US 8366237

I'll verify current status via search, then summarize from the authoritative patent text.

US 8,366,237 B2 — Verification & Summary

Search note on scope: Targeted searches for the literal identifiers "US8366237", "8,366,237" and "US 8,366,237" returned only the patent's own front-page/bibliographic record (Google Patents, PatentsView-derived aggregators). I found no district-court litigation docket, no PTAB proceeding, and no CAFC 2026 appeal docketing that names U.S. Patent No. 8,366,237. I cannot fully query PACER or the Federal Circuit's docket system with the tools available, so absence of results here is not proof that none exists — but nothing in the searchable record ties this patent to any CAFC 2026 docket. Several searches returned near-miss numbers (e.g., 8,467,366 in the Neo Wireless/Netlist matters, 8,836,237-style lookalikes); per your instruction I am not treating those as this patent.

1. Bibliographic data (from the patent's own record)

Inventor-identification caveat: the Google Patents bibliographic block lists all five named inventors, matching the recorded assignment documents (assignors: Phillips, Cellura, Eklund, Podzorov, Germain — Reel/Frame 022441/0212 and 023251/0447). One third-party aggregator (Patent Leaderboard) renders the inventor list with only four names, omitting Phillips. The patent record itself governs; I read Phillips as a named inventor.

2. Abstract (verbatim)

A maintenance assembly for cleaning a plurality of printheads in a printing machine comprises two or more cleaning members, each of the cleaning members sized and positioned to clean at least one but less than all of the plurality of printheads when in a cleaning position. A drive mechanism associated with each of the two or more cleaning members is configured to selectively move an associated cleaning member to and from the cleaning position and a retracted position. The cleaning members are supported on a frame with a mechanism provided for translating the frame into position juxtaposed with the plurality of printheads and a further mechanism to swipe the cleaning members across the printheads. The maintenance assembly is operable to clean only selected printheads in a single operation.

Note: the abstract is broader than the claims. The abstract's "at least one but less than all" language is not what independent claims 1 and 8 recite — those require a strict one-to-one correspondence between cleaning members and printheads.

3. Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — Maintenance assembly (apparatus)

A bolt-on printhead-cleaning unit for a printer with many printheads. Two structural requirements dominate:

• One cleaning member per printhead, no more and no less. "A plurality of cleaning members supported on a plurality of beams within a frame," where each cleaning member (a) has a length spanning the width of a single printhead and (b) is positioned opposite one printhead — an express one-to-one correspondence.
• One drive mechanism per cleaning member, also one-to-one. Each drive independently flips its cleaning member between a cleaning position (touching the printhead face, spanning its full width) and a retracted position (not touching). This is the selectivity mechanism: you can service some printheads and leave others alone.

Two motion systems are also required:

• A sweep mechanism coupled to the beams that moves them vertically relative to the printheads, so a contacting cleaning member travels from the upper end to the lower end of the printhead face (i.e., it wipes the face).
• A frame-translation mechanism that moves the whole frame in and out of registry with the printhead array, so that when retracted a backing member (the web-backing bar/roll of FIG. 1) can return to its operating position opposite the printheads and printing can resume.

Dependent claims 2–7 add: single wiper blade per cleaning member (2); rigid-but-flexible blade material (3); pivot-driven blades (4); solenoid drive (5); pivot arm on a pivot axle with the blade at one end and the drive connected to the arm (6); and a control component that selectively activates each drive mechanism (7).

Claim 8 — Printing machine (system claim)

The same architecture recited at the machine level: a plurality of printheads each with a front face through which ink is ejected onto a substrate; a one-to-one array of cleaning members on beams within a frame; a sweep mechanism producing the upper-end-to-lower-end vertical wipe across the face; one-to-one drive mechanisms each moving its cleaning member between contacting/spanning and separated positions; and a frame-translation mechanism that retracts the cleaning members so a backing member can return opposite the printheads.

Dependent claims 9–15 add: printheads arranged in at least two rows with a corresponding row of cleaning members (9); pivoting wiper blades with per-blade drives (10); solenoid drive (11); pivot arm linkage (12); single wiper blade (13); rigid-but-flexible blade (14); and a control component for selective activation (15).

Claim 16 — Method of cleaning

A method with three ordered elements:

1. Translate a frame carrying the cleaning members from a position that permits a backing member to sit in front of the printheads, to a position where the cleaning members sit in front of the printheads in one-to-one correspondence.
2. Each cleaning member is dimensioned to span the width of the printhead opposite it and is configured to clean the entire face of the only one printhead opposite it as it is swept from the upper end to the lower end of that face.
3. After the frame has been moved into position, selectively move one or more (not necessarily all) cleaning members into the cleaning position so they contact and span the face of their respective printhead.

Claim 17 (the only dependent method claim) adds fault-directed cleaning: determine which printhead(s) require cleaning, then move only the cleaning member(s) associated with those printheads.

Practical effect of the claim set: the claims cover a "smart" scalable wiper array — per-printhead blades, per-blade actuators, a shared vertical sweep, and a retractable carriage — that lets a 28-, 42-, or 84-printhead web press clean only the heads that need it in a single pass, avoiding unnecessary wiping (which the specification says can itself induce jetting failures) and avoiding cross-color contamination.

4. Status and enforcement posture

• Litigation / CAFC: no docket or appeal naming US 8,366,237 surfaced in searches (see scope note above).
• Forward citation: US 11,833,825 B2 (Xerox, issued 2023-12-05, Retractable printhead wiper for printhead maintenance units) cites this patent — evidence the family line continued at Xerox.
• Legal status — conflicting entries in the record. The Google Patents header states "Expired – Fee Related, expires 2030-04-26," yet the same page's Legal Events show a maintenance-fee lapse: 2024-09-23 reminder mailed; 2025-03-10 "PATENT EXPIRED FOR FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES"; 2025-04-01 lapse effective 2025-02-05. The most likely reading is that the ~12-year maintenance fee was not paid and the patent lapsed in early 2025, with the "expires 2030-04-26" field being a stale computed projection (the 8th-year fee was paid 2020-08-06, with a 7.5-year late surcharge). Because the two entries conflict, treat the exact lapse date as uncertain; the operative facts are that Xerox is the current assignee and the record does not show reinstatement.

Nothing in this summary should be read as a legal conclusion on validity, enforceability, or scope; claim constructions above are plain-language paraphrases, not formal constructions.

I'll research litigation involving US 8,366,237. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me refine with more targeted searches.

Let me try a few more focused queries on litigation databases and the patent itself.

Let me try one more targeted search for litigation records.

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

Let me run targeted checks on PTAB dockets, Unified Patents, and any litigation/reexam activity before concluding.

PTAB Proceedings Report — U.S. Patent No. 8,366,237

Patent: Print head maintenance system for an ink-jet printer using phase-change ink printing on a continuous web
Patent Owner / current assignee: Xerox Corporation (original assignee; security interests recorded to Citibank, N.A. and Jefferies Finance LLC, 2022–2024)
Application: 12/409,765 · Filed / priority: 2009-03-24 · Granted: 2013-02-05
Adjusted expiration (per Google Patents legal events): 2030-04-26 · Status: Expired – Fee Related (lapsed 2025-03-10 for failure to pay maintenance fees)

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal (canonical source for this report) returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings on US 8,366,237 as of the most recent ingest, and targeted web searching surfaced none either — so there is nothing in the "active / invalidated / sustained / settled / institution-denied" columns: the patent has never been challenged in an AIA trial, and every one of its 17 claims is untested at the Board. That is normally a weak-versus-strong signal that cuts against a defendant (an unchallenged patent is an unknown quantity), but here it is mooted by a much more powerful fact: the patent expired on 2025-03-10 for nonpayment of the maintenance fee due in February 2025, which means a demand letter citing US 8,366,237 today is asserting a lapsed patent unless and until it is revived by petition.

(Two caveats on scope, both from the structured data: this is a pre-AIA patent filed 2009-03-24, so PGR was never available to any challenger; and the claims are directed to printhead maintenance hardware, not a financial product or service, so CBM was never available either. IPR was the only AIA trial vehicle that ever applied.)

Proceedings

No AIA trial proceedings on file

• Type: N/A — no Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review has been filed against US 8,366,237.
• Filed: N/A
• Status: N/A. Source: structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP) — empty. Corroborating checks (web search for proceedings, petitioner names, PTAB docket text, and defensive-aggregator activity) returned no IPR/PGR/CBM number tied to this patent number or title.
• Judge panel: N/A
• Petition grounds: N/A. For the record, the patent's own face cites 17 prior-art references (e.g., US 5,389,958; US 5,777,650; US 6,494,570; US 6,113,231; US 5,345,863; US 6,485,140; US 2004/0012651 A1; EP 1445104 A1) and incorporates by reference US 2006/0227162 A1 (the "'162 application," Xerox's earlier single-wiper maintenance system) — a natural art set for any future § 102/§ 103 challenge. None of it has been litigated at the PTAB.
• Institution decision: N/A
• Final Written Decision: N/A — no FWD, therefore no claim has been canceled, confirmed, or held unpatentable at the PTAB. Claims 1–17 stand exactly as granted (subject to the lapse described below).
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: N/A — no FWD exists to appeal, so there is no Federal Circuit appeal arising from a PTAB proceeding. (No CAFC opinion citing this patent as a PTAB appeal was located.)
• Defensive value: Nothing to mine for prosecution-history estoppel, claim-cancellation collateral estoppel, or § 315(e)(2) estoppel. Any defense must be built from scratch — but the status defense (lapsed patent) is a threshold knockout in most scenarios.

Strategic summary

Claim status: 0 canceled / 0 sustained / 17 untested — but the whole patent has lapsed. No PTAB FWD has ever construed or reached the patentability of claims 1–17. Claim 1 (the maintenance assembly with one-to-one cleaning-member-to-printhead correspondence, a per-member drive mechanism, a vertical sweep mechanism, and a frame-translation retract mechanism), claim 8 (the printing machine), and claim 16 (the cleaning method), plus dependents 2–7 and 9–17, are all still literally on the books. What changed is not the claims but the term: the Google Patents legal events show the maintenance-fee reminder mailed 2024-09-23, a lapse of maintenance fees on 2025-03-10, "PATENT EXPIRED FOR FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES," and "PATENT EXPIRED DUE TO NONPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FEES UNDER 37 CFR 1.362," with an effective lapse date of 2025-02-05. The stated adjusted expiration of 2030-04-26 is now academic. The European counterpart shows the same commercial trajectory — EP 2 233 294 B1 granted 2012-02-15 but listed not-in-force in the country-status table for the family.

Estoppel landscape: none, in either direction. Because there is no FWD on any claim, § 315(e)(2) estoppel never attached to anyone — no petitioner, real party in interest, or privy is barred from raising any § 102/§ 103 ground. Every prior-art theory remains fully available to a defendant: before the district court, in an ex parte reexamination (which carries no § 315(b) one-year service bar), or in a fresh IPR. Conversely, Xerox is not bound by any adverse Board construction or cancellation, so there is no "the troll already lost on claim 1" leverage to point at. The practical asymmetry favors the defendant only because the patent is expired: IPR on an expired patent is generally a poor investment (the Board has at times instituted on expired patents, but there is no injunctive or ongoing-royalty upside to cancel claims that have already run out of term, and the patent owner can simply statutorily disclaim the claims to defeat the exercise). If you need a paper record of invalidity for reputational or collateral reasons, a district-court validity judgment or ex parte reexamination is the more rational vehicle than an IPR on a dead patent.

Pattern signals. There is no litigation or PTAB pattern to read: no petitioner has ever filed against this patent, so there is no repeat-petitioner or General Plastic/Fintiv story; Xerox has not had to defend the patent at the Board, so there is no Xerox "aggressive PTAB appellate practice" signal tied to this number; and there is no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) in the chain. The only third-party activity the record shows is later patents citing the family — notably Xerox's own US 11,833,825 B2 ("Retractable printhead wiper for printhead maintenance units," issued 2023-12-05), US 9,315,027 B1 (scalable printhead maintenance cart), and Koenig & Bauer's DE 10 2014 206 993 B4 / DE 10 2014 206 994 B4 cleaning-device patents. The continued Xerox filing in this space confirms the technology line was commercially live even as the '237 patent was allowed to lapse.

Recommended next steps

1. Lead with the lapse, not with IPR. If you hold a demand letter citing US 8,366,237, confirm the current status in USPTO Patent Center for application 12/409,765 (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/) before responding. The recorded events — fee reminder 2024-09-23, lapse 2025-03-10, nonpayment under 37 C.F.R. § 1.362 — indicate the patent is expired and therefore not enforceable for any post-expiration conduct.
2. Check for revival before you rely on it. A patent lapsed for nonpayment can be revived by petition (37 C.F.R. § 1.378, showing unintentional delay), and the legal-status field is explicitly a non-authoritative assumption. Confirm no petition has been filed or granted. If it is revived, note that a reinstated patent is subject to intervening-rights limits for parties that made, used, sold, or imported the covered subject matter during the lapse period (35 U.S.C. § 41(c)(2) — verify the current statutory text against the version in force, as I don't state this citation with high confidence); the same point should be documented for your client's products shipped between 2025-02-05 and any reinstatement.
3. Run title. The assignment record shows security interests to Citibank, N.A. (2022-11-10; 2023-06-22; 2024-02-13) and Jefferies Finance LLC (2023-11-20), with releases recorded 2023-05-18 and 2024-02-13. Any assertion should be accompanied by proof of current, enforceable title — check https://assignment.uspto.gov/.
4. Preserve the invalidity case anyway. No PTAB estoppel exists, so nothing is foreclosed. If the patent is somehow revived and asserted, the exploitable record is: (a) the 17 references on the face of the patent and the '162 application incorporated by reference; (b) the patent's own admission that a single-wiper maintenance unit was known in the art (US 2006/0227162); and (c) claim 1's "at least one but less than all," one-to-one correspondence and vertical-sweep limitations as the likely § 103 battleground. An ex parte reexamination avoids the § 315(b) clock entirely.
5. Do not file an IPR by reflex. With no FWD outstanding and no live term, an IPR buys you no estoppel, no cancellation leverage, and no trial-simplification value; if the patent is asserted, a motion to dismiss on lapse/expiration plus a district-court or reexam invalidity track is the efficient path. The absence of PTAB activity on this number is not a signal of "hardened patent" — it is a signal that nobody ever bothered to attack a patent that the owner itself stopped paying for.

Sources consulted / links: Google Patents US8366237B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8366237/en) — full text, claims 1–17, family, 17 cited references, European Search Report dated 2010-07-30, and the 2024–2025 fee-lapse legal events; structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP) — empty; USPTO Patent Center (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/) and PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb/) for status verification; USPTO PTAB decisions (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions) and CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/) for any FWD or Federal Circuit appeal — none located. No proceeding numbers are invented here; where a field is marked N/A, it is because no proceeding exists to describe.

I'll research the assignment record and any NPE-related signals for US 8,366,237.

Ownership & Assignment Chain — US 8,366,237 (Xerox web‑fed phase‑change inkjet printhead maintenance)

Basis of record: The authoritative Google Patents legal‑event extract for US 8,366,237 (filed 2009‑03‑24, granted 2013‑02‑05, application US12/409,765). I was unable to pull the live Assignment Center abstracts (which would expose correspondent‑of‑record fields and total page counts) from assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov in this session; the reel/frame numbers below are taken from the Google Patents event table, which mirrors the same USPTO assignment records. Where a field (correspondent) is not exposed in that extract, I say so rather than guess. A closely‑related trademark assignment record from the same Xerox/Citibank transactions is used only to illustrate who typically files these reels — it is not the patent's own record and is flagged as such.

Inventors

All five are listed as assignors on both Xerox assignment recordings (REEL/FRAME 022441/0212 and 023251/0447), consistent with a standard employee‑inventor assignment to the corporate employer. The recorded execution date is 2009‑03‑19, i.e., five days before the 2009‑03‑24 filing date — a routine pre‑filing employer assignment, not a red flag.

Pattern note: No data source surfaced any evidence of inventors leaving Xerox within 12 months of filing (pre‑fire‑sale pattern). I cannot confirm or refute departures; on the available record this signal is not determinable, and there is no post‑2009 ownership change that would make it relevant anyway.

Original assignee

Xerox Corporation (Connecticut; Norwalk, CT). Xerox is the named assignee on the face of the patent and the only owner in the entire recorded chain. Xerox is an operating company that shipped the product embodying these claims: the patent describes the maintenance architecture of a direct‑to‑sheet continuous‑web, phase‑change (solid ink) inkjet printer (the web/printhead/backing‑member architecture in FIG. 1), which is Xerox's own hardware line. Primary line of business at all relevant times: document technology / printers and multifunction devices (with a growing software/services and IP‑licensing component after ~2023).

Current status: Operating, publicly traded (NASDAQ: XRX). The parent has not been in a Chapter 7/11 liquidation on the record reviewed. The patent itself is lapsed — the legal events show "MAINTENANCE FEE REMINDER" (2024‑09‑23), then "PATENT EXPIRED FOR FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES" and "LAPSE" (2025‑03‑10, effective 2025‑02‑05). Google Patents still renders the expiry estimate as 2030‑04‑26, which conflicts with the non‑payment lapse; treat the fee‑lapse events as controlling.

Assignment timeline

Every recorded event is listed. Ownership of the patent never left Xerox. The post‑2022 entries are security interests and their releases — collateral grants to lenders, not transfers of title.

1. 2009‑03‑19 (executed) / recorded 2009‑03‑24 — Reel 022441/0212

   • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (inventor → employer)
   • Assignor: Phillips, Cellura, Eklund, Podzorov, Germain
   • Assignee: Xerox Corporation (Connecticut)
   • Correspondent: Not exposed in the available extract — not verified.
   • Context: Original inventor‑to‑employer assignment; establishes Xerox as owner of record.

2. 2009‑03‑19 (executed) / recorded 2009‑09‑18 — Reel 023251/0447

   • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (second recording, same effective date)
   • Assignor: same five inventors
   • Assignee: Xerox Corporation
   • Correspondent: Not exposed — not verified.
   • Context: Corrective / duplicate re‑recording ~6 months after filing; no change in ownership (both reels carry identical assignors and the same 2009‑03‑19 execution date).

3. 2022‑11‑07 (executed) / recorded 2022‑11‑10 — Reel 062740/0214

   • Conveyance: Security Interest
   • Assignor: Xerox Corporation
   • Assignee: Citibank, N.A., as Agent (Delaware)
   • Correspondent: Not exposed for this patent reel. The parallel Xerox trademark security recording from the same transaction (REEL/FRAME 7892/0506) names Latham & Watkins LLP, c/o Angela M. Amaru, 1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020 as correspondent — indicative of the filing counsel for the Citibank collateral package, but not confirmed for this patent's reel.
   • Context: Securitization — grant of a security interest in patent collateral to secure a Xerox credit facility; title retained by Xerox.

4. 2023‑05‑17 (executed) / recorded 2023‑05‑18 — Reel 063694/0122

   • Conveyance: Release of Security Interest (at R/F 062740/0214)
   • Assignor: Citibank, N.A., as Agent
   • Assignee: Xerox Corporation
   • Correspondent: Not exposed — not verified.
   • Context: Release of the prior Citibank lien; confirms Xerox's unencumbered title at that point.

5. 2023‑06‑21 (executed) / recorded 2023‑06‑22 — Reel 064760/0389

   • Conveyance: Security Interest
   • Assignor: Xerox Corporation
   • Assignee: Citibank, N.A., as Collateral Agent (New York)
   • Context: New collateral grant under a refinancing/restated facility.

6. 2023‑11‑17 (executed) / recorded 2023‑11‑20 — Reel 065628/0019

   • Conveyance: Security Interest
   • Assignor: Xerox Corporation
   • Assignee: Jefferies Finance LLC, as Collateral Agent (New York)
   • Context: Parallel/additional collateral grant to a second secured party.

7. 2024‑02‑06 (executed) / recorded 2024‑02‑13 — Reel 066741/0001

   • Conveyance: Security Interest
   • Assignor: Xerox Corporation
   • Assignee: Citibank, N.A., as Collateral Agent
   • Context: Amended‑and‑restated collateral agreement (Xerox's Feb 6 2024 Collateral Agreement — cf. the matching Canadian security agreement dated 2024‑02‑06).

8. 2024‑02‑06 (executed) / recorded 2024‑02‑13 — Reel 068261/0001

   • Conveyance: Termination and Release of Security Interest (at R/F 064760/0389)
   • Assignor: Citibank, N.A., as Collateral Agent
   • Assignee: Xerox Corporation
   • Context: Release of the 2023‑06 Citibank lien, superseded by the Feb‑2024 restatement (entry 7).

No entry in this chain is an outright sale, merger, name change, or transfer to an assertion/licensing entity. All Assignees are either Xerox or a bank acting as collateral agent.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8366237
    2009 : Inventors assign to Xerox Corp
         : Corrected assignment recorded
    2013 : Patent granted
    2022 : Security interest to Citibank NA
    2023 : Citibank release recorded
         : New security interest to Citibank
         : Security interest to Jefferies
    2024 : Citibank release and new grant
    2025 : Patent expires for nonpayment

NPE / troll‑pattern signals

1. Shell‑entity transfer — not present. No "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" entity ever appears; the only assignees are Xerox and two banks (Citibank, Jefferies) acting as collateral agents (R/F 062740/0214; 064760/0389; 065628/0019; 066741/0001).

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. No entity from the Acacia / Marathon / IV / Wi‑LAN / Conversant / MPHJ / etc. universe appears anywhere in the chain. Assignees are an operating OEM and secured lenders.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. The patent‑reel correspondent fields are not exposed in the available extract, so no recurrence can be demonstrated for this patent. The closely‑related trademark recordings show Latham & Watkins LLP (Angela M. Amaru) on the Citibank security interest (TM R/F 7892/0506) and a separate Xerox‑side correspondent on the release — this is ordinary secured‑financing counsel behavior, not an NPE tell, so it is expressly not treated as a finding.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. There is no chain of LLC‑to‑LLC assignments; the only repeating cycle is lien→release→relien among the same two lenders and Xerox (2022–2024).

5. Pre‑litigation transfer — not present. No infringement suit naming this patent was located in the searches, and there is no assignment falling within 6 months before any suit.

6. Bankruptcy fire‑sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 sale of this patent on the record. (The borrower‑side security interests are classic secured financing, not insolvency dispositions.)

7. Privateering — not present. No transfer from Xerox to a third‑party asserter; Xerox retained title throughout.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti‑NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN; it terminates at the original operating assignee, Xerox.

Caution on third‑party data: A third‑party analytics page (patentleaderboard.com) lists US 8,366,237 with a "$1,495,000" figure alongside inventor Scott J. Phillips. This is an estimated patent‑value metric, not a recorded assignment, sale, or transaction price. It appears nowhere in the USPTO record and should not be read as evidence of a transfer. It does not contradict the assignment timeline.

Contradiction flagged: The prior litigation‑summary section is essentially a methodology stub and identified no suit; that is consistent with the assignment record (no pre‑litigation assignment, no litigation‑driven transfer). If any later litigation is found naming US 8,366,237, it would have to have been brought by Xerox as title holder, since no other entity ever held title.

Verdict

Insufficient data — no NPE pattern; ownership retained by the original operating assignee.

The entire ownership record consists of the original inventor‑to‑Xerox assignments (R/F 022441/0212 and its corrective re‑recording 023251/0447, both executed 2009‑03‑19) plus a 2022–2024 series of security interests and releases in favor of Citibank, N.A. and Jefferies Finance LLC (R/F 062740/0214, 063694/0122, 064760/0389, 065628/0019, 066741/0001, 068261/0001). Title never transferred to any assertion or licensing entity, so none of the eight NPE signals is supported; the record is that of a plain operating‑company‑owned patent that lapsed for non‑payment of maintenance fees in early 2025 (effective 2025‑02‑05, recorded 2025‑03‑10). Note the verdict label is driven by the menu of options — the chain is short but complete and unambiguous; "Insufficient data" here means "insufficient NPE indicators," not "unknown owner." The only non‑fabricated caveat is that the correspondent‑of‑record fields were not retrievable for this patent's reels and could not be independently verified.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• Legacy assignment search by patent number: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Patent source / legal events: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8366237/en
• Parallel family: EP2233294B1; ATE545507T1 (same priority, 2009‑03‑24)

I'll research the prior art citations for US 8,366,237. Let me run targeted searches on the key references.

Let me research the remaining key references.

Let me verify the remaining references.

Prior Art Analysis — US 8,366,237 B2

Patent: US 8,366,237 B2 — "Print head maintenance system for an ink-jet printer using phase-change ink printing on a continuous web"
App. No.: US 12/409,765 · Filed: 2009-03-24 · Priority: 2009-03-24 · Granted: 2013-02-05 · Assignee: Xerox Corp. (originally Tektronix/Xerox lineage)
Family: EP 2,233,294 B1; AT E545,507 T1
Status: Expired – Fee Related (lapsed 2025-03-10 for nonpayment; adjusted expiration 2030-04-26)

All data below is taken from the authoritative full text you supplied (Google Patents mirror of the USPTO record) and supplemented by verification searches. Where I could not independently retrieve a reference's full text, I say so explicitly rather than guessing.

1. The independent claims at issue (the "anticipation targets")

Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires a single reference to disclose every element of a claim. The relevant independent claims are:

• Claim 1 (maintenance assembly): requires (a) cleaning members supported on a plurality of beams within a frame; (b) each member spanning the width of a single printhead in one-to-one correspondence with the printheads; (c) a plurality of drive mechanisms, one per cleaning member, selectively moving each between a cleaning position (contacts and spans the face) and a retracted position; (d) a sweep mechanism moving the beams vertically to stroke each contacting member from the upper to the lower end of the face; and (e) a frame-translation mechanism that retracts the cleaning members so that at least one backing member can return opposite the printheads.
• Claim 8 (printing machine): the apparatus counterpart of claim 1.
• Claim 16 (method): moving the frame from a backing-member position to a one-to-one cleaning-member position, then selectively moving one or more cleaning members to the cleaning position.
• Notable dependents: claim 5/11 (solenoid), claim 6/12 (pivot arm about a pivot axle), claim 7/15 (control component selectively activating each drive mechanism), claim 17 (determining which printheads require cleaning, then selectively moving only those).

Bottom line up front: No cited reference discloses the combination required by claims 1, 8, or 16 — in particular the union of one cleaning member per printhead + a dedicated drive mechanism per member + a beam/frame vertical sweep + frame retraction to restore the backing member. None of the 17 cited references anticipates any claim under § 102. Several are highly material for § 103 obviousness, and a few are the closest art for specific dependents (7, 15, 17). Details below.

2. Reference-by-reference analysis (the 17 citations of record)

A. Core printhead-maintenance art (most relevant)

US 2004/0012651 A1 — Manish Agarwal, "Independent wiping of printhead"

• Assignee: Hewlett-Packard. Filed/priority 2002-07-22; published 2004-01-22. (Granted as US 6,761,428; family includes US 6,755,504.)
• Description: A service station with two wipers, each corresponding to one printhead, individually adjustable in the Z direction via cams on a cam shaft. A controller selects cam positions so that one printhead can be wiped while the other is not ("independent wiping"). Also discloses a servicing algorithm that determines which printhead needs wiping.
• § 102 assessment: Discloses the "one wiper per printhead" and "selective/independent wiping" concepts that underlie the one-to-one correspondence and selective actuation features of claims 1/8 and claim 17. However, it does not disclose (i) a dedicated drive mechanism per cleaning member (it uses a shared cam shaft), (ii) beam-mounted rows swept vertically, or (iii) frame retraction to restore a backing member; and it concerns a scanning-carriage printer, not a page-wide array. → No anticipation. Highly relevant under § 103 for the selective-actuation and independent-wiping limitations.

US 2006/0227162 A1 — Xerox Corp., "System and method for maintaining solid ink printheads" (the '162 application)

• Filed/priority 2005-03-30; published 2006-10-12. (Granted as US 7,347,527.)
• Description: A maintenance car travels along a track between the printheads and the receiving surface; a single wiper on the car wipes the printhead front faces (including upper/lower faces disposed in angled planes). This is the reference the '237 patent expressly incorporates by reference and uses in its Background to establish the problem (a single wiper cleans all printheads, causing unnecessary cleaning).
• § 102 assessment: It is prior art of record and is the acknowledged starting point, but it teaches away from the claimed solution (single wiper for all heads). It discloses none of the one-to-one correspondence, per-member drive mechanisms, or frame/backing-member retraction. → No anticipation. Relevant to the stated problem, not to the claimed structure.

EP 1,445,104 A1 — Océ-Technologies B.V., "A cleaning device for the printhead of a printer"

• Priority NL 1022595 (2003-02-05); filed 2004-01-23; published 2004-08-11; granted EP 1,445,104 B1 (2007-04-25). Inventor: A.J.J. van Gerven.
• Description: Separate scraper units (brushes in heatable holders) each with a separate displacement element (bimetal element + heater). A control unit with detection means determines which nozzles require cleaning and actuates only the selected scraper(s) into the operative position; the others remain in the inoperative position. (Family: CN 1519124 B / CN 101786378 B.)
• § 102 assessment: This is arguably the closest art to claim 17 (determine which printheads need cleaning → selectively move only those units) and is conceptually close to the "selectively move one or more cleaning members" language of claims 1/16. But it uses bimetal actuators and brushes, not the claimed per-member drive mechanism with wipers, has no beam-supported frame with vertical sweep, and no frame retraction to restore a backing member. → No anticipation of claims 1/8/16; strong § 103 art for the selective-cleaning feature (claims 7, 15, 17).

US 2009/0051728 A1 — Seiko Epson Corp., "Maintenance device for liquid ejection head and liquid ejection apparatus"

• Priority 2007-08-21; filed 2008-08-20; published 2009-02-26.
• Description: A selection portion with a plurality of movable bodies each corresponding to a nozzle group, movable between a selection position (enables suction and wiping for that group) and a non-selection position (inhibits suction and wiping). Individual/selective maintenance of only chosen groups of a multiple-head printer.
• § 102 assessment: Directly relevant to selective, per-head maintenance and to a one-to-one selection architecture (claims 7/15/17 concept). It relies primarily on caps and suction plus a pivoting wi

I'll verify the disclosures of the key prior-art references before building the § 103 combinations.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 8,366,237 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Patent: US 8,366,237 B2, Print head maintenance system for an ink-jet printer using phase-change ink printing on a continuous web (Xerox Corp.; filed 2009-03-24; issued 2013-02-05)
Source of record: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8366237/en
Governing law: This application was filed before 2013-03-16, so pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) applies, with the Graham v. John Deere framework and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). MPEP 2141–2145 supplies the examiner's practice for motivation/rationale.

0. Scope note and one cross-reference flag

I analyzed only references that appear on the US 8,366,237 page's own prior-art listings — the "Patent Citations (17)" table and the "Similar Documents" table. I did not re-verify the full text of every reference; where I rely on a reference's disclosure I say so, and where I could not verify content I say that too.

Cross-reference flag (not a contradiction, but a distinction worth making explicit): the previously generated Patent summary section correctly observed that the abstract is broader than the claims — the abstract's "at least one but less than all" language is not the claim scope, while independent claims 1, 8 and 16 require a strict one-to-one cleaning-member-to-printhead correspondence. That observation cuts against a lazy obviousness attack built only on "selective cleaning," but it does not save the claims, because the art discussed below supplies one-to-one correspondence and per-member actuation. I build the case on the strict claim language, not the abstract.

Second flag: several references on the page (EP 0 732 211 B1, US 5,833,843, EP 0 730 965 B1, US 2003/0043226 A1, US 7,021,743 B2, US 2005/0024421 A1, EP 1 291 182 B1, KR 100501615 B1) appear only in the "Similar Documents" list, not in the "Patent Citations" table — i.e., they are not of record as considered art. That matters for a § 103 challenge, because it means the strongest combination below was likely never before the examiner.

1. Claim 1 element decomposition and mapping

Observation: claim 1 is, element-for-element, an aggregation of known maintenance-station elements arranged in the same way they already functioned — a per-printhead wiper array with individual engage/disengage actuation (US 2004/0012651; EP 0 732 211), mounted on a carriage that translates into and out of the gap between printheads and the receiving surface (US 2006/0227162), swept by a shared drive (US 2004/0012651), in a phase-change continuous-web press (US 5,389,958; US 6,113,231; US 5,345,863; US 5,406,315; US 5,793,398; US 6,361,230; US 6,485,140).

2. The three primary combinations

Combination A (strongest): US 2006/0227162 + US 2004/0012651 + EP 0 732 211

US 2006/0227162 A1 (Xerox; pub. 2006-10-12) — admitted prior art in the '237 specification, which incorporates it by reference. It discloses a maintenance car traveling a track between the printheads and the receiving surface; a wiper whose body "is formed of a rigid but flexible material capable of yielding when it comes into contact with the printheads while still providing a wiping force" (claim 3/14 element, literally); printheads retracted to a maintenance position and returned to print mode; staggered multi-printhead arrays spanning the substrate width; and a controller timing the maintenance assembly.

US 2004/0012651 A1 (Agarwal; pub. 2004-01-22) — of record but apparently not applied as a § 103 combination. It discloses, in the applicant's own words, "each wiper corresponding to one of the printheads respectively, and each wiper is individually adjustable such that each printhead can be independently wiped with the other printhead not being simultaneously wiped by its corresponding wiper," together with a shared drive that moves both wipers "along a wiping axis." This is the selectivity heart of claims 1, 8, 16 and 17.

EP 0 732 211 A1/B1 (HP; A1 pub. 1996; B1 pub. 1999-05-06) — similar-document only, not of record. It discloses wiper units "respectively dedicated to each color ink printhead" and "a unique way for selectively servicing only certain individual cartridges during a given time period … all without removing the printhead cartridges from a print carriage" — and expressly addresses staggered printhead arrangements (the '237 FIG. 2 arrangement) and avoiding color bleed.

Motivation to combine (MPEP 2143 rationales):

• (2143(I)(A)/(C)) — Known elements combined by known methods to yield predictable results: add Agarwal's independently actuable, one-to-one wiper array to the '162 maintenance car. The same function each element performs alone is what the combination performs.
• (2143(I)(D)) — The '162 reference itself is ready for improvement: it states the assembly "is suitable for maintaining a single upper and lower printhead or more than two upper and two lower printheads."
• (2143(I)(F)/KSR "known problem") — The '237 specification concedes the problem: the single-wiper unit "will perform a great many unnecessary cleaning operations on printheads that are otherwise working properly," and "cleaning a properly working printhead that has not accumulated any debris … can induce performance problems, such as jetting failures." A reference that identifies a problem and the prior art that solves it (Agarwal: independent wiping; EP 0 732 211: selective servicing) is the paradigm § 103 case.
• (2143(I)(B)) — Simple substitution: a per-printhead blade in place of one shared blade, with a per-blade actuator in place of a single actuator.
• Predictable result / reasonable expectation of success — all references are in the same field (ink-jet printhead wipe maintenance); the substitution of a wiper array plus individual actuators does not change the principle of operation of the carriage sweep.

Combination B: EP 0 732 211 + US 2006/0227162 + US 5,389,958 / US 6,113,231

Front-load EP 0 732 211 as teaching "independently dedicated" wipers with selective servicing and staggered heads, add '162 for the translating maintenance car interposed between printheads and the receiving surface, and add the phase-change/continuous-web references (US 5,389,958 imaging process; US 6,113,231 phase-change architecture; US 5,345,863 / US 6,361,230 / US 6,485,140 continuous-web systems) for the web-press environment, the backing members/backing bars, and the print-mode/maintenance-mode re-registration of claim 1(g) and claim 8.

Combination C: US 2004/0012651 + EP 1 445 104 + US 2006/0227162

EP 1 445 104 A1/B1 (Océ; pub. 2004-08-11) — of record. It discloses "means for scraping, registration means for registering that the nozzles require cleaning, and a control unit coupled to the registration means to actuate the printhead and/or the scraping means in order to clean the section(s) of the printhead having nozzles requiring cleaning." Its CN family member (https://patents.google.com/patent/CN101786378B/en) states claim 7 as a detection device detecting which nozzles/head groups need cleaning, with the controller driving the transport mechanism to move the cleaning device "into the operating position of the selected nozzles or head groups." Add Agarwal's one-to-one individually actuable wipers and '162's translating car. This combination is aimed principally at claim 17.

3. Claim-by-claim conclusions

4. Why a person of ordinary skill would combine (motivation, consolidated)

1. Same field, same problem. Every reference is ink-jet printhead face maintenance; the '162 reference is the patentee's own admitted starting point in the same solid-ink/phase-change family.
2. Explicit teachings, not hindsight. EP 0 732 211 states its purpose is "selectively servicing only certain individual cartridges during a given time period." Agarwal states its purpose is "independent wiping of printhead." These are express suggestions to do exactly what claim 1's per-member drive mechanisms do.
3. Design incentive / market forces (KSR). Scaling printhead counts from 4 to 28/42/84 (as the '237 specification itself enumerates) creates a strong incentive to avoid wiping healthy heads — because unnecessary wiping can itself cause jetting failures, and because shared blades risk color mixing. Both problems and both solutions are stated in the references.
4. Predictable results, no change in principle of operation. Adding actuators and splitting one blade into N blades does not alter the carriage-sweep concept; each element performs its known function.
5. Ready-for-improvement. '162 expressly contemplates "more than two upper and two lower printheads," removing any argument that the prior art was fixed at a small head count.

5. Rebuttal considerations the patent owner would raise, and my assessment

• **"162 teaches a single wiper — it teaches away."** Weak. Disparagement/teaching away requires the reference to criticize, discredit or discourage the alternative. '162 merely describes one embodiment. Moreover the '237 specification itself characterizes '162 as "well suited for printing systems with few printheads," which is a concession that the single-wiper approach was understood to be scalable to larger arrays — an invitation, not a deterrent.
• **"The examiner had Agarwal (US 2004/0012651) of record and still allowed the claims."** True and worth flagging. But allowance over a reference that was cited is not a § 103 shield; the question is whether the examiner articulated the combination with '162. The of-record status also does not extend to EP 0 732 211, which appears only in the Similar Documents list and adds the "dedicated wiper per printhead + selective servicing + staggered heads" teaching.
• **"No reference shows a 'vertical' sweep of a 'beam'-mounted cleaning array."** Weak. "Vertical direction with reference to the plurality of printheads" is a relative-orientation recitation dictated by the machine's physical layout; the '162 car already travels along a path parallel to the printhead front faces, and Agarwal's wipers are "driven along a wiping axis." Moving the wiper array instead of the printhead array is a predictable design choice in a web press where the printheads are fixed and the web cannot be disturbed mid-cycle.
• **"No reference shows the solenoid (claims 5, 11)."** This is the one genuine vulnerability. If a challenger cannot supply a wiper-actuation solenoid reference or a convincing Official Notice of conventionality, claims 5 and 11 could survive in isolation — but they are dependent claims, and their survival does not rescue claims 1, 8, 16 or 17.
• Secondary considerations. No evidence of unexpected results, long-felt need, failure of others, copying or industry praise surfaced on the patent's own page or in searches. The '237 specification frames its benefits (fewer unnecessary wipes; simultaneous single-pass servicing) as the inherent and expected consequence of the structure — precisely the characterization that defeats a nexus argument. (I found no litigation, licensing or PTAB record for this patent, so there is no secondary-considerations record to rebut.)

6. Verification gaps I am flagging rather than papering over

• I did not verify the full text of EP 0 730 965 B1 (Translational wiping technique for an inkjet printhead), US 2003/0043226 A1 (System and method for servicing non-scanning printhead), US 7,021,743 B2 (Printhead service station), US 5,833,843 (Backup print cartridge for bank of ink-jet printing cartridges), US 2005/0024421 A1 (Service station architecture and method for drum printer), US 7,413,361 B2 and US 2006/0044344 A1. Several of these look, by title and class, like they could supply the page-width/non-scanning printhead sweep and per-station service elements directly; they should be pulled before a petition is filed.
• I did not find any reference that expressly discloses a solenoid-driven pivoting wiper (claims 4–6, 10–12, and especially 5/11). Treat that limitation as the soft underbelly.
• Practical context (from the earlier-generated sections): per the Legal Events on the patent's page, US 8,366,237 lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees, effective on the record 2025-02-05, while the page header shows a contradictory "expires 2030-04-26." I flagged that conflict previously and reiterate it: the exact lapse date is uncertain, but the enforcement window appears closed. A § 103 analysis of this patent is therefore chiefly of defensive, portfolio, or historical value rather than a live invalidity-contention exercise.

Bottom line: Independent claims 1 and 8 would very likely have been held obvious over US 2006/0227162 in view of US 2004/0012651 (both of record / admitted) and EP 0 732 211 (similar-document only); claims 16 and 17 would very likely have been held obvious further in view of EP 1 445 104's registration-and-control-unit teaching of fault-directed cleaning. The individually recited mechanical details in claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14 and 15 are conventional or literally disclosed, with claims 5 and 11 (solenoid) the only recitations for which I cannot point to express disclosure in the references on this page.

This is a technical obviousness assessment, not a legal conclusion on validity or enforceability.