Invalidity dossier
US 8359014
I am driving/busy automatic response system for mobile phones
Current assignee: Individual
Added 9/23/2026, 8:31:30 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview — US 8,359,014 B2
Title: "I am driving/busy automatic response system for mobile phones"
Patent number / application: US 8,359,014 B2; application US 12/658,449, filed 2010-02-08.
Inventors: Julia N M N Olincy; Ronald C. Fish.
Assignee: Listed as "Individual" (original assignee also Individual).
Key dates: Priority date 2009-12-21 (claimed from US 12/653,988); filing date 2010-02-08; publication of US 2011/0151852 A1 on 2011-06-23; granted 2013-01-22. Status: Active, with an adjusted expiration of 2030-06-16.
Purpose (from the supplied text): The patent addresses the problem that existing systems — e.g., GPS-based systems that disable a phone while driving, or route incoming calls to voicemail — leave the user with no way to see who is calling or texting and decide whether to pull over and answer. It also notes that such disabling systems "put too much restriction on the driver" and give "no option to see the caller IDs of all incoming calls."
Plain-language scope: The disclosure concerns an automatic response system for mobile phones, apparently for responding when the user is driving or busy. The supplied excerpt references cellular/telephone functionality, text messaging (SMS) and "Quick Text" canned responses, a title mentioning "I am driving/busy automatic response," and classification under H04W4/12, H04W4/14, H04M1/72436 and H04M2203/651 ("Text message transmission triggered by call").
What the excerpt does not establish: It does not supply the claims, the written description, or the abstract. It does not specify how the "driving/busy" condition is detected, whether replies are automatic or user-selected, or the exact responsive message content. Roughly 46 claim terms and 138 description terms are cited without their text. The assignee listing is expressly noted as potentially inaccurate, and legal status is an assumption, not a legal conclusion.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:41:21 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 8359014. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.