limitations of the interface‑system claims.

2. U.S. Pat. No. 6,764,441 B2 / U.S. Pub. 2006/0004395 A1 (peristaltic, sequentially‑engaging propulsion). Closest on the inch‑worm / alternate lumen‑wall engagement limitation (FIGS. 29A–29E, 30A/B). Reaches only the propulsion‑dependent claims.

3. U.S. Pat. No. 6,398,280 B1 (micro‑graspers) + U.S. Pat. No. 6,773,429 B2 (barrier release). Closest on the "carry a device and release it at the target site" concept that underlies the "configure a bioelectromagnetic interface system" claim family (FIGS. 24, 25A/B). Neither discloses self‑propelled navigation of a branching tree to the release site with arrival detection.

Conclusion under § 102: no cited reference anticipates independent claims 1 or 11. The realistic § 102 exposure from this citation list is confined to dependent claims that recite one of the enumerated sub‑structures, and even then each reference is incorporated by reference into the '036 specification itself, which sharply limits its anticipatory force against the incorporating patent's own claims.

5. Non‑patent literature (confirmed as cited)

The Justia record for 8,024,036 confirms a very large NPL "References Cited" list — e.g., Saltzman, "Endoscopic Advances—A View Toward the Future" (2005); Schmidt et al., "Experimental Study of Peripheral, Balloon‑expandable Stent Systems" (2001); Schoonhoven & Stegeman, "Models and Analysis of Compound Nerve Action Potentials" (1991); Senel & Hincal, "Drug permeation enhancement via buccal route" (2001); Serruya et al., Nature (2002); Serruys et al., NEJM (2006); Shabalovskaya (2002); Shahinpoor & Kim, Smart Mater. Struct. (2005); Snoek et al., Spinal Cord (2000); Snow et al., Science (2005); Stoeckel et al., Eur. Radiol. (2004) (list truncated in the record I retrieved).

§ 102 relevance of the NPL: these are printed publications under § 102(a)/(b), and their real value is § 103 background (e.g., the neural‑stimulation and stent literature), not anticipation. I did not verify each NPL date against the patent's own face, and I caution against treating this partial list as complete.

6. What this means for a validity challenge — and the honest caveats

• No single‑reference § 102 case against the independent claims. A challenger would have to build a § 103 combination (e.g., a self‑propelling intraluminal device + an intravascular pacing lead), and would face the "delivering a cardiac pacing stimulus" and "pushing/pulling additional cardiac stimulation devices" limitations, for which the cited art provides no teaching.
• Best § 102 targets are the narrowly‑drafted dependent claims, each of which pairs with exactly one cited reference.
• Three separate uncertainties remain and should be closed before any opinion or filing is finalized:
  1. The verbatim front‑page "U.S. Patent Documents" table of 8,024,036 was not retrieved. Confirm which of the above were examiner‑cited vs. applicant‑IDS‑cited, and confirm the full citation list (I retrieved the in‑spec/incorporated‑by‑reference set and the NPL list).
  2. Per‑reference issue/publication dates are given above as years only where I am confident; several are marked "⚠ verify." I deliberately did not manufacture month/day dates.
  3. The full issued claim set (claims other than 1 and 11) is still not in hand; the claim‑family mapping used here is a placeholder for a claim‑by‑claim chart.

Verification path: pull the grant PDF at https://patents.google.com/patent/US8024036/en (front‑page "References Cited"), and the USPTO PatentCenter "References" tab for application 12/319,881, to substitute a verbatim citation table for the reconstructed one in § 3.

I'll research the prior art landscape for this patent's claim families before constructing the § 103 combinations.

Let me pin down the pre-2007 prior art on the stimulation and branch-selection elements.

Let me check the branch-selection/navigation element and multi-device stimulation prior art.

Obviousness Analysis Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 — U.S. 8,024,036 B2

0. Cross-reference and conflict flags against the earlier sections

• Consistent with the Patent summary section: I continue to treat 2007-03-19 as the controlling priority date (Google Patents may show 2007-03-18 via Unified; not adopted).
• ⚠ New conflict flagged: the earlier sections used the phrase "the patent's … claim-worded Summary section" as a proxy for the claims. That proxy is not a substitute for the verbatim "What is claimed is" text, which was never retrieved. Every combination below is therefore keyed to claim families, not to claim numbers, and should be re-run against the issued claim set before filing.
• ⚠ New § 103(c) flag not raised in earlier sections: most of the closest art is the patentee's own family (US 7,857,767; US 8,000,784; US 8,019,413; US 2007/0088334; US 2007/0225633–34; US 2007/0244520 — all Searete/Invention Science Fund I). Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c), subject matter that is prior art only under § 102(e)/(f)/(g) and was commonly owned at the time of invention is disqualified for § 103. An invalidity theory built on the patentee's own siblings is therefore likely dead on arrival. The viable § 103 case must be built on third-party art, which is what I do below.

1. Governing law and the critical-date framework

• The application was filed 2009-01-12 as a CIP of US 11/403,230 (filed 2006-04-12), claiming priority from US 11/726,031 (2007-03-19). It is therefore governed by pre-AIA § 103(a).
• Working critical date: 2007-03-19 for subject matter supported by US 11/726,031.
• ⚠ For any claim limitation first added as new matter on 2009-01-12, the § 102(b) bar date moves from 2006-03-19 to 2008-01-12, which sweeps in a large body of 2007 art (§ 102(a)/(e) and, for some items, § 102(b)). This makes the claim-family effective-date question outcome-determinative and is the single most important unresolved issue.
• Standard: Graham v. John Deere, KSR Int'l v. Teleflex (predictable combination of known elements; "obvious to try" over a finite set of identified solutions), and the motivation-to-combine requirement satisfied by any articulated reason (art-recognized problem, design incentive, market pressure).

2. Prior-art record used (and its § 102 status)

Primary sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8024036](/patent/US8024036)/en ; https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2003041561A2 ; https://uspto.report/patent/app/20030125788 ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/[6866626](/patent/6866626) ; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a1/28/bc/f128eab8f571af/US20060229677A1.pdf ; https://uspto.report/patent/grant/[6,051,017](/patent/6051017) ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/[6175764](/patent/6175764) ; https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/[US8257257B2](/patent/US8257257B2) ; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/5d/23/6c/ffbc1618dfc6fc/US20070161851A1.pdf ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/[9408530](/patent/9408530) ; https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1526765](/patent/1526765)/ .

3. Combination A — the "method of emplacing a neural/cardiac stimulation device" claims

Long + Libbus/Moffitt (Cardiac Pacemakers) + Soper (branch navigation)

Claim-limitation mapping:

Motivation to combine. (a) Same field and same problem — minimally invasive access to a deep intraluminal target. Libbus/Moffitt expressly states the problem the '036 method solves ("difficult to stimulate … deep in the body or behind an organ"), supplying the KSR "art-recognized problem" motivation. (b) Percutaneous/transvascular placement of a stimulator already existed (Libbus/Moffitt: "Various embodiments of the IMD stimulate neural targets using a lead fed through vasculature"); replacing a pushed lead with a self-propelled capsule is the natural, predictable next step once Long establishes that a capsule can self-propel through a lumen and be stopped on command. (c) Every remaining step (navigate branches, stop at target) was known in the endoscopy navigation art. (d) Predictable results, no new principle.

4. Combination B — the "configure a bioelectromagnetic interface system" (deliver-and-release) claim

Long + Loeb (US 6,051,017) + Libbus/Moffitt

• Move the interface device with a self-propelling lumen-traveling device: Long's capsule carries instruments through its working channel (US 6,866,626, claim 1: "working channel … sized for receiving a medical instrument") and releasably receives instruments; the '036 spec's FIG. 24 grasper/device-release structure is exactly this.
• Detect arrival at the target site: Long (operator/position monitoring; magnetic localization art, EP 1 773 230) and Libbus/Moffitt (position/posture detection).
• Move the carrier away while leaving the interface device behind: Loeb's microstimulators are "particularly advantageous because they can be manufactured inexpensively and can be implanted non-surgically by injection" and are separately commanded (US 6,175,764). Combining a self-propelled carrier with a releasable leadless microstimulator is the classic "obvious to try" combination: the carrier solves Loeb's placement-precision problem, and Loeb's microstimulator solves Long's umbilicus/tether problem.

Motivation: Libbus/Moffitt identifies precise placement as the gating issue; Loeb's microstimulators solve power/lead problems but need accurate delivery; Long supplies an autonomous delivery platform. A POSITA would recognize that this improves both devices in the same way — KSR's core rationale.

5. Combination C — the "plurality of bioelectromagnetic interface devices" claims

Loeb (system of implantable devices) + Libbus/Moffitt (satellite–planet network) + Fiesler (US 6,600,953) + Long

• "a plurality of bioelectromagnetic interface devices … via at least one introduction site": Loeb's system of implantable devices (US 6,164,284 / US 6,185,452, "System of Implantable Device[s] for Monitoring and/or Affecting Body Parameters"); Loeb's multiple microstimulators, "commanded, at will," with "operation of more than one microstimulator … coordinated."
• "electromagnetic transducer … producing an output signal representative of a bioelectromagnetic signal … or delivering an electromagnetic stimulus": Libbus/Moffitt's expandable electrode senses ANS activity and stimulates; the satellite network "individually commands each satellite to provide sensing functions and therapy functions."
• "signal processing portion": Libbus/Moffitt's planet "processes the encoded signals received from the network of satellites, assigns time values … compares the time values to a template of normal time values" — i.e., a signal-processing portion, and a closed-loop control path.
• "plurality of target sites … in the vicinity of … target tissue": Fiesler's multiple electrodes "applied to or in a vicinity of respective sites … of the arterial supply"; the '036 FIG. 72 (multiple devices "positioned around a target tissue") and FIGS. 78A–78C (simultaneous introduction) are drawn directly to this.

Motivation: spatial selectivity of stimulation (steering current to a nerve without capturing adjacent tissue) is a known design goal; distributing a plurality of small transducers around the target is the predictable solution, and simultaneous introduction through one site is an obvious manufacturing/procedural efficiency.

6. Combination D — apparatus claims (structural element / propelling mechanism / circuitry / active portion)

• Propelling mechanism: a closed set — rollers (US 7,042,184; US 2006/0119304), screw/spiral (Ikeuchi 1996), walking appendages (US 5,574,347), inchworm (Rennex US 5,386,741; Patronik et al.), peristaltic (US 6,764,441; US 2006/0004395), swimming (US 6,240,312), track/tread and amoeboid (Freitas 1999). Selection among these is the paradigm KSR "finite number of identified, predictable solutions."
• Structural element with lumen-wall-engaging + fluid-contacting portions: Long's balloon/wing capsule; Fujita's flexible-wire electrodes ("change in the diameter of the lumenal organ is accurately compensated for and constant contact between the electrodes and the body tissue is assured").
• Sensor + response-initiation circuitry (closed loop): Libbus/Moffitt's sense-then-stimulate feedback loop; classify-anything-none. The patent's own classification A61B 5/4836 and 5/4839 ("closed-loop systems … combined with drug delivery") is examiner-acknowledged prior-art space.
• Active portion: Libbus/Moffitt's pulse generator and drug/sensing satellites; Loeb's stimulation parameters; the specification's own cited art (Barrier-release and catalytic portions are conventional).

⚠ The specification admits the state of the art in its Background: "Capsules containing sensing and imaging instrumentation that may be swallowed … and which travel passively through the digestive tract have also been developed" and "Robotic devices intended to move through the lower portion of the digestive tract under their own power are also under development." These are § 102(a)/(b)-style admissions that cut against patentability of the self-propulsion concept itself.

7. Rebuttal posture and weaknesses of the obviousness case

1. No verbatim claims. A true § 103 analysis requires element-by-element comparison to the issued claims. Until the "What is claimed is" text is retrieved, this is a combination-generation exercise, not a validity opinion.
2. § 103(c) kills the family-based theories. The strongest art (the patentee's own US 7,857,767 / US 8,000,784 / US 2007/0088334 / US 2007/0225633–34) is commonly owned and, if § 102(e)-only, disqualified. Practitioner takeaway: plead the third-party art (Long, Libbus/Moffitt, Loeb, Fiesler, Iddan), not the family.
3. The § 102(e) margin on Fujita is 13 days. US 2007/0161851's US filing date (2007-03-06) beats the 2007-03-19 priority by less than two weeks and only if the invention date is not earlier. Use it for state-of-the-art/POSITA knowledge, not as standalone § 102 art.
4. Anticipation is not available on this record. No single reference teaches branch selection and stop-at-target and the stimulation purpose; the case is a § 103 case, and it needs an articulated motivation (supplied above).
5. Possible teaching-away argument. Libbus/Moffitt emphasizes a chronically implanted, fixed expandable electrode, and Long's capsule is umbilicus-tethered in every embodiment. Expect the patentee to argue away from a free-swimming vascular stimulator. Rebuttal: a fixed implant is a different claim of the reference, not a disclaimer; and the '036 spec itself claims the tethered-capsule embodiment.
6. Objective indicia: none found. No product, no FDA clearance, no licensing revenue evidence, and the patent is Expired – Fee Related (adjusted expiration 2027-04-22). With no nexus evidence, secondary considerations carry little weight.
7. § 112 exposure compounds the § 103 case. Much of the specification is prophetic ("may include"), which both weakens any "unexpected results" narrative and invites written-description/enablement attacks on the broad genus claims.

8. Bottom line

The '036 claim families appear vulnerable under pre-AIA § 103(a) as combinations of (i) a self-propelled intraluminal capsule with electrode-based propulsion and controlled stopping (Long), (ii) transvascular/vasculature-based neural-and-cardiac stimulation with feedback signal processing (Libbus/Moffitt, Cardiac Pacemakers), (iii) injectable/networked microstimulators with coordinated multi-site operation (Loeb), and (iv) branch-point navigation of a device through a branched anatomical structure (Soper; magnetic-guidance capsules). The motivation is supplied by the references themselves — Libbus/Moffitt expressly states the problem of stimulating a nerve "deep in the body or behind an organ" and the known solution of a vessel-fed lead.

Single most important next step: retrieve the verbatim "What is claimed is" text for US 8,024,036 (and confirm whether the FIGS. 58–96 method limitations were first added on 2009-01-12). That determination fixes the critical date and, with it, whether the 2006–2007 references are § 102(a), § 102(b), or § 102(e)-only art — and thus whether this is a strong or merely a plausible invalidity case.

⚠ Residual verification gaps, stated rather than hidden: (1) the Soper reference's patent number; (2) US 6,600,953's content (secondary source only); (3) Fujita US 8,257,257's exact US filing/§ 102(e) date; (4) whether any of the FIGS. 58–96 limitations are new matter. None of these changes the overall combination logic, but all four should be confirmed before the analysis is relied upon.