US 8508598

I'll search for this specific patent number and check for any CAFC 2026 docket activity.

Let me search for CAFC 2026 docket activity and additional patent details.

Let me do a couple more targeted searches to confirm litigation status and get the Justia record.

US Patent 8,508,598 — Summary

Important caveat on methodology: My searches were general web searches, not direct authenticated queries to USPTO PatentCenter or the CAFC docket system. I found no evidence of any Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2026 docket activity involving patent 8,508,598. Searches for that pairing returned only unrelated matters (e.g., the AeroVironment/Arlton "763 patent" appeals, and unrelated patents also numbered "…850" such as a hearing-aid '850 patent and a Mighty Mug design '850 patent — none of which are US 8,508,598). Treat "no 2026 CAFC docket found" as "not located," not as authoritative proof that none exists.

Bibliographic data (confirmed)

Google Patents link: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8508598/en

A closely related sibling application in the same family is US 2008/0100718 A1, "Wireless Adapter for a Digital Camera" (app. 11/751,761, provisional 60/863,383) — different patent, same priority window and inventors.

Abstract (as issued)

A wireless adapter enables a camera or other digital camera without inherent networking capability to post or send images to a remote destination. The wireless adaptor comprises a wireless interface for communicating with a remote destination over a wireless network, a camera interface to interface the wireless adaptor to a camera, and a file transfer agent. The file transfer agent uses the wireless interface to transfer the image data received from the digital camera to a destination device. In at least one embodiment, the file transfer agent emulates one or more printers, with each emulated printer corresponding to a different destination… Destination parameters for multiple destinations can be loaded and stored in the wireless adaptor.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The patent has 22 claims, with three independent claims: 1 (apparatus), 14 (method), and 16 (method).

Claim 1 — Wireless adaptor (apparatus).
A dongle/adapter for a digital camera that has three core elements plus a functional requirement:

1. a camera interface to plug into the camera;
2. a wireless interface to reach a wireless network;
3. a memory circuit storing "destination parameters"; and
4. a file transfer agent that (a) emulates a printer, (b) associates that emulated printer with a real destination device reachable over the wireless network, so that image data flows to that destination when the camera "prints" to the emulated printer, and (c) transfers the image data according to stored destination parameters — where those parameters specifically include preference information identifying desired formatting or processing actions to be taken by the adaptor or the destination. (That last "preferences/formatting" limitation is notable: it appears to have been added to narrow the claim, since the specification describes preferences more loosely as "processing or other actions.")

Claim 14 — Method in a wireless adaptor (method).
The method counterpart: store destination parameters identifying one or more destinations; emulate a printer for each destination; associate each emulated printer with its destination; receive image data from the camera targeted to a destination; and transfer that data to the targeted destination according to the corresponding destination parameters, responsive to the camera printing to the matching emulated printer — again requiring the "preferences information / desired formatting or processing actions" parameter content.

Claim 16 — Method of uploading multimedia data (method).
Frames the concept as an upload workflow: store destination parameters in a memory circuit; connect the adaptor to the camera (camera interface) and to a wireless network (wireless interface); present a destination device to the camera as an emulated printer (that destination being reached via the wireless interface); receive image data over the camera interface in response to the camera outputting the image data to the emulated printer; and upload that image data to the destination over the wireless interface — with the same "preferences/formatting-processing" destination-parameter limitation.

Representative dependents of note:

• Claims 2–4 tie destinations to specific destination types: a blog (2), a web album (3), and a local computer (4), each using "access and control information" from the destination parameters.
• Claims 5–7 cover the configuration interface (separate PC-compatible interface; or the camera interface / wireless interface acting as the configuration interface).
• Claim 8 adds destination-identifying information and/or user authentication info to the parameters.
• Claims 9 and 12 cover multiple emulated printers, one per destination, with transfer determined by which printer the camera selects.
• Claims 10–11 specify the file transfer agent as a direct-print device, and more specifically one compliant with standards administered by the Camera & Imaging Products Association (i.e., PictBridge, per the specification).
• Claim 13 recites the file transfer agent as processing circuits executing program instructions.
• Claims 15, 17–22 add: identifying the destination by which emulated printer was selected; receiving destination parameters via the camera or wireless interface; and configuring emulated printers for a home computer, web album, or web blog.

Key technical points and prosecution context

• The core inventive concept is using a direct-print protocol (PictBridge/CIPA DC-001) as a transport mechanism — the camera thinks it is printing to a printer, but the adaptor instead uploads image data to a network destination (home PC, web album, blog, print server).
• Notable prior art cited includes US 2007/0285513 A1 (Image Vault, LLC, "Printer emulator"), US 2006/0176506 A1 (Ben Lin, "Network interfacing system for PictBridge® printer"), US 2003/0117638 A1 (Ferlitsch, "Virtual print driver system and method"), plus non-patent references on print-to-email/PDF printer drivers — i.e., printer-emulation and virtual-print-driver concepts were already known, which likely explains the narrowing "preferences/formatting" language in the independent claims.
• Forward citations include Red Hat's "Hypervisor printer emulation for virtual machines" (US 9,990,217) and HP's "Exposing network printers to Wi-Fi clients" (US 9,298,410), among others.

Litigation / CAFC status — explicit uncertainty

I could not locate any 2026 (or other) Federal Circuit appeal or district court litigation specifically asserting US 8,508,598. The searches for this number returned only unrelated matters. The patent's recorded status is Expired – Fee Related as of September 2017 (maintenance-fee lapse), which makes active infringement litigation on the '598 patent unlikely but does not conclusively preclude a late-filed or historical dispute. If you need a definitive docket check, I'd recommend querying USPTO PatentCenter, PACER, the CAFC CM/ECF docket, and Docket Navigator / RPX Insight directly — I was not able to reach those systems with the tools available here.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 8508598 across patent litigation databases.

The first searches returned a different "850" patent (a hearing-aid patent in Energy Transportation Group v. Widex), not US 8,508,598. Let me search more targetedly.

Let me check specialized patent litigation databases directly.

Litigation Search Results for US Patent No. 8,508,598

Bottom line: I found no litigation involving US Patent No. 8,508,598.

What I searched

• General web searches for the patent number and common variants (e.g., "8,508,598," "8508598") combined with litigation-related terms (infringement, complaint, lawsuit, docket, case number).
• Attempts to reach patent-litigation aggregators (Unified Patents litigation portal, RPX Insight, CourtListener/PACER-oriented sources) for this specific number.

Note: my search tooling was cut off before I could complete targeted lookups on the Unified Patents caselist and PACER/CourtListener, so I could not exhaustively verify against those databases. What follows is what the available results support — and, importantly, what they do not support.

Key caution — negative/false-match results to disregard

The hits returned for "850" and "598" refer to different patents and must not be attributed to US 8,508,598:

• The '850 patent in Energy Transportation Group v. Widex A/S et al. (D. Del.) — This is a hearing-aid feedback-cancellation patent (asserted against Widex and Demant, with a ~$31M jury verdict and extensive JMOL/CAFC proceedings). That "’850 patent" is not US 8,508,598. US 8,508,598 is a Sony/Sony Ericsson patent on wireless camera image transfer, an entirely different technology and owner.
• "’598 patent" pharmaceutical/ANDA cases (e.g., AbbVie QULIPTA® litigation referencing a '598 patent, and UAV/'833–'598 complaints) — These reference unrelated patents sharing the last three digits.
• "8508598" as a document/bates/record number (Reagan Library finding aids, a Brazilian municipal ordinance) — Not patent citations.

None of these involve US 8,508,598.

Context on US 8,508,598

• Title: "Method and apparatus for transferring images from an imaging device to a remote device"
• Assignee history: Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB → Sony Mobile Communications AB → Sony Corporation
• Priority: 2006-10-29 (provisional 60/863,382); filed: 2007-05-18; granted: 2013-08-13
• Status: Expired – Fee Related. Per the patent record, maintenance fees were not paid: a maintenance-fee reminder was mailed 2017-03-24, and the patent lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees on 2017-08-13 (recorded 2017-09-11). It expired well before the current date.

Conclusion

Based on the searches performed, no litigation is known involving US Patent No. 8,508,598. The patent appears to have gone unasserted, and it lapsed in 2017 for non-payment of maintenance fees.

Caveats on completeness: I was unable to fully run the targeted queries against the Unified Patents litigation caselist and PACER/CourtListener dockets for this specific number before my search steps were exhausted. To confirm the negative finding, I recommend directly querying:

• Unified Patents litigation portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation) for patent number 8,508,598,
• CourtListener/RECAP and PACER (search "8,508,598" in the patent field),
• Docket Navigator or Lex Machina (patent number 8,508,598),
• The USPTO Patent Center "Litigation" / assignment records for any transfer or enforcement activity.

If any of those return a case, the details (plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, status) should be taken as the current ground truth over this summary. I flag explicitly that I could not verify these last databases, so the "no litigation" conclusion is based on the available search results rather than an exhaustive docket review.

I'll verify the structured data against live sources before reporting.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 8,508,598: 0 — the structured USPTO Open Data Portal block states that ODP returned no AIA trial proceedings as of the most recent ingest (0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials), and independent web searching surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM docket naming this patent. The bottom-line defensive posture is therefore unusual and, on balance, favorable to a defendant — but not because the claims were beaten, and not because they are safe: the patent was never tested at the Board, and it went abandoned for non-payment of maintenance fees in 2017, so the practical risk is one of a stale, unadjudicated but already-lapsed right being dusted off rather than one of a hardened patent.

No proceedings to report

There is no ### IPRxxxx-xxxxx — {Petitioner} v. {Patent Owner} entry to write, because no such proceeding exists. I will not invent a proceeding number, panel, or FWD to fill the template. The per-proceeding sections are omitted for that reason.

What I affirmatively verified (as of 2026-10-01):

• The ODP-derived structured block supplied in this prompt lists no AIA trial proceedings for 8,508,598. Per the operating instructions, that is the canonical list.
• Web searches for PTAB activity under the identifiers "8508598," "8,508,598," and the title "Method and apparatus for transferring images from an imaging device to a remote device" returned no PTAB petition, institution decision, or Final Written Decision.
• The Google Patents page for US8508598B2 lists 4 "Cited By" references and 0 administrative-proceeding entries; its cited-by art is all district-court-driven (e.g., Red Hat's hypervisor printer emulation, HP's Wi-Fi printer exposure), not Board-driven.
• False positives I ruled out — flagging these so a defendant does not chase them: (a) US 8,458,028 (Quantum Imaging) is the patent in Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC v. Quantum Imaging LLC, IPR2023-00954/00995/00996 (panel: APJs Mayberry, Daniels, Cherry) — a different patent number, one transposition away; (b) the "'850 patent" litigated in ETG v. Widex/Demant (hearing aids, Levitt patents, D. Del. 1:14-cv-35041) is a different '850 patent entirely; (c) US 8,481,598 (Forest Labs, D.N.J.) and US 8,580,765 (Gilead) are unrelated.

The more important status fact on the face of the record: the structured legal-status data shows the patent lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees — maintenance-fee reminder 2017-03-24, "LAPSE FOR FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES" 2017-09-11, expiry effective 2017-08-13, with an adjusted expiration listed as 2031-01-09. Any assertion of this patent in 2026 has to confront that first.

Strategic summary

Claim status: all 22 claims UNTESTED — none canceled, none sustained. Claims 1–13 are apparatus claims (independent claim 1; dependents 2–13), claim 14 is an independent method claim with dependent claim 15, and claim 16 is an independent method claim with dependents 17–22. Because there is no FWD on this patent, there is no PTAB-narrowed, IPR-surviving claim set to point a defendant toward — and equally, no claim that has been fortified by surviving an IPR. A defendant cannot say "the Board already killed claim 1," and the patent owner cannot say "claims 1–22 survived a validity challenge." The claims come to the table with only the § 282 presumption of validity, never stress-tested, on a patent that is off the maintenance-fee rolls.

Estoppel landscape: empty. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel operates only against "the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy" in an IPR that "results in a final written decision." With zero IPRs, zero estoppel attaches — no petitioner is barred from any ground, and no defendant inherits a record. Concretely, every prior-art ground against claims 1–22 remains fully available in district court and could still be raised in a new IPR (subject only to the § 315(b) one-year bar running from service of a complaint on that defendant, and to the fact that the patent's status may make an IPR an expensive way to chase a lapsed right). The full prior-art tableau in the Google Patents record — including US 2007/0285513 A1 (Image Vault LLC, "Printer emulator"), US 2007/0030517 A1 (Staccato, "Smart wireless dongle"), US 2006/0176506 A1 (Ben Lin, "Network interfacing system for PictBridge® printer"), US 2003/0117638 A1 (Ferlitsch, "Virtual print driver system and method"), and US 2005/0036034 A1 (Rea, transmitting camera images over a network) — is untapped by any Board proceeding.

Pattern signals: none. No petitioner has filed multiple IPRs against this patent; there is no family of related Board cases; the patent owner (originally Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB, reassigned to Sony Mobile Communications AB and then to Sony Corporation in 2013) never had occasion to defend at the Board or to appeal an adverse FWD to the Federal Circuit. There is no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or similar) in the chain — the citation network around this patent is ordinary commercial art, not a coordinated invalidity campaign. The absence of PTAB activity here is not the "well-asserted patents attract IPRs" signal; it is the signal of a patent that was never a meaningful assertion target before it lapsed.

Recommended next steps

• Lead with the status, not with PTAB. If a demand letter cites US 8,508,598 (claims 1–22) in 2026, the first question is not invalidity — it is whether the patent is even enforceable. The record shows lapse for non-payment of maintenance fees effective 2017-08-13 and "Expired – Fee Related." Confirm the current fee status via USPTO Patent Center for application 11/750,358 (and check whether any petition to accept an unintentionally delayed maintenance payment under 37 C.F.R. § 1.378 was filed or granted, which would revive it and restart the analysis). Pre-2013 lapse dates and any revival are normally reflected in the Patent Center fee/legal-events history.
• Do not represent that any claim has been canceled. No FWD exists, so no claim of 8,508,598 has been canceled, held unpatentable, or upheld. Any "the IPR killed it" theory would be a misstatement of the record.
• If the patent is revived or was revived, no estoppel blocks you on the merits. Because no IPR ever reached FWD, § 315(e)(2) imposes no constraint on any defendant or privy. Prior-art grounds the examiner never saw are live: the face of the prosecution history shows US 2006/0176506 A1 (PictBridge network interface) and US 2007/0285513 A1 (printer emulator) were cited, but they were never run through an adversarial validity trial, so § 102/§ 103 attacks built on them (and on the un-cited dongle/adapter art) have never been adjudicated.
• Non-PTAB defenses worth scoping early, given the claims are untested: (i) § 101 — claims 1/14/16 recite generic "emulate a printer" / "transferring image data" functional results that a district court could read as abstract (note the earlier-generation Papst digital-camera interface litigation, MDL 1880, and the In re Papst appeal, Fed. Cir. 2014-1110, decided 2015-02-02, for the analogous "emulate a known device class" problem); (ii) § 112 — the specification describes emulation at a high level with the PictBridge detail expressly incorporated by reference into CIPA DC-001 rather than disclosed, which is fertile ground for written-description and enablement challenges to the "preferences information" and per-destination emulation limitations; (iii) § 102/§ 103 on the untapped references listed above.
• If you nonetheless file an IPR (e.g., the patent is revived and asserted and you want a stay), note the statutory clocks: institution decision within 6 months of complete petition, trial deadline of 12 months from institution for the FWD under § 316(a)(11), with the § 315(b) one-year bar from service. But weigh that against the odd posture — paying six figures to invalidate a patent that lapsed for unpaid fees is rarely the efficient first move.
• Sibling/foreign family for context: the same disclosure has WO2008054898A1 (published 2008-05-08), EP2080357A1 (status: Withdrawn), and CN101573957B (granted 2013-10-30, later "Expired – Fee Related"), with a sibling US publication US 2008/0100718 A1 ("Wireless Adapter for a Digital Camera"), same 2006-10-29 priority. The EP case being withdrawn and the CN case lapsing reinforce that this family was not policed. None of these foreign proceedings are AIA trials and none bind the US patent.

Bottom line for a defendant: there is nothing at the PTAB to cite, because there was never a PTAB case. The leverage on this patent is the fee lapse (effective 2017-08-13) and a completely un-estopped, unexplored invalidity record — not a prior FWD. Say that plainly and verify the current fee status before relying on it.

I'll research the assignment record before writing. Let me start with parallel searches.

Let me dig for the correspondent of record and confirm there are no later assignments or litigation.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 8,508,598 B2

Patent: US 8,508,598 B2 — Method and apparatus for transferring images from an imaging device to a remote device
App. No.: 11/750,358 · Filed 2007-05-18 · Published as US 2008/0102892 A1 (2008-05-01) · Granted 2013-08-13
Provisional priority: US 60/863,382 (2006-10-29)
Status: Expired — Fee Related. Lapsed 2017 for non-payment of maintenance fees (adjusted expiration 2031-01-09).

Source note: The assignment data below is drawn from the Google Patents legal‑events record for US 8,508,598 (which mirrors the USPTO Assignment Center entries, including reel/frame numbers). Two targeted lookups for the recorded correspondent of record returned no usable data before the search budget was exhausted; the correspondent field should be confirmed directly at the USPTO Assignment Center (see verification link at end). I will not guess it.

Inventors

• All three inventors assigned to the same employer on the same date (executed 2007-05-16), consistent with a routine employer invention-assignment, not a staged/portfolio build-out.
• No unusual departure pattern found. I have no evidence that any inventor left Sony Ericsson within 12 months of filing, and I will not infer it. This record does not show the "all inventors depart → fire-sale" tell.
• Related-family filings with overlapping inventorship confirm these were core Sony Ericsson R&D staff: US 2008/0100718 A1 (Wireless Adapter for a Digital Camera, app. 11/751,761 — Louks, Findikli, Patrik H. Lilja, Hayes) and US 2008/0101272 A1 (Wireless Card and Card Holder for a Digital Camera, app. 11/750,383) share the same priority date of 2006-10-29.

Original assignee

• Entity: Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB (Sweden) — the assignee of record on the issued patent.
• Primary line of business: mobile handsets — a 50/50 joint venture between Sony Corporation (Japan) and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Sweden), formed 2001.
• Products embodying the claims: Unconfirmed. The claims cover a wireless adaptor that emulates a printer and uploads image data from a camera to a remote destination. Sony Ericsson's business was handsets, and the family describes a camera accessory. I found no commercial product confirmed to practice these specific claims. (Sony later sold Wi-Fi adapters in the imaging space, e.g., the CBK-WA01 camcorder Wi-Fi adapter, but I could not confirm it embodies the '598 claims.) Treat "shipped a practicing product" as unverified, not established.
• Current status: No longer exists under this name; absorbed into Sony. Sony acquired Ericsson's 50% stake in the JV in February 2012; the entity was renamed Sony Mobile Communications AB (change of name effective 2012-02-21, recorded reel 031003/0710) and became a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony Corporation. The corporate parent today is Sony Group Corporation (Sony Corporation renamed itself in 2021).

Assignment timeline

Three recorded conveyances; the patent never left the Sony corporate family.

• 2007-05-16 (executed) / recorded 2007-05-18 — Reel 019311/0914

  • Conveyance: Assignment (ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST)
  • Assignor: Ronald A. Louks; Nadi Sakir Findikli; Gerard James Hayes
  • Assignee: Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB (Sweden)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available sources. (Because all three recordings in this chain were filed as a coordinated 2013 event for the reorg entries, a single filing firm is plausible — but that is an inference, not a finding.)
  • Context: original employment assignment — inventors to their employer at filing.

• 2012-02-21 (executed / effective) / recorded 2013-08-12 — Reel 031003/0710

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB
  • Assignee: Sony Mobile Communications AB (Sweden)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available sources.
  • Context: internal reorg / change of name only — follows Sony's buy-out of Ericsson's 50% JV stake; no change in ultimate ownership.

• 2013-07-23 (executed / effective) / recorded 2013-08-12 — Reel 030989/0375

  • Conveyance: Assignment (ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST)
  • Assignor: Sony Mobile Communications AB
  • Assignee: Sony Mobile Communications AB and Sony Corporation (Japan)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available sources.
  • Context: internal reorganization — interest moved up to the Sony Corporation parent. Note both 2013 recordings share the same recording date (2013-08-12), a single clean-up filing to reflect the post-Ericsson corporate structure.

No further assignments are of record. There is no conveyance to any licensing entity, NPE, or defensive aggregator. The chain terminates with Sony Corporation, and the patent was allowed to lapse for non-payment in 2017.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8508598
    2007 : Filed by Sony Ericsson Mobile
    2008 : Published as US20080102892A1
    2012 : Sony Ericsson renamed Sony Mobile
    2013 : Issued as US8508598B2
         : Interest assigned to Sony Corporation
    2017 : Patent lapsed for non-payment

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" entity appears. Assignees are Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB → Sony Mobile Communications AB → Sony Corporation, reel 031003/0710 and 030989/0375. No single-purpose LLC, no registered-agent service address.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. No assignee matches Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or any Spangenberg entity. Current assignee is a Fortune-Global operating company (Sony).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / not retrievable. The correspondent of record could not be obtained for reels 019311/0914, 031003/0710, or 030989/0375. There is for-cause suspicion only in the weak sense that two 2013 recordings occurred the same day (2013-08-12), suggesting one coordinated filing — but this is normal for corporate reorgs and is not evidence of an NPE. Do not treat as a finding.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only two substantive transfers, both internal, effective 2012-02-21 and 2013-07-23 (~17 months apart). They are not a chain of unrelated LLCs; they are the same corporate family.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No infringement litigation naming this patent was found. The 2013 assignment to Sony Corporation precedes the patent's 2017 lapse, not a suit.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Sony Ericsson was bought out by Sony (Feb 2012), not bankrupt. No Chapter 7/11 sale.

7. Privateering — not present. No transfer to an NPE funded to assert on Sony's behalf; no SEC/Patent-Progress/EFF coverage found.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN; it terminates at Sony Corporation, an operating company.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion — with an explicit caveat: no assertion is of record.

Justification: Every recorded conveyance keeps the patent inside the Sony corporate family — inventors → Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB (reel 019311/0914, 2007-05-16), change of name to Sony Mobile Communications AB (reel 031003/0710, effective 2012-02-21), and assignment to Sony Corporation (reel 030989/0375, effective 2013-07-23). There is zero NPE footprint: no shell entity, no known asserter, no defensive aggregator, no bankruptcy sale, and no litigation. The patent was simply allowed to lapse for non-payment in 2017.

I note the taxonomy mismatch honestly: the "Operating-company assertion" category is defined by an operating company suing actual competitors, and I found no suit. The "Operating-company" half is fully supported (Sony is a large operating company); the "assertion" half is unproven. The next-closest categories also misfit — this is not a defensive aggregator acquisition, and it is not "insufficient data" (three conveyances are on record). The defensible bottom line is: this is an operating-company-held patent with no NPE pattern; it was never asserted and has been neutralized by lapse.

Verify at USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 8508598) — mirrors https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. Confirm the correspondent of record for reels 019311/0914, 031003/0710, and 030989/0375, which is the one field I could not retrieve.

I'll research the specific patent and its cited prior art to build an accurate anticipation analysis.

Let me verify a few more of the most claim-relevant citations.

Prior-Art Analysis for US Patent No. 8,508,598

0. Patent identity confirmed

Searching the specific number 8,508,598 returns exactly one match, and it matches the authoritative record already in hand:

This is the wireless-camera/printer-emulation patent — not the hearing-aid "'850 patent" of Energy Transportation Group v. Widex flagged in the earlier litigation section, and not the pharma "'598 patents." The earlier litigation summary remains correct: no known litigation; the patent lapsed in 2017 for non-payment of maintenance fees.

Anticipation standard applied below. Because the priority date is 2006-10-29, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 governs. § 102 anticipation requires that a single reference disclose every claimed element, arranged as in the claim. Where a reference discloses only some elements, it is noted as § 103 background, not a true anticipator. Dates below are taken from the patent's own citation record (authoritative) and cross-checked against the published references.

Two threshold notes:

• Critical dates. US filing 2007-05-18 → § 102(b) references are those published before ~2006-05-18 (one-year grace; if provisional benefit is measured from 2006-10-29, the date shifts to ~2005-10-29). § 102(e) applies to US patents/publications filed before the applicant's effective date (2006-10-29).
• Companion application, not prior art. US 2008/0100718 A1 ("Wireless Adapter for a Digital Camera," Sony Ericsson, filed 2006-10-29) appears on the "cited" list, but it shares the same priority date and assignee. It is the applicant's own companion filing and, absent a different inventive entity, is not § 102 prior art.

Tier A — Closest prior art (the only realistic § 102 candidates)

A1. US 2007/0285513 A1 — "Printer emulator" (Image Vault, LLC)

• Full citation: U.S. Pub. 2007/0285513 A1; also published as WO 2007/146903 A2 (PCT/US2007/070940). Inventor/assignee: Image Vault, LLC.
• Dates: filed 2006-06-13; published 2007-12-13.
• Status: § 102(e) candidate (US filing 2006-06-13 precedes applicant's 2006-10-29 priority).
• Description: An emulator that simulates a printer connection to a port (POS cash-register printer port) so the host outputs its printer data even though no printer is attached; the emulator receives that data and relays it to a remotely located element, which processes/stores it (here, surveillance images correlated to the printer data). It expressly contemplates the emulator receiving data from a port and transmitting it to remote locations "through network communications."
• Claims potentially implicated:
  • Claim 1 — partial. Discloses "emulate a printer," "associate the emulated printer with a destination device," and "transfer… data… to the destination device responsive to [a device] printing to the emulated printer." It does not disclose a digital camera sending image data via a camera interface, nor the "destination parameters comprising preferences information identifying desired formatting or processing actions."
  • Claim 13 — possible (emulator implemented by processing circuits).
• Assessment: This is the single closest reference and the best § 102(e) candidate, but it is directed to POS/surveillance, not to a camera-to-remote-destination image workflow, and it lacks the destination-parameter/preferences limitation that was added to the independent claims. It is unlikely to fully anticipate claim 1, 14 or 16; it is strong § 103 material.

A2. US 2003/0117638 A1 — "Virtual print driver system and method" (Ferlitsch / Sharp Laboratories)

• Full citation: U.S. Pub. 2003/0117638 A1; granted as US 6,943,905 B2. Inventor: Andrew Rodney Ferlitsch; assignee: Sharp Laboratories of America.
• Dates: filed 2001-12-20; published 2003-06-26.
• Description: A "virtual printer driver" presents a set of accessible output devices from a single dialog and routes a print job to a selected device based on best-fit criteria. Notably, the "output devices" are not limited to printers — the specification expressly lists "a printer, a monitor, a floppy or hard disk, an email recipient, CD burner, etc." The virtual driver gathers device capability/availability/locality data and redirects the job accordingly.
• Claims potentially implicated:
  • Claim 1 — partial: discloses a virtual/emulated printer abstraction and transfer of data to a selected destination device based on user selection, but no camera interface, no wireless interface, and no camera "printing" to an emulated printer.
  • Claims 8, 9, 12 — the "best-fit"/selection and multi-destination aspects are conceptually related but not anticipatory.
• Assessment: § 102(b) prior art; relevant background for the "emulate a printer → redirect to a non-printer destination" concept, but does not anticipate the independent claims. Best used in a § 103 combination.

A3. US 2006/0176506 A1 — "Network interfacing system for PictBridge® printer" (Lin / Sercomm)

• Full citation: U.S. Pub. 2006/0176506 A1; foreign counterpart CN 1828514 A / TWI273419B. Inventor: Ben Lin; assignee: Sercomm Corp.
• Dates: filed 2005-02-05; published 2006-08-10.
• Description: An interfacing device that connects to the PictBridge port of a printer and, via built-in firmware, "behaves exactly like a PictBridge®-compliant digital camera to the PictBridge® printer." The device also has a wireless LAN (802.11 a/b/g) interface, so computing devices on the LAN can print over the network. Essentially it emulates a camera to a printer, the inverse of the '598 emulation.
• Claims potentially implicated:
  • Claims 10, 11 — directly relevant: the reference shows a direct-print (PictBridge/CIPA) device combined with a wireless interface. § 102(b).
  • Claim 1 — not anticipatory (it emulates a camera, not a printer/destination; it has no camera interface accepting a camera's print output and no destination-parameter memory).
  • Claim 16 — partial at best.
• Assessment: Strong § 102(b)/§ 103 reference for the PictBridge-plus-wireless elements (claims 10–11), but it does not disclose the core "emulated destination printer" architecture.

A4. JP 2006-163463 A — Canon "Direct print system"

• Full citation: Japanese Pub. JP 2006-163463 A; assignee: Canon Inc.
• Dates: published 2006-06-22 (priority/filing 2004-12-02).
• Description: A direct-print system with image processing, storage medium and program — PictBridge-era direct printing from an imaging device.
• Claims potentially implicated: Claims 10–11 (direct-print/CIPA context). § 102(b). Not anticipatory of claims 1/14/16 (no printer emulation for a remote networked destination).

A5. US 2003/0090572 A1 / US 7,158,175 B2 — Kodak "docking unit for coupling to the internet"

• Full citation: U.S. Pub. 2003/0090572 A1; granted US 7,158,175 B2. Inventors Belz, Chambers, Parulski; assignee Eastman Kodak (later Intellectual Ventures Fund 83).
• Dates: filed 2001-11-30; published 2003-05-15; granted 2007-01-02.
• Description: A digital camera + docking unit with a network connection (phone/wireless) that automatically uploads captured images to a network service provider for storage/printing and downloads content back to the camera. Stores service-account information (user name, password, billing, content preferences) used to drive the transfer.
• Claims potentially implicated:
  • Claim 8 — the stored user/account/authentication information element is disclosed.
  • Claim 4 — transfer of images to a computer/remote service is disclosed.
  • Claim 1 — not anticipatory: no printer emulation and no camera "printing" to an emulated printer.
• Assessment: § 102(b). Very useful for the "destination parameters / authentication" and "upload image data to a remote destination" elements, and thus a primary § 103 combination partner, but not a standalone anticipator.

A6. US 2005/0036034 A1 — Rea, "Apparatus for communicating over a network images captured by a digital camera"

• Full citation: U.S. Pub. 2005/0036034 A1. Inventor: David D. Rea.
• Dates: filed 2003-08-15; published 2005-02-17.
• Description: An apparatus for communicating images captured by a digital camera over a network — camera-side network transport, including wireless options.
• Claims potentially implicated: Claims 1, 16 (camera interface + network transfer of captured image data) — § 102(b); but it is not understood to disclose printer emulation or destination parameters with preferences, so not anticipatory.

Tier B — References cited for camera/adaptor/wireless media and "print-to-non-printer" concepts

Tier C — References cited for camera/wireless/mobile-device context

Tier D — References cited for antenna-diversity / RF / power (secondary features)

These were cited for the wireless/antenna aspects of the adaptor (e.g., the dual wireless interfaces 106/108 and antenna arrangement in Fig. 2), not for the printer-emulation architecture, and none anticipates the substantive claims.

Tier E — Non-Patent Literature cited

Bottom line

1. No cited reference is a clean § 102 anticipation of independent claims 1, 14, or 16. Each is missing at least the core combination of (a) a camera interface receiving a camera's "print" output, (b) a file transfer agent that emulates a printer paired with a networked destination device, and/or (c) destination parameters that include "preferences information identifying desired formatting or processing actions" — the limitation the claims emphasize.

2. Strongest § 102(e) candidate: US 2007/0285513 A1 (Image Vault, "Printer emulator," filed 2006-06-13) — the only reference that expressly discloses emulating a printer connection and relaying the received data to a remote networked element. It is the closest art but is directed to POS/surveillance, not camera-image publishing, and lacks the preferences limitation.

3. Strongest § 102(b) references for sub-elements: Ferlitsch US 2003/0117638 A1 (virtual print driver redirecting to non-printer "destinations" including email/disc), Lin US 2006/0176506 A1 (PictBridge + WLAN interfacing, → claims 10–11), Kodak US 2003/0090572 A1 / US 7,158,175 (authenticated upload of camera images to a remote service, → claims 4, 8), and the Black Ice "Print2Email" NPL (print redirected to a non-printer destination). Together these are the natural § 103 combination against claim 1, but none alone anticipates.

4. Caveat on completeness: My analysis is built on the patent's own citation list (authoritative) plus verification searches for the most claim-relevant references. I was able to confirm the Image Vault "Printer emulator," Ferlitsch virtual print driver, Lin PictBridge-interfacing, and Kodak docking-unit references directly; the antenna/diversity and ancillary references in Tiers C–D are characterized from their titles/assignees as listed in the patent record and were not individually full-text-verified, so their technical descriptions should be treated as title-level summaries. If a specific one becomes important to an invalidity position, its full text should be pulled and checked against the elements of claims 1/14/16.

Cross-reference note: This section is consistent with the earlier litigation summary — the same US 8,508,598 (Sony wireless camera image-transfer patent, lapsed 2017) and no conflict is introduced.

I'll research the key prior-art references cited on the patent page to ground the obviousness analysis, then build the §103 combinations.

Obviousness Analysis — US 8,508,598 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Patent: US 8,508,598 B2, "Method and apparatus for transferring images from an imaging device to a remote device"
Assignee: Sony Corporation / Sony Mobile Communications AB (originally Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB)
Priority date: 2006-10-29 (provisional 60/863,382); Filed: 2007-05-18 (US 11/750,358); Granted: 2013-08-13
Governing law: Pre-AIA §§ 102/103 (application filed 2007). All prior art cited below has a §102 date before the 2006-10-29 priority date, as noted.

This analysis builds on the previously generated litigation summary (which found no litigation) and does not repeat it. Where the prior-art record here bears on that summary, I flag it. The task directs me to use the Prior Art section of the patent page — i.e., the examiner-cited references — so I anchor on those.

Flag / caveat up front: The references below are the ones on the face of the patent. I did not have the file wrapper (Office actions, amendments, or the examiner's stated reasons for allowance). Where I say a limitation was "likely added to overcome art," that is an inference from the claim language, not a verified prosecution fact. I flag it as such.

1. Framework and level of ordinary skill

Legal standard. Under Graham v. John Deere and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, obviousness asks whether the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of invention, considering (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary skill, and (4) objective indicia. Where a claimed combination is "of familiar elements according to known methods" and "does no more than yield predictable results," it is obvious. KSR also authorizes "obvious to try" reasoning where an identified need exists and there is a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.

Level of ordinary skill (proposed). A POSITA here would have a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent) with ~2–4 years of experience in digital imaging, direct-print protocols (PictBridge/CIPA DC-001), and wireless networking (WWAN/WLAN), or a master's degree with less experience. This is a systems-integration art, not an unpredictable one — the "predictable results" branch of KSR applies with force.

The invention in one sentence. A wireless dongle that plugs into a camera's (PictBridge/USB) port, pretends to be a printer, and instead of printing, uploads the "printed" image data over a wireless network to a remote destination (home PC, web album, blog, print server), using stored per-destination configuration parameters.

Prior art dates — all qualify:

Flag — potential 103(c) disqualification. The patents' own citation list includes US 2008/0100718 A1, "Wireless Adapter for a Digital Camera," Sony Ericsson, priority 2006-10-29 — the same priority date and assignee as the patent-at-issue. This appears to be a commonly owned, co-pending family member, not true third-party art. Under pre-AIA §103(c), commonly owned §102(e)/(f)/(g) art is disqualified for obviousness. I therefore exclude US 2008/0100718 A1 from the combinations below and rely only on genuinely third-party references. This is a point an examiner/prosecutor would need to confirm from the assignment records.

2. Claim 1 — element-by-element mapping

Claim 1 requires: (a) camera interface; (b) wireless interface to a wireless network; (c) memory circuit storing destination parameters; and (d) a file transfer agent that (i) emulates a printer, (ii) associates the emulated printer with a destination device accessible through the wireless communication network so that the adapter receives image data when the camera prints to the emulated printer, and (iii) transfers that data according to stored destination parameters that include preferences information identifying desired formatting or processing actions.

Combination A (primary): Image Vault "Printer emulator" + Staccato "Smart wireless dongle" + Lin PictBridge network interface

Why a POSITA would combine them. All three live in the same art and address the same problem the '598 specification itself recites: PictBridge direct print is wired (USB), and cameras lack built-in wireless. Staccato states the problem verbatim — "There are some existing techniques for converting a wired connection between a printer and a camera to a wireless connection. However, some aspects of these existing techniques may be unattractive, inefficient, and/or proprietary" — the same motivation the '598 patent gives ("wireless interfaces increase the size, weight, and cost of the digital camera"). Image Vault supplies the emulation mechanism (pretend to be the peripheral the host expects so the host surrenders its data); Staccato supplies the wireless transport and the camera-side adapter concept; Lin supplies the PictBridge-over-WLAN bridging and the destination-parameter configuration. Combining a known printer-emulator with a known wireless camera dongle to redirect the emulated "print" to a network endpoint is a predictable assembly of familiar elements — the KSR fact pattern.

The key gap and how the art bridges it. Claim 1's destination is a device reachable over the wireless network, not a local printer. Three references bridge this directly:

• Rea (US 2005/0036034 A1) — "Apparatus for communicating over a network images captured by a digital camera" (the title alone maps to the claimed function).
• Eastman Kodak (US 2003/0090572 A1) — a docking unit that couples the camera to the internet, i.e., transferring images from camera to a network destination via an intermediary adapter.
• Ferlitsch virtual print driver and Black Ice Print2Email — both teach treating a non-printer endpoint (an email recipient, a remote spooler/print processor) as the target of a "print" operation. Black Ice's Print2Email is essentially a software "printer" whose destination is a remote mailbox — the precise conceptual move claim 1 makes when it sends "printed" images to a blog/web album/home PC.

Once one accepts that "printing" is just a transport metaphor (taught by Ferlitsch/Black Ice), redirecting the emulated printer's output to a network destination (taught by Rea/Eastman Kodak) is obvious.

Combination B (arguably stronger for claim 1's "preferences" clause): Lin + Ferlitsch + Staccato

Lin already discloses a wireless PictBridge bridging device; Ferlitsch supplies the virtual-printer/redirect-to-remote-destination and the per-job options/processing; Staccato supplies the camera-side wireless adapter. This trio does not even need Image Vault, because Lin's "interfacing device behaves exactly like a PictBridge® compliant camera" demonstrates the mirror-image emulation concept (device impersonating the counterpart the host expects on the bus).

Flag — the likely point of novelty. The clause "destination parameters comprising preferences information identifying desired formatting or processing actions to be taken by the wireless adaptor or by the destination device" is unusually specific and reads like language added or emphasized to distinguish art that taught bare emulation + transfer. If so, that is the limitation the obviousness case must defeat. My view: it is still obvious over Ferlitsch (print job options and requirements; sheet-assembly emulation such as N-up/booklet/collation) and Lin (bitmap transformation = formatting). But I cannot verify from the record on this page whether the examiner already considered and applied Ferlitsch to this clause, so I mark this as the highest-risk element of the challenge rather than a certainty.

3. Dependent claims

Strongest sub-combination: claims 9/12 fall out almost directly from Ferlitsch (multiple selectable virtual printers, per-device routing) combined with the emulation of Image Vault — this is close to a one-or-two-reference showing.

4. Consolidated motivation to combine (KSR-style)

1. Same field, same problem, overlapping solutions. Staccato and the '598 patent both diagnose PictBridge's wired limitation and both propose a camera-side, self-contained adapter to add wireless capability. A POSITA reading Staccato's "dongle (i.e., wireless adapter) … coupled to the camera" has the motivation and the design template.
2. Emulation is a known, generic technique. Image Vault frames its printer emulator as applicable to "any number of elements," not only POS devices — nothing confines the emulation insight to cash registers, so importing it into the camera/wireless-dongle context is a predictable application.
3. "Printing" as a redirection metaphor was established. Ferlitsch (virtual print driver) and Black Ice (Print2Email) both teach that a "print" can terminate at a non-printer destination. This supplies the reason to route the emulated print to a network device rather than paper — and supplies the destination parameters (options/requirements, formatting/emulation) needed by claim 1(d)(iii).
4. Destination-side bridging existed. Rea and Eastman Kodak establish camera-to-network image transfer via an adapter/dock, so the "destination device accessible through the wireless communication network" requires no new technology.
5. Reasonable expectation of success / predictable results. Each element is a known building block; the combination yields the expected result (camera "prints" → data lands at a remote location). KSR: familiar elements, known methods, predictable results.

5. Anticipated counterarguments and objective indicia

• Teaching away / different field. Applicant could argue Image Vault is POS surveillance art and Staccato targets a printer destination, not a remote server. Rebuttal: the emulator is expressly generic, and Ferlitsch/Black Ice/Rea supply the non-printer-destination motivation; KSR permits combining references from analogous, reasonably pertinent arts, which imaging/printing/networking all are.
• Secondary considerations. Under KSR/Graham these must be weighed, but on the record on this page there is no evidence of unexpected results, commercial success, long-felt need, or failure of others; and the previously generated summary notes the patent lapsed in 2017 for non-payment of maintenance fees — which, while not itself dispositive, is inconsistent with a strong commercial-success/non-obviousness narrative.
• The "preferences information" clause (flagged above) is the single most defensible claim element. If the applicant can show the prior art taught only format-agnostic transfer, this clause is the battleground.
• §103(c) housekeeping. Ensure the commonly owned US 2008/0100718 A1 is excluded from any combination (see flag in §1).

6. Bottom line

• Claim 1 is likely obvious over Image Vault (printer emulator) + Staccato (smart wireless dongle) + Lin (PictBridge/WLAN interface), with Rea or Eastman Kodak supplying the network-destination bridge and Ferlitsch/Black Ice supplying the "print = redirect to remote endpoint" motivation and the formatting/processing preferences.
• An independent alternative exists over Lin + Ferlitsch + Staccato (mirror-image emulation + virtual-printer redirect + wireless camera adapter).
• Claims 9, 10, 11, 12 (multiple emulated printers; CIPA/PictBridge standard) are the easiest to invalidate (Ferlitsch; Staccato/Lin respectively). Claims 2–3 (blog/web album) are the hardest, because they require a destination-selection rationale the cited art states less explicitly.
• Highest-risk element for the challenge: the "preferences information identifying desired formatting or processing actions" clause of claim 1 (and its echo in claims 14 and 16).

Confidence and caveats. The element mappings above are grounded in the cited patent text (URLs embedded). I have not verified the prosecution history, the examiner's reasons for allowance, or whether any of these references were already distinguished. The §102(e) status of Image Vault (filed 2006-06-13, ~4 months before the 2006-10-29 priority) is close and should be confirmed against the exact invention/priority dates. If the file wrapper shows these references were considered and overcome, or if secondary-considerations evidence exists, that would change this assessment — and should be treated as ground truth over this analysis.