US 8370393

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number.

Let me dig deeper into the litigation and CAFC history.

Let me verify recent 2026 activity and the status of any new proceedings.

US Patent 8,370,393 — Summary

Note on scope of search: I searched Google Patents/PatentsView-style sources, PTAB records, Federal Circuit opinions and docket aggregators for the literal number 8,370,393. I found no 2026 Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docket naming this patent. Its Federal Circuit history is complete (see History below). I flag this rather than infer a pending 2026 appeal.

Bibliographic data

Prosecution chain (all confirmed from the patent front page and family table): the '393 patent is a continuation of US 13/349,204 (filed Jan. 12, 2012; issued as US 8,375,058), which is a continuation of US 11/990,338 (national-phase filing of PCT/AU2006/001151, published as WO 2007/019610 A1; issued as US 8,140,560), which claims priority to Australian provisional 2005904378. All applications are titled "Process and apparatus for selecting an item from a database."

Abstract (as issued)

"A method and apparatus for selecting database items from a database, where the database items are indexed by a list of item identifiers. The item identifiers may be in the form of text. An initial display is generated which includes one or more parts of the item identifiers. Selection of the one or more parts may be made and results in the generation of a display of a further one or more parts for selection. The further one or more parts may be selected in order to add to the selected one or more parts to build a larger part or whole of an item identifier. Selection from a large list of item identifiers may be carried out in a relatively short time period."

Independent claim in plain language

Claim 1 (the sole independent claim) is a computer-implemented method of selecting an item from a plurality of items, comprising:

1. First menu display — the processor displays, in a first area of a device's screen, a first set of portions of item identifiers (i.e., fragments/chunks of the database entries, not necessarily whole entries). The portions are laid out in positions that map to the up / down / left / right / select functions of the device's directional controller (a D-pad/joystick).
2. Selection — the user selects one of those portions using that up/down/left/right/select control.
3. Echo the selection — the selected portion is displayed in a second, separate area of the screen (the "text so far" field).
4. Second menu — in response to that selection, the processor displays, again in the first area, a second set of portions (at least two) that were chosen based on the earlier selection.
5. Second selection — the user selects one of that second set with the same directional control.
6. Combine and display — the processor concatenates the first and second selections into a larger portion of the item identifier and shows it in the second area. Steps repeat to build up the identifier.
7. Character type limitation — the portions are orthographic symbols representing at least a writing language.
8. Optimization limitation — the at-least-two portions offered after the first selection are chosen to minimize the number of directional-controller actuations that would otherwise be needed to enter the identifier.

Dependent claims 2–16 (all depend from claim 1) add: iterating selections until the identifier is complete (2); choosing portions by at least one predetermined criterion (3) — specifically frequency of selection, recency of selection, or likelihood of selection (4), or a ranking against a hierarchical classification of the portions (5); identifiers being text strings (6), words (7), or meaningful units of one or more orthographic symbols (13); the database being stored in memory of a computing device (8) that may be a remote server (9), mobile telephone (10), television (11), or personal portable appliance (12); the portions being alphanumeric (14) or ideographic symbols (15); and the second set comprising at least four portions (16).

Litigation / validity history (grounded in PTAB and Federal Circuit records)

• SDNY infringement suit: Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-04297-ER (S.D.N.Y.), filed May 10, 2019. The '393 patent was one of five asserted Kannuu patents (with '852, '579, '264, '354).
• IPR2020-00738 ([[Samsung Electronics America](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20America), Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) v. Kannuu Pty Ltd), filed Mar. 17, 2020; instituted Sept. 23, 2020 on all claims 1–16. Final Written Decision of July 22, 2022 held claims 1–16 unpatentable (grounds included §102 anticipation by Perlman and by Pu, and §103 over Krohn + Pu, among others).
• Federal Circuit appeals: No. 21-1638 (forum-selection-clause / preliminary-injunction appeal) — decided Oct. 7, 2021, Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; and Nos. 22-1526 / 22-1527 (appeals from IPR2020-00737 and IPR2020-00738) — affirmed Oct. 11, 2023 in a nonprecedential per curiam order of the Federal Circuit.
• IPR certificate: inter partes review certificate K1 issued Feb. 9, 2024 for the '393 patent under IPR2020-00738 (all challenged claims unpatentable). PTAB received the Federal Circuit mandate Jan. 30, 2024.
• Termination: "Lapsed due to failure to pay maintenance fee," effective Feb. 5, 2025; recorded lapse Mar. 10, 2025.

Uncertainties I am flagging

• No 2026 Federal Circuit docket for '393 was found. Newer Samsung–Kannuu PTAB activity exists — IPR2026-00071 (filed Oct. 20, 2025) and IPR2026-00072 (filed Oct. 22, 2025, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Kannuu Pty. Ltd., instituted Apr. 1, 2026) — but the records I retrieved identify IPR2026-00071 as targeting US 11,573,939, not '393, and did not state the patent for IPR2026-00072. Since '393's claims were already cancelled by the 2024 IPR certificate, a new IPR on '393 is unlikely; I cannot confirm the target patent of IPR2026-00072.
• One secondary source (the EP 1922600 A4 family page) displays '393 as "active/Active," but that is stale; the USPTO legal-status events (IPR certificate K1, Feb. 2024; lapse for non-payment, 2025) control and are more recent.
• I did not independently re-verify the inventor address or the exact issue-date metadata against the USPTO Patent Center image in this session; those come from the patent front page/Google Patents bibliographic data.

I'll research the litigation history for US patent 8370393 using the sources you specified.

Let me gather more specific details on the IPR outcome and any additional district court cases.

Let me verify whether the '393 patent was asserted against any other parties and confirm the current case status.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 8,370,393 ("the '393 patent")

Bottom line: Based on the Unified Patents litigation/PTAB portals, the Google Patents "litigation" record for US 8,370,393, and the Federal Circuit / district court records I retrieved, the '393 patent (Kannuu Pty Ltd) was asserted in one district court action — against Samsung — plus related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the PTAB and two Federal Circuit appeals. I found no other defendants or separate lawsuits asserting the '393 patent in the sources reviewed.

Important caveat: I hit my search-step limit before completing an exhaustive PACER/Darts-IP sweep, so treat the following as the litigation identified from the sources retrieved, not a certified complete docket history. Per your rule, I have not normalized or "corrected" any identifiers — they appear exactly as retrieved.

1. District Court Litigation

Procedural history (from the sources retrieved):

• May 10, 2019 – Kannuu files complaint asserting four patents ('393, '852, '354, '264) and breach of the NDA. (fedcircuitblog opinion)
• Oct. 1, 2019 – First Amended Complaint adds the '579 patent. (Justia Doc. 131)
• Oct. 21, 2020 – Kannuu moves for a preliminary injunction to stop Samsung's IPRs.
• Jan. 19, 2021 – Court denies the preliminary injunction, denies Kannuu leave to add a forum-selection-clause breach claim, and grants Samsung's motion to stay pending the '393 and '354 IPRs (Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 19 Civ. 4297 (ER), 2021 WL 195163 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2021)). (ptablaw.com summary)
• Oct. 11, 2023 – After the PTAB invalidated the '393 and '354 claims, the Federal Circuit affirmed.
• July 29, 2025 – Judge Ramos granted Kannuu leave to file a Second Amended Complaint and denied Samsung's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; a status conference was set for Aug. 7, 2025. (Justia Doc. 131)

Outcome: No final judgment identified in the sources retrieved; the case remained active as of mid-2025.

2. PTAB Inter Partes Review (adversarial administrative proceeding)

• Grounds included anticipation/obviousness over Perlman, Pu, Krohn, and Dostie. (Banner & Witcoff FWD copy; Docket Alarm)
• Samsung filed five parallel IPRs (IPR2020-00736 ('264), -00737 ('354), -00738 ('393), -00739 ('579), -00740 ('852)); only the '393 and '354 IPRs were instituted. (PTAB record of proceedings)

3. Federal Circuit Appeals

4. Litigation Data Sources Cited

• Unified Patents portal – litigations/PTAB entries for '393:
  • https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/New%20York%20Southern%20District%20Court/case/1%3A19-cv-04297
  • https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2020-00738
  • https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/21-1638
  • https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/22-1526
  • https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/22-1527
• Google Patents – US8370393B2 (family litigation, PTAB, and CAFC entries): https://patents.google.com/patent/US8370393/en
• Docket Alarm – https://www.docketalarm.com/search/?q=patent:(8370393)

5. Other Notes

• The '393 patent was one of a family asserted solely against Samsung — the sources retrieved show no assertion of '393 against any other defendant. Kannuu also owned related patents (e.g., '852, '354, '579, '264), but only '393 and '354 were instituted at the PTAB.
• The '393 patent's claims 1–16 were cancelled by the PTAB and that cancellation was affirmed on appeal, then memorialized in an IPR certificate (Feb. 2024).
• Per the Google Patents legal-status data, the patent ultimately lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees, effective Feb. 5, 2025 (docketed 2025-03-10), with anticipated expiration 2026-08-11.
• What I could not verify: I did not complete an independent PACER or Darts-IP search; additional minor proceedings (e.g., later reassignments, motions, or any second-filed suit) cannot be ruled out. If you need a certified docket history, a direct PACER pull for S.D.N.Y. 1:19-cv-04297-ER and a Darts-IP family query would be the authoritative next step.

I'll research the PTAB proceedings on US 8,370,393. Note that the structured block says ODP shows none, but the patent's own front-page litigation data flags IPR2020-00738 — let me verify and pull details.

Strong result — IPR2020-00738 exists and was fully litigated. Let me nail down the appellate disposition and check for any additional petitioners or proceedings.

PTAB Proceedings — US Patent 8,370,393 (Kannuu Pty Ltd)

Data-integrity flag up front: The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block states the USPTO ODP returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent. That is incomplete. The patent's own front-page litigation data, its legal-events log (IPR event effective 2020-03-17), and the public PTAB/CAFC record all confirm a fully litigated IPR: IPR2020-00738. The ODP ingest appears to have missed it. I am reporting the proceeding that actually exists rather than the empty default.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding is on file — IPR2020-00738 (Samsung v. Kannuu) — and it went all the way to a Final Written Decision that invalidated every challenged claim (1–16), was affirmed by the Federal Circuit under Rule 36, and ripened into a statutory IPR certificate. Breakdown by status: 1 claims-invalidated (0 active, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution-denied for this patent). The bottom-line defensive posture: this patent is dead — all 16 claims are canceled, the cancellation is administratively final via IPR certificate (K1), and the patent has since lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees. If a demand letter cites US 8,370,393 today, the sender is asserting claims that no longer exist.

Proceedings (most-impactful first)

IPR2020-00738 — [[Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) et al.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.%20et%20al.) v. Kannuu Pty Ltd

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319)

• Filed: 2020-03-17 (petition filing date per PTAB docket; the patent's legal-events log records the IPR event on 2020-04-14 with an effective date of 2020-03-17). Note: the Federal Circuit's 21-1638 opinion states "March 27, 2020"; the PTAB docket reflects March 17, 2020.

• Status: The structured block shows no proceeding on file (ODP gap). From the patent's own legal events: "PTAB case IPR2020-00738 filed (Final Written Decision)" and, later, "Trial and appeal board: inter partes review certificate" (kind code K1). Plain-English gloss: tried to completion, all challenged claims canceled, cancellation certified, never vacated on appeal.

• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Kristen L. Droesch, Minn Chung, and Jessica C. Kaiser (Chung authored the Final Written Decision, joined by Droesch and Kaiser).

• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 1–16 under § 102(b) (anticipation) and § 103(a) (obviousness). Prior art relied on:

  • Perlman — US 2002/0113825 A1 (pub. 2002-08-22)
  • Pu — US 7,152,213 B2 (iss. 2006-12-19)
  • Krohn — US 6,593,913 B1 (iss. 2003-07-15)
  • Dostie — US 2004/0021691 A1 (pub. 2004-02-05)

  Petitioner's expert: Clifton Forlines, Ph.D. Patent Owner's expert: Ravin Balakrishnan, Ph.D. Across the five-patent Samsung campaign, the petitions collectively asserted "eleven different grounds based on combinations of four different prior art references not considered during prosecution."

• Institution decision: Instituted as to all challenged claims on 2020-09-23 (35 U.S.C. § 314(a)) — the Board found a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail on at least one claim. Kannuu had sought discretionary denial on the theory that the parties' NDA forum-selection clause barred Samsung from filing; the Board rejected that argument. Kannuu's Request for Rehearing and Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) request were denied (Paper 40, 2021-01-14).

• Final Written Decision: Issued 2021-09-21; a public redacted version was entered 2022-07-22 (Paper 106/107). Disposition: "Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable." Verdict at claim level:

  Claims	§	Basis	Outcome
  1–4, 6, 7, 11, 13–16	102(b)	Perlman	1–4, 6, 7, 13–16 unpatentable; claim 11 not shown unpatentable on this ground
  5	103(a)	Perlman + Dostie	Claim 5 unpatentable
  8–10, 12	103(a)	Perlman + Pu	not reached
  1–4, 6–10, 12–16	102(b)	Pu	1–4, 6–10, 12–16 unpatentable
  5	103(a)	Pu + Dostie	Claim 5 unpatentable
  11	103(a)	Pu + Perlman	Claim 11 unpatentable
  1–4, 6–16	103(a)	Krohn + Pu	not reached
  5	103(a)	Krohn + Pu + Dostie	not reached
  Overall			Claims 1–16 unpatentable

  Panel reasoning: the Perlman–Dostie and Pu–Dostie combinations "teach[] all the limitations of claim 5," and Pu–Perlman teaches all limitations of claim 11; the Board credited Dr. Forlines' testimony that hierarchical search trees (Dostie) were well known and would have been motivationally combined with Perlman/Pu. Critically, the Board rejected Kannuu's objective-indicia (secondary considerations) defense, holding Kannuu failed to establish either a presumption of nexus or an actual nexus for its K-Nav proof-of-concept product or Samsung's Smart TV; the Panel found "some evidence of copying but only weak evidence for other objective indicia." The Board declined to reach the Krohn-based and some Perlman–Pu grounds once it had disposed of all claims.

• Procedural fireworks: The Board granted Patent Owner's motion to strike (Papers 100/107) and struck Exhibits 1058 and 1059 (a Korean-language document and its late translation) plus Petitioner's arguments relying on them, for untimely production on the eve of a Board-ordered deposition. The Panel called Petitioner's opposition arguments "largely disingenuous."

• Settlement / termination: None. The trial ran to a merits FWD; no adverse judgment or settlement termination.

• Appeal: Yes. Kannuu appealed both the '393 and the companion '354 FWDs to the Federal Circuit. Appeal Nos. 2022-1526 and 2022-1527 (Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., USPTO Director as intervenor). Disposition: AFFIRMED, Fed. Cir. R. 36 (per curiam: Moore, Chief Judge, Reyna and Hughes, Circuit Judges), entered 2023-10-11 — a nonprecedential summary affirmance.

  • Related (not a PTAB judgment appeal): Appeal No. 2021-1638, Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 15 F.4th 1101 (Fed. Cir. 2021-10-07), affirmed the S.D.N.Y. denial of Kannuu's preliminary injunction seeking to force Samsung out of the IPRs based on the NDA forum-selection clause. Judge Newman dissented.

• Defensive value: Total. All 16 claims are canceled; the IPR certificate (K1) issued 2024-02-09, and the patent later lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees (2025-03-10, effective 2025-02-05). Any infringement theory on this patent — claim 1 or otherwise — is built on canceled claims.

Sources:

• Redacted Final Written Decision: http://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/IPR2020-00738.pdf
• PTAB docket entry / judgment (Docket Alarm, IPR2020-00738): https://www.docketalarm.com/search/?q=patent:(8370393)
• CAFC Rule 36 judgment (2022-1526, 2022-1527): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[9431910](/patent/9431910)/kannuu-pty-ltd-v-samsung-electronics-america-inc/
• CAFC 21-1638 (NDA forum clause): http://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1638.opinion.10-7-2021_1845799.pdf

Strategic summary

Claims CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. Claims 1–16 of US 8,370,393 are all canceled. There are no surviving claims. Claim 5 and claim 11 — the dependent claims Kannuu leaned on for its secondary-considerations defense — fell on § 103 grounds, but they fell nonetheless. The FWD's own summary table lists "1–16" in the "Claims Shown Unpatentable" column and nothing in "Claims Not Shown Unpatentable." The cancellation was certified by the USPTO (IPR certificate, 2024-02-09) after the Federal Circuit affirmed. There is no "narrowed but surviving" story here — the patent was extinguished.

Estoppel landscape. Because the FWD went final, § 315(e)(2) estoppel binds Samsung (and its privies/real parties in interest) in the co-pending S.D.N.Y. litigation (Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 1:19-cv-04297-ER) as to every ground Samsung raised or reasonably could have raised on claims 1–16 (Perlman, Pu, Krohn, Dostie in the asserted combinations, plus all § 102/§ 103 permutations). For a different defendant, estoppel does not attach — but it is academic: there is no live claim left to assert. Any prior-art ground a new defendant might wish to raise is moot; the correct defensive posture is that the patent is invalid on the face of the certified record.

Pattern signals. This proceeding is one of five parallel IPRs Samsung filed on the five patents-in-suit (IPR2020-00736 '264 — institution denied; -00737 '354 — instituted, all claims canceled; -00738 '393 — instituted, all claims canceled; -00739 '579 — institution denied; -00740 '852 — institution denied). So the petitioner filed a multi-patent campaign, not repeat petitions on this patent. The Board itself was the same three-judge panel across the family. Kannuu litigated hard and pursued PTAB appeals aggressively: it sought discretionary denial, rehearing, and POP review (all denied), moved for a preliminary injunction in district court to eject Samsung from the IPRs (denied by S.D.N.Y., affirmed by the CAFC over a Newman dissent), and appealed both instituted FWDs (affirmed under Rule 36). No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) appears in the chain — the petitioner was Samsung itself, defending against Kannuu's infringement suit. The Google Patents page's "Unified Patents PTAB Data" link is a metadata attribution, not evidence of Unified as petitioner.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant being asserted against US 8,370,393: you have a dispositive, non-discretionary defense. All claims 1–16 were held unpatentable; the FWD was affirmed (Fed. Cir. R. 36, 2023-10-11); and the USPTO issued an IPR certificate on 2024-02-09. Quote the FWD disposition — "claims 1–16 of the '393 patent are held to be unpatentable" and "Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–16 … are unpatentable." Cite the FWD (http://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/IPR2020-00738.pdf) and the certificate. Move to dismiss or for summary judgment of invalidity; the claims simply do not exist.
• Additional kill-shot facts: the patent's legal-events log records "PATENT EXPIRED FOR FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES" (2025-03-10, effective 2025-02-05), with anticipated expiration listed as 2026-08-11. So the patent is both canceled and lapsed.
• If you are evaluating a portfolio or license: do not assign value to the '393 patent. Note that its sibling '354 patent (IPR2020-00737) also had all claims canceled on the same day, while the '264, '579, and '852 patents survived institution denials — those are the only Kannuu patents in the family with arguable residual life.
• No pending PTAB milestones to track. There is no active trial on this patent; the Section 318(a) clock ran out years ago, the appeal is concluded, and the certificate has issued. The only open matter of record is the underlying S.D.N.Y. case (No. 1:19-cv-04297-ER), which is not a PTAB proceeding.

Confidence note: All proceeding numbers, dates, claim numbers, judges, and the FWD disposition above are grounded in the public PTAB/CAFC record retrieved for this analysis. Where the CAFC's 21-1638 opinion gives a "March 27, 2020" petition date that conflicts with the PTAB docket's March 17, 2020, I have flagged the discrepancy rather than silently correcting it. I found no evidence of any second IPR petition, PGR, or CBM against the '393 patent; the single proceeding is IPR2020-00738.

I'll start by verifying the assignment record and checking the litigation/NPE context.

Let me verify the assignment chain and the assignee's corporate status.

Inventors

• Kevin William Dinn (rendered "Kevin W. Dinn" / "Kevin Dinn") — sole named inventor; residence recorded as New South Wales, AU (later "Mt. Kuring-gai, AU").
  • Employer at time of filing: the applicant itself, i.e., N‑e‑ware Pty Ltd, which became Kannuu Pty Ltd (Australian ACN 117717870). The ABN record shows the entity was registered 2006‑01‑03 as N‑e‑ware Pty Ltd and renamed/traded as Kannuu Pty Ltd (name/trading-name change from ~2007, "current name since 11 Nov 2010"). Dinn is the founder/lead engineer of that company, so inventor and applicant are aligned — no third‑party employer.
  • Unusual patterns: none of the classic "inventor exodus" tells. Dinn is the only inventor across the whole family (all nine US members list him alone), and he remained associated with Kannuu for years afterward. What is irregular is the chain‑of‑title timing: the assignment to the company was executed/effective 2008‑06‑30 but was not recorded at the USPTO until 2012‑06‑07 (Reel 028338/0048) — the same day the instant continuation (13/491,267) was filed, and ~7 years after the 2005 priority date. This is late recordation/clean‑up of title rather than a known "fire‑sale precursor," but it is worth flagging because it clusters with the 2012 continuation filings (13/349,204 on 2012‑01‑12 and 13/491,267 on 2012‑06‑07).

Original assignee

• Kannuu Pty Ltd (assignee on the face of the patent; Australian proprietary company, limited by shares; ACN 117717870 / ABN 83117717870; registered 2006‑01‑03 as N‑e‑ware Pty Ltd). Headquarters moved from NSW 2080 → NSW 2088 → QLD 4118 (Brisbane) from 2012‑01‑04; the granted‑patent face for a sibling member (US 8,996,579) shows "Brisbane, Queensland (AU)."
• Primary line of business: predictive text‑entry and list search/navigation user‑interface technology for constrained devices (mobile phones, TVs, remote controls, watch‑sized devices). The patent's own worked example (address book + joystick / 3×2 touch grid) is the company's core subject matter.
• Product embodying the claims: Kannuu commercialized a search‑and‑navigation interface delivered as an app/API (kannuu.com published Website & API Terms of Use referring to "KPL"; Kannuu built demonstration platforms of its technology that it pitched to Samsung in 2012–2013). So the assignee is not a paper entity — it built and demoed the claimed technology.
• Current status: Appears to remain in existence (ABN/GST record last updated 2012 shows "Active"; US litigation continues into 2025). Its enforcement posture is its dominant public activity: it sued Samsung in 2019 and, after its five asserted patents were invalidated, was granted leave in July 2025 to assert two newly issued family members. No bankruptcy, acquisition, or dissolution identified.

Assignment timeline

Only one recorded assignment exists for US 8,370,393. The USPTO data as mirrored by Google Patents legal events shows a single "Assignment" record and no subsequent conveyances (the current assignee remains Kannuu Pty Ltd):

• 2008‑06‑30 (executed/effective) / recorded 2012‑06‑07 — Reel 028338/0048
  • Conveyance: Assignment (USPTO free‑format: "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST; ASSIGNOR: DINN, KEVIN WILLIAM; REEL/FRAME: 028338/0048")
  • Assignor: Kevin William Dinn
  • Assignee: Kannuu Pty Ltd
  • Correspondent: Not determinable from the sources reachable in this session. The mirrored assignment data (Google Patents "Legal Events") reproduces the reel/frame, assignor, assignee, conveyance type and effective date, but not the correspondent/attorney field, and I could not pull the underlying Assignment Center record directly. I am flagging this as a gap rather than inferring a name; because there is only one link in the chain, the "repeat correspondent" test (Signal 3) cannot be run at all on this patent alone. For context only (not a recorded US correspondent), Kannuu's Australian patent attorney of record on related AU applications is Griffith Hack (North Sydney).
  • Context: Founder‑to‑own‑company assignment; effectively a late chain‑of‑title clean‑up recorded on the same day the continuation was filed, not an arm's‑length acquisition.

No other assignments, security interests, mergers, change‑of‑name, licenses, releases or corrections are recorded against this patent. Note that the N‑e‑ware → Kannuu transition is a corporate name change in the Australian register, not a USPTO‑recorded assignment.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8370393
    2005 : AU provisional filed by Dinn
    2006 : PCT filed by N-e-ware later Kannuu
    2008 : Dinn executes assignment to Kannuu
    2012 : Assignment recorded reel 028338 0048
         : Continuation application filed
    2013 : US patent issues Feb 5
    2019 : Kannuu sues Samsung in SDNY
    2020 : Samsung files IPR2020-00738
    2022 : PTAB finds all claims unpatentable
    2023 : Federal Circuit affirms PTAB
    2024 : IPR certificate confirms cancellation
    2025 : Patent lapses for nonpayment

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The chain terminates at Kannuu Pty Ltd, the original operating assignee (Reel 028338/0048). There is no "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" LLC, no registered‑agent address, and no single‑purpose Delaware/Texas entity anywhere in the record.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Current assignee is Kannuu Pty Ltd per Reel 028338/0048. It does not match Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi‑LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation, or any Spangenberg entity. I found no Unified Patents / RPX high‑frequency‑plaintiff listing naming Kannuu.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear (not determinable). Only one recorded assignment exists, so recurrence cannot be established, and the correspondent field itself was not retrievable (see the gap noted above). This is a data limitation, not a negative finding.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. A single assignment over the patent's ~20‑year life; no consecutive LLC hops sharing an address, attorney, or principals.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. Assignment recorded 2012‑06‑07; first infringement suit filed 2019‑05‑10 (S.D.N.Y. 1:19‑cv‑04297) — roughly 7 years apart, far outside any 6‑month window.

6. Bankruptcy fire‑sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding for Kannuu identified; the patent was never sold out of an estate.

7. Privateering — not present. The only transfer ran from the inventor to his own company; there is no operating‑company → NPE transfer and no SEC‑filed privateering story.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. No RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN anywhere in the chain. The inverse "neutralization" event here came from adjudication, not acquisition: IPR2020‑00738 (petitioned 2020‑03‑17 by Samsung) ended with the PTAB holding all challenged claims 1–16 unpatentable, affirmed by the Federal Circuit (2022‑1526/‑1527), with the IPR certificate effective 2024‑02‑09 cancelling the claims; the patent then lapsed 2025‑03‑10 for failure to pay maintenance fees.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The ownership chain never left the original operating assignee: the only recorded conveyance is inventor Kevin William Dinn → Kannuu Pty Ltd, effective 2008‑06‑30, recorded 2012‑06‑07 at Reel 028338/0048, and Kannuu remains the assignee of record. Every NPE indicator in the checklist is absent — no shell‑entity transfer, no known asserter, no cascading LLC chain, no pre‑litigation transfer, no fire‑sale, no defensive aggregator — and the patent was instead asserted by the company that (per the 2019–2025 S.D.N.Y. / PTAB record) developed, demoed, and commercialized the claimed interface, then sued a party it had previously engaged in NDA‑covered licensing discussions with. The forced caveat is the unretrieved correspondent field, which prevents running Signal 3; resolving it ([Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) v. Kannuu Pty, Ltd., IPR2020‑00738) is the one item that requires the raw Assignment Center record.

Verification: USPTO Assignment Center search by patent number — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html); record text as mirrored at the Google Patents legal‑events table for US 8,370,393 (Reel/Frame 028338/0048, "Effective date: 20080630").

Note on scope: I reconstructed the timeline from the provided patent record, Google Patents' mirrored assignment/legal events, and the litigation filings/opinions surfaced in search. I could not query the USPTO Assignment Center directly in this session, so the correspondent of record for Reel 028338/0048 is unverified rather than absent-by-finding — everything else above is grounded in the cited reel/frame and dated records.

I'll verify the key prior-art references and the IPR grounds against live sources, building on the previously generated sections.

Let me resolve an identifier discrepancy in the IPR records and gather details on the key IPR references.

Prior Art Analysis — US 8,370,393 B2 ("Process and apparatus for selecting an item from a database")

Builds on the previously generated sections. The claim breakdown from that section (16 claims; sole independent claim 1) is assumed and not repeated. The previously generated summary did not assign a citation number to "Perlman"; this section supplies it and confirms the claim-by-claim grounds. No contradiction with the earlier text was found — only refinement.

0. Method and legal framing

• Source searched: Google Patents page for US8370393 (full text supplied, authoritative) plus the PTAB/FRAP records for IPR2020-00738.
• §102 standard applied: A reference anticipates a claim only if it discloses every limitation, arranged as in the claim. Where a reference discloses only some elements, I mark it as §103-only rather than §102 art.
• Two different populations of art exist for this patent, and they should not be conflated:
  1. References cited on the face of the patent ("Citations (99)" / "Patent Citations (105)"), i.e., prosecution art; and
  2. The four references Samsung relied on in IPR2020-00738, which did not appear in the examiner's applied art (per the Federal Circuit appellee brief: "four different prior art references not considered during prosecution"). This second group is, empirically, the art that actually defeated the claims.

For a patent whose claims were cancelled, the IPR art is the most probative prior art and is treated first.

1. TIER 1 — The art that actually anticipated / invalidated the claims (IPR2020-00738)

Final Written Decision (Paper 106, redacted) Jul. 22, 2022: claims 1–16 unpatentable; affirmed per curiam by the Federal Circuit Oct. 11, 2023 (Nos. 22-1526 / 22-1527); IPR certificate K1 issued Feb. 9, 2024.

Grounds table (as recited in the FWD):

Takeaway: for §102 purposes, only Perlman and Pu are true anticipatory references. Krohn and Dostie are §103 supports.

2. TIER 2 — Closest references cited on the face of US 8,370,393

None of these, on the record I reviewed, discloses the full combination of claim 1 (portions of item identifiers built up across a first display area mapped to up/down/left/right/select, echoed to a separate second area, with the next set chosen to minimize directional-controller actuations). They are therefore §103-weight, not §102-anticipatory for claim 1 — but several map onto specific dependent claims.

3. TIER 3 — Remaining face citations (grouped; low individual §102 weight)

The patent carries ~105 patent citations plus ~54 "family cites" and ~39 non-patent citations. The bulk are one of:

• Device/UI hardware art — e.g., US 3,937,939 (single-hand calculator); DE 3123596; US 5,398,023; JPH 07240776; US 5,496,992; GB 2,317,531; US 5,757,655; JPH 10293640; CN 1,199,302; US 5,894,276; US 6,043,196; US 7,124,320 (Nokia joystick); WO 2001/067725; GB 2,363,290 (wristwatch); US 6,580,932; US 6,748,242; US 2005/0233769 (portable terminal); US 2006/0085286.
• Telephony/contact-list art — e.g., EP 0624965 (US West online directory); US 5,633,912; US 5,797,098; US 5,901,222; US 6,055,439; US 6,247,043 (IBM intelligent contact mgmt); US 6,792,287; US 2001/0018351; US 2006/0031591.
• Non-patent literature — including Masui, "An Efficient Text Input Method for Pen-based Computers" (CHI '98); Appel & Jacobson, "The World's Fastest Scrabble Program" (CACM, May 1988); Motorola/Lexicus iTAP Technical Paper (Jun. 26, 2002); How et al., "Optimizing predictive text entry for SMS" (2005); Fazly, "The Use of Syntax in Word Completion Utilities" (2002); KeyStick Text Entry System v2.8.0 (2003); and several International Search Reports / Examination Reports.

These support at most §103 arguments about general predictive-input or directional-input practice. None, as described, discloses the claim-1 combination, and I did not full-text-review each of the 105 citations in this session — I flag that as a limitation on this analysis rather than implying anticipation.

4. Flagged discrepancies and uncertainties

1. Perlman citation number. The IPR records (FWD ground table; Patent Owner Exhibit 2003 by Balakrishnan) consistently identify Perlman as US 2002/0113825 A1, published Aug. 22, 2002 — confirmed by the document itself (patentimages PDF). However, several Kannuu family pages on Google Patents (e.g., JP5203197B2, NZ566172A) list a separately numbered US 2002/0113827 A1 with the identical title "Apparatus and method for selecting data." I am treating US 2002/0113825 A1 as the operative §102 reference (per the IPR record) and note the sibling number as a possible parallel publication. Do not auto-merge these two identifiers.
2. Dostie — cited in the IPR as US 2004/0021691 A1 (pub. Feb. 5, 2004). Title/content not independently verified here; it functions only as a §103 secondary reference for claim 5.
3. Pu on the face of '393 — unlike Perlman/Krohn/Dostie, US 7,152,213 B2 ("Pu") does appear among the patent's own cited references, which slightly qualifies the "not considered during prosecution" characterization in the Federal Circuit brief; it appears it was cited but not applied to reject the claims.
4. §102 vs §103 caution. Only Perlman and Pu are true §102 anticipatory references as found by the Board. Krohn, Dostie, and every Tier-2 citation above are §103-weight or less for independent claim 1 as I read it.
5. Timing caveats. US 2006/0217953 (Parikh, filed Jan. 21, 2005) and US 7,487,147 (Sony, filed Jul. 13, 2005; issued 2009) have publication dates after the Aug. 12, 2005 priority date; any §102 use would have to run through §102(e) on their filing dates, with full disclosure support. Conversely, WO 2005/064445 A1 (Nokia, pub. Jul. 14, 2005) is §102-eligible on its face and is the one face-citation warranting a full-text comparison against claim 1.

Bottom line: the most relevant prior art for US 8,370,393 is not the art cited during prosecution but the IPR2020-00738 set — Perlman (US 2002/0113825 A1) and Pu (US 7,152,213 B2) as §102 anticipatory references, with Krohn (US 6,593,913 B1) and Dostie (US 2004/0021691 A1) as §103 combinations. That art was sustained through the Federal Circuit (Oct. 11, 2023) and resulted in cancellation of all claims 1–16 by IPR certificate K1 (Feb. 9, 2024).

I'll ground this analysis in the prior-art citations listed on the patent page, and cross-check the PTAB's actual §103 grounds.

The FWD grounding is confirmed. Let me pin down the identities of the actual IPR references (Pu, Dostie, Krohn) and the primary §103 pairings.

Let me try to pin down the exact identities of "Pu" and "Dostie."

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 8,370,393 ("the '393 patent") under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Prepared: April 26, 2026 · Basis: prior-art citations listed on the Google Patents record for US 8,370,393 B2, plus the PTAB record in IPR2020-00738 (Final Written Decision, redacted, July 22, 2022)

Correction to a prior section, flagged up front. The earlier Patent summary stated the IPR grounds included "§103 over Krohn + Pu, among others." That is accurate as a petitioned ground (Ground 6), but the Board's Final Written Decision did not decide the Krohn-based grounds — it listed the dispositive grounds as anticipation by Perlman, anticipation by Pu, obvious over Perlman+Dostie, obvious over Pu+Dostie, and obvious over Pu+Perlman, expressly declining to reach "additional grounds." The FWD states: "Petitioner has shown … claims 1–16 … collectively unpatentable as either anticipated by Perlman, anticipated by Pu, obvious over Perlman and Dosite, obvious over Pu and Dosite, or obvious over Pu and Perlman." (FWD, redacted). Treat Krohn+Pu as an unde­cided petition theory, not an adopted holding.

1. Governing framework

The '393 patent claims priority to AU 2005904378 (Aug. 12, 2005) and was filed as a continuation on June 7, 2012 with an unbroken chain to PCT/AU2006/001151. Its effective filing date is Aug. 12, 2005, so pre-AIA § 103(a) governs; §§ 102(a), (b), (e) and (g) supply the prior-art categories, and § 103(c) (common ownership / § 102(e)–(g) disqualification) is available. Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), supplies the four factual inquiries; KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), governs motivation. No teaching, suggestion or motivation in the references is required.

Level of ordinary skill (POSITA). The Board adopted Petitioner's proposed level as "consistent with the art of record." As a working definition: a bachelor's degree in computer science, electrical engineering or equivalent, plus 2–3 years' experience designing graphical/text-entry user interfaces for consumer electronics (mobile handsets, set-top boxes, PDAs) — or equivalent experience. This is material: a POSITA here is a UI/software integrator, not a hardware designer, which expands what counts as a predictable combination.

2. Claim 1 decomposed into limitations

Claim-construction note that materially widens the art. Nothing in claim 1 requires the "portions" to be multi-character. A single character is a "portion of an item identifier," and appending one character to another produces a "larger portion." The only pluralities that must be ≥2 are the menu options (1E, claim 16 requires ≥4). This means single-character-selection art (e.g., Krohn) is squarely within the claim's scope, not outside it.

3. Prior-art arsenal (grounded in the page's citation lists and the IPR record)

4. The obviousness combinations

Combination A — Perlman (US 2002/0113825 A1) + Dostie (US 2004/0021691 A1) — adopted by the Board (claims 1–10 anticipated by Perlman; claim 5 obvious over Perlman + Dostie)

Perlman alone was held to anticipate claim 1, i.e., the Board found every limitation — including 1B's directional layout and 1D's separate second area — disclosed. Residual subject matter is the § 103 layer: Dostie supplies the hierarchical ranking of portions (claim 5).

• Motivation: Perlman's own system is a media/TV selection UI driven by a directional remote whose entire purpose is to let a viewer reach a desired item in a long list with few button presses. Dostie teaches weighting/ordering candidates by their position in a classification hierarchy. A POSITA seeking to order the Perlman menus so the most probable options appear first at the four directional positions would look directly to hierarchical-ranking art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 ("a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions").
• Expectation of success: both references use a display + processor + a small key set; no change in principle of operation.

Combination B — Pu (US 7,152,213 B2) + Dostie, and Pu + Perlman — adopted by the Board (claim 11 obvious over Pu + Perlman; claims to 14)

Pu was also held to anticipate claim 1 on its own. Pu's dynamic-assignment of on-screen labels to fixed keys maps one-to-one onto claim 1's "position corresponding to an up, down, left, right select functionality" — the label, not the key, carries the meaning. Combining with Perlman adds the multi-panel/separate-area architecture; combining with Dostie adds hierarchical ranking.

• Motivation: Pu addresses the exact problem of a device with too few keys for a rich interface; Perlman discloses a multi-region display in which a selection is echoed and menus refresh. A POSITA building a directory/program list on a limited-key device would combine them to gain Pu's flexible labeling and Perlman's menu-refresh behavior.
• Timing note (important for § 103): Pu issued Dec. 19, 2006 — after the '393 priority date, so it is not §102(b) art. Its availability rests on its Oct. 4, 2001 filing date under pre-AIA § 102(e)(2). Any obviousness theory built on Pu must plead and prove the § 102(e) date, not the issue date.

Combination C — Krohn (US 6,593,913) + Pu (US 7,152,213) — petitioned (Ground 6), not decided

• Motivation (KSR-compliant): Krohn is the primary under § 103 — it teaches the claimed method of selecting a displayed portion with a limited input device. Pu is the secondary — a "known technique" (dynamic key/label assignment for hierarchical small-key UIs) applied to a "known device" (a handheld with a limited key set), yielding "predictable results" (KSR, 550 U.S. at 417). The reason is the same in both: eliminate the need for a full keyboard and reduce the number of user actions.
• Gap and its rebuttal: The patent owner argued Krohn "does not disclose a database" and that a POSITA would not combine Krohn with Pu. But claim 1 requires only that item identifiers "correspond to the plurality of items in a database" — i.e., an organized stored collection. Krohn's stored, addressable set of selectable strings is a database in the broadest reasonable sense, and Pu's device is a database-driven (POI/navigation) platform. Under KSR and In re Kummer, an express motivation is not required where the combination is of art in the same field solving the same problem.
• Procedural status: briefed by both sides but not decided by the Board, which declined to reach it once it prevailed on the anticipation grounds.

Combination D — WO 2005/064445 A1 (Nokia) + iTAP (Lexicus/Motorola) + Microsoft US 6,377,965 — independent, page-only theory

This combination uses only references printed on the Google Patents page and is the cleanest § 103 theory if one declines to rely on the IPR references.

• WO 2005/064445 supplies 1B/1C/1F/1J directly — it is titled and directed to entering data with a four way input device.
• iTAP Technical Paper (2002) supplies frequency-ranked candidate lists generated from a partial input, and the conventional two-region display (a text/entry line plus a candidate line) → 1D/1E/1H.
• US 6,377,965 (Microsoft, automatic word completion for partially entered data) supplies 1E/1G — proposing multi-character completions that are appended to what the user has already entered.
• Motivation: Each reference is in the same field (reducing keystrokes on devices lacking full keyboards) and addresses the identical deficiency the '393 specification itself recites at col. 1 ("There is need for an improved method of selecting items from a list"). Combining a four-way data-entry device with a frequency-ranked multi-character completion list is the predictable application of a known technique to a known device, and the number of solutions was finite and well-charted (frequency ranking vs. n-gram scoring vs. trie pruning).
• Availability: WO 2005/064445 published July 14, 2005 — i.e., within one year of the Aug. 12, 2005 priority date, so it is not pre-AIA § 102(b) art. It is available as § 102(a) art (published before the constructive date of invention) and, as a PCT application designating the US and published in English, as § 102(e) art effective Dec. 23, 2003. Plead the § 102(e) date to avoid the § 102(b) one-year bar problem.

Combination E — Ranking/tree references for the dependent claims

• Claim 3–4 (frequency / recency / likelihood): US 5,953,541 (Tegic — candidates "in the order of decreasing frequency of use"), US 7,543,244 (Microsoft — "most commonly used items"), US 2005/0188330 (Griffin), iTAP. Any one of these, combined with Perlman, Pu, Krohn or WO 2005/064445, renders these claims obvious.
• Claim 5 (ranking "in relation to a hierarchical classification"): US 5,787,417 (Microsoft — "selection of hierarchically related information using a content-variable list"), US 5,263,174 (Symantec — hierarchical menus), US 6,801,659 (Zi), plus Dostie as the Board found. The '393 specification's own "hierarchical tree of word sections" (FIG. 8) is described as an ordinary structural representation of the word list, which itself signals the hierarchical-navigation concept was conventional.
• Claims 6–7, 13–15 (text strings; words; meaningful units; alphanumeric; ideographic): US 6,801,659 (Zi — "text input system for ideographic and nonideographic languages"), US 5,105,352 (Dell — encoding ideographic characters), EP 1 355 225 (Ericsson — Chinese characters on a handheld). These are alternative claim formats for the same disclosed method; "a change in the language of the alphabet" is not a patentable distinction where the mechanics of portion-selection and combination are unchanged.
• Claims 8–12 (remote server / mobile phone / television / personal portable appliance): Each device class is disclosed by art already on the page — Perlman and Levitt (US 2002/0151327, program selector/guide) for television; US 6,223,059, US 6,744,423, WO 2005/064445 and WO 00/59181 for mobile telephone/handheld; US 5,896,321 (Microsoft, miniature computer) for personal portable appliance; US 2002/0091690 (Caterpillar, textual database searching) for a networked/remote database. Under KSR and In re Schreiber, merely naming a new field of use for a known method does not confer patentability absent a new and unobvious function.
• Claim 16 (≥4 portions): directly met by the four-way/quadrant menus of Perlman, Pu and WO 2005/064445.
• Claim 2 (iterate until complete): inherent in every iterative candidate-list system above.

5. Secondary considerations ("objective indicia") — Graham factor 4

This is where the patent owner fought hardest, and the record is instructive:

• Kannuu asserted copying (Samsung accessed Kannuu's proof-of-concept >2,500 times on July 8, 2013), commercial success (Samsung Smart TV sales), praise, industry recognition, unexpected results, and failure of others.
• The Board found no presumption of nexus and no actual nexus for either Kannuu's POC product or Samsung's accused TV, because the claim charts and the testimony of Kannuu's former CEO were conclusory and did not show the products practice each element of the relevant claims (specifically claim 5's hierarchical-ranking criterion). Even assuming a nexus, the Board found "some evidence of copying but only weak evidence for other objective indicia."
• Analytical point worth emphasizing: copying is ordinarily the most probative secondary consideration (Windsurfing Int'l v. AMF; Advanced Display Sys. v. Kent State). Its weakness here is entirely a nexus problem — the evidence showed Samsung accessed Kannuu's demonstration platform, not that the accused TVs embody the claimed subject matter. A district court weighing a fuller record could take a different view on claim 1's copying evidence. That would not, however, rescue claim 1 from anticipation, for which objective indicia are irrelevant once every limitation is disclosed.

6. Why a POSITA would have combined — consolidated rationales

1. Same field, same problem, same solution space. Every reference above addresses the identical problem the '393 specification recites: entering a text-indexed selection on a device without a full keyboard, and doing so in fewer actions. The art had settled on a small, finite set of known approaches (frequency-ranked candidate lists, n-gram/likelihood scoring, trie pruning, four-way on-screen labeling).
2. KSR predictable-combination logic. Combining a directional controller's four label positions (WO 2005/064445; Pu) with a frequency-ranked candidate list (iTAP; US 5,953,541) with automatic completion/concatenation (US 6,377,965; Krohn) is "the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." No reference's principle of operation is altered.
3. Market and design pressure. The record shows active industry movement to joystick/D-pad navigation and predictive entry (iTAP 2002; KeyStick 2003; Nokia 5510 materials; WO 2005/064445). Demand, not hindsight, supplied the motivation.
4. The "minimize actuations" limitation (1J) is a result-oriented limitation. Any system that displays the most likely ≥2 completions at the four available positions will, by construction, reduce the number of actuations relative to character-by-character entry. That is the expected consequence of the combination, not an unexpected result. The Board's anticipation holdings on Perlman and on Pu necessarily imply it found this limitation satisfied — a strong indication that 1J does not supply patentable weight of its own.
5. The two-area display (1D) is ubiquitous. "Entry/prefix line plus candidate line" is the standard predictive-text layout in US 5,896,321, US 6,223,059, US 7,292,331, the iTAP paper, and Masui CHI '98. Kannuu's own briefing identified limitations 1C and 1D as the battleground — precisely the limitations with the deepest art coverage.

7. Contradictions, gaps, and confidence flags

1. Perlman's identity is inconsistent across sources. The IPR record (FWD reference table; Dr. Balakrishnan's declaration; deposition exhibit list) identifies Perlman as US 2002/0113825 A1, published Aug. 22, 2002 (Ex. 1005). The Google Patents page's own "Family Cites Families" entry and a third-party patent's citation list show US 2002/0113827 A1 (Perlman, "Apparatus and method for selecting data"). Per the operating rules I have not auto-corrected either number. Both are Perlman/Moxi-family US publications dated Aug. 22, 2002; the operative § 103 citation is the one in the IPR record (2002/0113825 A1). Anyone re-running this analysis should confirm which document the FWD actually relied on.
2. Dostie is not on the Google Patents prior-art page. US 2004/0021691 A1 appears only in the IPR record. Because the task directs use of the page's prior-art section, I have kept Dostie confined to the Board-adopted combinations and built an alternative page-only theory (Combination D).
3. The Krohn-based grounds were instituted but never decided. The FWD expressly declined to reach them. My Combination C is therefore a petition-grounded but judicially untested theory.
4. "Not considered during prosecution" is questionable as to Krohn and Pu. Samsung represented that its four IPR references were "not considered during prosecution," yet the Google Patents page lists US 6,593,913 (Krohn) and US 7,152,213 (Pu) with the "*" examiner-cited marker in the family's citation table. I cannot resolve from these records in which application and against which claims they were applied. Flagged, not resolved.
5. Pu's § 102(e) status is load-bearing. Pu issued after the priority date; its prior-art effect depends entirely on the Oct. 4, 2001 filing date. The § 102(e) date is derived from the Google Patents citation entry for US7152213B2, which I did not independently verify against the printed patent.
6. Confidence. High confidence that claims 1–16 are invalid under § 103. The Board's holding that claim 1 is anticipated by each of two independent references is a stronger disposition than an obviousness holding, and the Federal Circuit affirmed without opinion (Nos. 22-1526/22-1527, Oct. 11, 2023), with the IPR certificate (K1) issuing Feb. 9, 2024 cancelling the claims. Any § 103 analysis of this patent today is, in practical terms, an exercise in reconstructing a ground the Board found unnecessary to reach; the claims no longer exist.