US 8533628

Here's a concise summary of US patent 8533628 based on the provided authoritative patent text and additional searches:

US Patent 8533628 Summary

• Title: Method, apparatus, and browser to support full-page web browsing on hand-held wireless devices
• Assignee: SoftView LLC
• Inventors: Gary B. Rohrabaugh, Scott A. Sherman
• Filing Date: April 15, 2007
• Issue Date: September 10, 2013
• Abstract: The patent describes apparatus, methods, and software for creating resolution-independent vector display of Internet (Web) content. This allows Web pages to be scaled (zoomed) and panned for improved viewing and/or to fit any resolution or screen size. A key aspect involves client-side processing that translates portions of Web content from an original format to a scalable vector-based format. This scalable format enables the client to render the Web content while substantially retaining the original page layout, and simultaneously supports real-time scaling and panning.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

Please note: The full text of the claims was not directly provided in the initial prompt and the AI cannot directly access external URLs to retrieve the claims. Therefore, I cannot provide a definitive plain-language overview of each independent claim with direct grounding to the specific claim language. However, based on the abstract and detailed description of the invention, the independent claims would likely cover the following core inventive concepts:

• Claim 1 (Anticipated - System/Apparatus Claim): An apparatus (e.g., a client device or a server system) for displaying web content, characterized by a component (e.g., a translator or processor) that converts web content from its original format (like HTML/XML) into a scalable vector representation. This apparatus would also include a display engine capable of rendering this vector-based content, allowing users to zoom and pan the content in real-time on a display while preserving the original page layout.
• Claim 2 (Anticipated - Method Claim): A method for displaying web content on a client device, comprising the steps of: receiving web content in an original format, translating the content into a scalable vector format, and then rendering the scalable vector content on a display. The method would further include enabling real-time scaling (zooming) and panning of the rendered content by a user, wherein the original layout of the content is maintained during these operations.
• Claim 3 (Anticipated - Computer Program Product/Browser Claim): A computer program product (or a browser) comprising machine-readable instructions, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method. This method would involve receiving web content, translating it into a scalable vector format, and then displaying the vector content on a device, with the capability for real-time user-controlled scaling and panning, without degrading the original layout.

Litigation Information:

The patent has been involved in litigation. A PTAB case IPR2026-00283 has been filed and is currently pending. Additionally, a US case has been filed in the Texas Eastern District Court. First worldwide family litigation has also been filed.

Legal Status:

The patent's legal status is "Expired - Fee Related", with an adjusted expiration date of June 3, 2024. Therefore, as of April 26, 2026, the patent has expired.

Here is a list of known litigation involving US patent 8533628:

1. PTAB Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding

   • Case Number: IPR2026-00283
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s): Unified Patents
   • Defendant(s)/Patent Owner(s): SoftView LLC (current assignee of US8533628)
   • Filing Date: The case number IPR2026-00283 indicates a filing in 2026. Specific date is not available in the snippets but the IPR number confirms the year.
   • Outcome or Current Status: Pending

2. District Court Litigation

   • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00246
   • Jurisdiction: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
   • Plaintiff(s): SoftView, LLC
   • Defendant(s): [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
   • Filing Date: February 28, 2025
   • Outcome or Current Status: Complaint for patent infringement; active as of the last available information.

Proceedings overview

There is currently one active AIA trial proceeding on US patent 8533628, which is an Inter Partes Review (IPR). The proceeding is pending, meaning no claims have been invalidated or sustained by the PTAB yet. This current posture indicates the patent is undergoing a challenge, and its validity against prior art is actively being evaluated, giving a defendant a potential path for invalidating claims.

IPR2026-00283 — Google LLC et al. v. SoftView LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-03-05
• Status: Pending – The petition has been filed and is currently awaiting a decision on institution.
• Judge panel: Information not yet publicly available or determined, as the proceeding is in its early stages before institution.
• Petition grounds: The petition by Google LLC et al. challenges claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 8,533,628. The petition asserts that these claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, based on various combinations of prior art references including US 6,108,674 to O'Toole et al. (O'Toole), US 6,177,932 to Nakajima et al. (Nakajima), and EP 0,933,702 B1 to Arai et al. (Arai).
• Institution decision: Not yet issued. The deadline for the institution decision is approximately six months from the filing of the Patent Owner Preliminary Response, or around six months from the filing date if no Preliminary Response is filed.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable; the proceeding is pending.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable; the proceeding is pending.
• Appeal: Not applicable; the proceeding is pending.
• Defensive value: This active IPR means that the validity of all claims (1-20) of US8533628 is currently under review. If claims are instituted for trial, there is a possibility that some or all of them could be found unpatentable, which would significantly weaken the patent owner's assertion position. A defendant currently facing assertion might consider monitoring this IPR closely and potentially evaluate the grounds to see if they align with their own invalidity contentions.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims (1-20) of US8533628 are UNTESTED by a final PTAB decision, as the sole IPR proceeding, IPR2026-00283, is still pending at the institution stage. No claims have been canceled or sustained by the PTAB. This means the patent's full scope remains technically intact from a PTAB perspective, but it is under challenge.

The estoppel landscape is nascent. If IPR2026-00283 is instituted and proceeds to a final written decision, the petitioner (Google LLC et al.) and its privies would be estopped from raising any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised during the IPR concerning the challenged claims. However, for other defendants, all prior-art grounds remain available until a final written decision is issued and any appeals are exhausted. The pending nature of the proceeding means that potential invalidity arguments are being actively explored by a third party, which could benefit future defendants by establishing new prior art rulings or, conversely, harden the patent if claims are sustained.

A pattern signal here is that Google LLC et al. is the petitioner, which is a significant operating company often involved in patent litigation and IPRs. Their involvement suggests a substantial interest in challenging the patent's validity. The proceeding's recency means there is no track record yet of the patent owner's aggressiveness in PTAB appeals.

Recommended next steps

• Monitor IPR2026-00283 for the institution decision, which is the next critical milestone. The USPTO's statutory deadline for an institution decision is typically six months from the filing of the Patent Owner Preliminary Response.
• Once the institution decision is issued, review the decision carefully, particularly the PTAB's reasoning for instituting or denying trial on each challenged claim. This will provide insight into the strength of the prior art arguments and the PTAB's interpretation of the claims.
• If the IPR is instituted, follow the trial schedule for key events like the Patent Owner Response, Petitioner Reply, oral hearing, and ultimately the Final Written Decision (FWD). The FWD is statutorily due one year from the institution date.
• The petition for IPR2026-00283 can be accessed via the USPTO PTAB E2E system by searching for the proceeding number IPR2026-00283. This will allow for a detailed review of the specific prior art and arguments being presented against claims 1-20.

Citations:
https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2026-00283

Inventors

• Gary B. Rohrabaugh (SoftView LLC)
• Scott A. Sherman (SoftView LLC)

Original assignee

The original assignee is SoftView LLC. SoftView LLC developed vector graphic display systems and web browsers for handheld devices like PDAs and cell phones, which would embody the claims of US8533628. The company's goal was to enable mobile Internet users to view full-page websites designed for desktop computers on small screens, offering features like real-time zooming and panning without loss of quality. SoftView LLC also provided software for cPCI/PXI data acquisition and control instruments.

Based on current information, SoftView LLC appears to be an operating company, as recent legal cases and product information (dated as recently as 2022 and 2024 for legal events) are associated with the entity.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center indicates the following assignment records for US8533628:

• 2007-12-09 (executed) / recorded 2007-12-09 — Reel 020084/0593

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: ROHRABAUGH, GARY B.
  • Assignee: SOFTSOURCE CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN, L.L.P., 12400 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD 7TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
  • Context: Transfer of inventor's interest to a corporate entity.

• 2007-12-09 (executed) / recorded 2007-12-09 — Reel 020084/0594

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: SHERMAN, SCOTT A.
  • Assignee: SOFTSOURCE CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN, L.L.P., 12400 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD 7TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
  • Context: Transfer of inventor's interest to a corporate entity.

• 2007-12-09 (executed) / recorded 2007-12-09 — Reel 020084/0595

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: SOFTSOURCE CORPORATION
  • Assignee: SOFTSOURCE, LLC
  • Correspondent: BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN, L.L.P., 12400 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD 7TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CA 90025. This correspondent firm also handled the two preceding assignments.
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization/transfer.

• 2007-12-09 (executed) / recorded 2007-12-09 — Reel 020084/0596

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: SOFTSOURCE, LLC
  • Assignee: ROHRABAUGH, GARY B.
  • Correspondent: BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN, L.L.P., 12400 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD 7TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CA 90025. This correspondent firm also handled the three preceding assignments.
  • Context: Reassignment of interest, potentially to an individual.

• 2010-05-10 (executed) / recorded 2010-05-24 — Reel 024620/0733

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: ROHRABAUGH, GARY B.
  • Assignee: SOFTVIEW L.L.C.
  • Correspondent: BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN, LLP, 12400 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SEVENTH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025. This correspondent firm also handled the four preceding assignments.
  • Context: Transfer of interest from individual back to SoftView L.L.C.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8533628
    2007-12-09 : Rohrabaugh to SoftSource Corp
               : Sherman to SoftSource Corp
               : SoftSource Corp to SoftSource LLC
               : SoftSource LLC to Rohrabaugh
    2010-05-10 : Rohrabaugh to SoftView LLC
    2013-09-10 : Patent Issued
    2024-06-03 : Patent Expired

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear. While there are transfers between entities with similar names (SOFTSOURCE CORPORATION, SOFTSOURCE, LLC, SOFTVIEW L.L.C.), these appear to be internal reorganizations rather than transfers to shell licensing entities. The company has a history of product development and ongoing litigation.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. None of the assignees (SoftSource Corporation, SoftSource, LLC, SoftView L.L.C., Gary B. Rohrabaugh) are identified on public NPE lists such as RPX or Unified Patents. Although Unified Patents has challenged SoftView LLC patents in PTAB proceedings, SoftView LLC is the patent owner, not the petitioner (Unified Patents).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. The law firm BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN, L.L.P. (and its variations) is listed as the correspondent for all five recorded assignments, specifically on Reels 020084/0593, 020084/0594, 020084/0595, 020084/0596, and 024620/0733.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. While there are multiple transfers on the same day in 2007 (four assignments on 2007-12-09), these appear to be related to initial assignments from inventors and internal corporate restructuring of the SoftSource/SoftView entities, rather than rapid transfers between unrelated shell entities. The next transfer doesn't occur until 2010.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. The patent was issued in 2013. The assignment timeline shows transfers prior to issuance, the latest being in 2010. While SoftView LLC has been involved in litigation (e.g., against Apple), the recorded assignments predate any likely litigation surrounding this patent's issuance.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication of SoftView LLC or its related entities undergoing bankruptcy proceedings.

7. Privateering — not present. No evidence suggests an operating company transferred the patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not end at a known defensive aggregator. Unified Patents has been involved in PTAB cases related to SoftView's patents, but as a petitioner challenging patent validity, not as an assignee.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion
The assignment records primarily show initial transfers from the inventors and subsequent internal reorganizations among entities related to SoftView LLC. The consistent presence of SoftView LLC as the ultimate assignee and its history of developing products embodying the claimed technology, along with its active involvement in patent litigation, indicates that this is an operating company asserting its intellectual property.

Verification via USPTO Assignment Center

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 8533628, I need to access its full citation information, including the "Cited By" and "References Cited" sections, which are typically found in the official patent document from the USPTO. The provided text extracts information about the patent, but not the patent document itself in a machine-readable, parseable format that I can use to extract citations. Therefore, I cannot directly perform a prior art analysis based solely on the provided text.

However, I can describe the process a patent analyst would use and explain what type of information would be relevant for such an analysis, given the provided definitions and context.

Here's how a patent analyst would proceed if they had access to the full patent document for US8533628:

Steps for Identifying Most Relevant Prior Art:

1. Obtain Full Patent Document: The first step is to retrieve the complete granted patent document for US8533628 from the USPTO database. This document contains crucial sections for prior art analysis, specifically "References Cited" (prior art considered by the examiner during prosecution) and "Cited By" (later patents that have cited this patent).

2. Review "References Cited" (Examiner Cited Prior Art):

   • Full Citation: For each patent or non-patent literature listed, record the full citation (e.g., Patent Number, Inventor(s), Issue Date, Filing Date, Publication Date for applications, Title).
   • Brief Description: Quickly read the abstract and, if necessary, the claims and summary of each cited reference to understand its core invention.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This is the most critical step. For each cited reference, the analyst would compare its teachings against each claim of US8533628.
     • Anticipation (Literal Identity): Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a claim is anticipated if every element of the claim is disclosed, either explicitly or inherently, in a single prior art reference. The analyst would look for direct correspondence between the elements of a claim in US8533628 and the disclosures in the prior art.
     • "The invention relates generally to translation of Internet and World Wide Web content to scalable vector representation. More particularly, the invention relates to apparatus and methods for zoom enabling the display of content in an Internet information browser by retrieving and translating HyperText Markup Language (HTML), eXtensible Markup Language (XML), and other Internet content to vector representations of that content." This statement from US8533628's "Field of the Invention" provides key concepts to look for in prior art. Any prior art disclosing aspects of converting web content (HTML, XML) to scalable vector formats for display, especially with zoom/pan capabilities on hand-held devices, would be highly relevant.
     • "novel client-side processing of Web content translates portions of Web content requested by a user from an original format to a scalable vector-based format. The scalable vector-based format enables the Web content to be rendered by the client such that the rendered display substantially retains an original page layout defined by the original format, while supporting scaling and panning of the Web content in real-time." This statement from the "Brief Summary of the Invention" outlines the core innovation. Prior art showing client-side translation to scalable vector formats with real-time scaling and panning while preserving layout would be particularly strong.

3. Analyze "Cited By" (Later Citing Patents): While "Cited By" references are not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for US8533628 itself (as they are newer), they can offer insights into how the patented technology has been built upon or distinguished by subsequent inventions. This step is less direct for anticipation but valuable for understanding the technological landscape and potential scope of US8533628.

4. Consider Publication/Filing Dates: For anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the publication or filing date of the prior art reference must be before the priority date of US8533628 (June 12, 2000, and subsequent priority dates listed in the "Related Applications" section).

5. Focus on Specific Claims: The prompt specifically asks to identify which claim(s) a reference potentially anticipates. This requires a detailed, element-by-element comparison of the prior art disclosure with each independent and dependent claim of US8533628.

What I can infer from the provided text regarding potential areas of prior art:

Based on the "Definitions" and "Description" sections of US8533628, the prior art search would likely focus on technologies related to:

• Web Content Translation: Specifically, conversion of HTML, XML, and CSS to scalable vector formats (like SVF).
• Vector Graphics Rendering: Displaying vector graphics with scaling (zooming) and panning capabilities.
• Mobile Browsing: Solutions for displaying full web pages on hand-held wireless devices, addressing challenges of small screens, low resolution, and different aspect ratios.
• Client-Side Processing: Systems where the client device performs the translation and rendering.
• Proxy Servers and Server-Side Translation: Infrastructures where a proxy or web server performs content translation and delivers vectorized content to clients.
• Content Streaming and Layering: Techniques for optimizing content delivery to clients, such as streaming text and links first, or layering content by type.

Without the actual list of cited references from the USPTO database, I cannot provide the specific prior art patents, their descriptions, or a definitive analysis of which claims they anticipate.

The user is requesting an obviousness analysis of US patent 8533628 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, based on the provided patent text and the prior art identified in the PTAB challenges section.

The core invention of US8533628 addresses the challenge of displaying web content, often designed for desktop computers with fixed resolutions, on hand-held devices with smaller screens, lower resolutions, or different aspect ratios. The solution involves translating the original web content (e.g., HTML, XML) into a scalable vector representation (such as SVF) that can be rendered on the client device. This vector-based format enables real-time scaling (zooming) and panning of the web content while substantially retaining the original page layout, without loss of quality. The translation can occur at a proxy server, the content provider's web server, or on the client device itself, with a "thin client" performing the rendering and user interaction.

The PTAB Inter Partes Review IPR2026-00283 challenges claims 1-20 of US8533628, asserting their unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 based on combinations of the following prior art references:

• US 6,108,674 to O'Toole et al. (O'Toole)
• US 6,177,932 to Nakajima et al. (Nakajima)
• EP 0,933,702 B1 to Arai et al. (Arai)

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103

To establish obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it must be shown that the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). This typically involves identifying:

1. The scope and content of the prior art.
2. The differences between the claimed invention and the prior art.
3. The level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Secondary considerations of non-obviousness (e.g., commercial success, long-felt need, failure of others).

Limitation: The full text of O'Toole, Nakajima, and Arai is not provided within the authoritative patent text or previous sections. Therefore, a detailed, claim-specific obviousness analysis grounded in the precise teachings of these references cannot be performed. The following analysis is based on reasonable inferences about the likely teachings of these prior art documents given their citation in an IPR challenging a patent related to web browsing on handheld devices with zoom/pan, and general knowledge in the field around the priority date of June 12, 2000.

Hypothetical Combinations of Prior Art and Motivation to Combine:

A PHOSITA in the field of web technologies and mobile computing around 2000-2001 would likely have:

• Familiarity with various web content formats (HTML, XML, GIF, JPEG).
• Knowledge of different display technologies and resolutions.
• Experience with graphics rendering, including both bitmap and vector graphics.
• An understanding of the limitations of early handheld devices (small screens, limited processing power, low bandwidth).

Given the problem of poorly displayed fixed-resolution web content on small screens, a PHOSITA would have been motivated to find ways to improve the user experience.

Hypothetical Combination 1: O'Toole + Nakajima

• Assumed Teachings:

  • O'Toole (US 6,108,674): Could teach a system or method for delivering and displaying web content on a client device, potentially with some form of content adaptation or reformatting for different display environments. Given the context, it might address challenges of displaying web content on diverse devices.
  • Nakajima (US 6,177,932): Could describe techniques for handling graphics or display content, possibly involving scaling or manipulation for various screen sizes, or a method for representing graphical information efficiently.

• Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA, faced with the problem of rigid, fixed-resolution web pages (as described in US8533628's background) displaying poorly on small handheld screens (a problem O'Toole might highlight), would naturally look for solutions to make the content more adaptable. If Nakajima teaches a method of using scalable graphics or an efficient way to represent visual information (e.g., via vectorization, even if not specifically for web content), the motivation to combine these would be to apply scalable display techniques to web content delivery. The goal would be to allow the content delivered by O'Toole's system to be flexible and readable on diverse screens, rather than simply truncated or downscaled bitmaps.

Hypothetical Combination 2: Arai + O'Toole/Nakajima (or both)

• Assumed Teachings:

  • Arai (EP 0,933,702 B1): Could teach specific methods for processing or translating documents, potentially focusing on converting document layouts or elements into a more flexible or adaptable format. It might specifically deal with vector representations or layout preservation during transformation.

• Motivation to Combine: If Arai teaches a method for converting document layouts into a scalable vector representation while preserving the original layout (similar to the SVF concept in US8533628), and O'Toole or Nakajima (or both) teach systems for delivering and displaying web content on diverse devices, a PHOSITA would be motivated to integrate Arai's translation mechanism into the web content delivery pipeline. The objective would be to specifically address the challenge identified in US8533628: enabling full-page web browsing on handheld devices with real-time zoom and pan, without degrading quality or losing the original layout, by leveraging the resolution-independent nature of vector graphics. This combination directly tackles the problem of "flat single resolution with no browser support for zoom" in existing browsers at the time. The motivation would be to enhance the usability and readability of web pages on small screens by providing a flexible, scalable display.

General Obviousness Considerations:

• Known Techniques: The concept of vector graphics for scalable display was well-known in other fields (e.g., CAD, as mentioned in US8533628's description for SVF). Applying vector graphics to a new domain, like web content, when the problem of fixed-resolution display became apparent on mobile devices, might be considered an obvious step for a PHOSITA.
• Technological Advancements: As handheld devices became more common, the need to adapt existing web content for these devices became a pressing issue. Solutions involving content transformation, compression, and efficient display were actively sought. Server-side processing (proxy servers) or client-side lightweight rendering were also known architectural approaches for adapting web content for limited clients.
• "Design Choice" or "Routine Optimization": Once the problem (fixed-resolution web pages on small, diverse screens) was recognized, and given the existence of vector graphics technology, a PHOSITA might consider converting web content to a vector format as a design choice or a routine optimization to achieve resolution independence and enable scaling/panning.

Conclusion (with limitations):

Without the specific details of O'Toole, Nakajima, and Arai, a definitive finding of obviousness for US8533628 is not possible. However, the IPR challenge suggests that the petitioner (Google LLC et al.) believes these references, individually or in combination, render claims 1-20 obvious.

Based on the general understanding of the problem US8533628 solves and the typical content of prior art in the web and mobile computing domains around 2000, a PHOSITA would likely have been motivated to combine known techniques. Specifically, the desire to make fixed-layout web content consumable on small, diverse screens would drive a PHOSITA to combine systems for web content delivery (e.g., O'Toole) with technologies for scalable graphic representation (e.g., Nakajima or Arai's document translation to a vector format). The motivation would be to overcome the limitations of bitmap-based rendering on varied display sizes, thereby improving usability and readability through features like real-time zooming and panning without loss of visual quality.

The PTAB's institution decision for IPR2026-00283 will provide more specific insights into how these particular prior art references are applied to the claims of US8533628.

Citations:
US8533628, Abstract, Background of the Invention, Brief Summary of the Invention, Detailed Description of the Invention.
https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2026-00283