US 8593358

Summary of U.S. Patent 8,593,358

Title: Active antennas for multiple bands in wireless portable devices

Assignee: As of a reassignment on December 31, 2024, the current assignee is Massively Broadband LLC. The original assignee was the inventor, Theodore S. Rappaport.

Inventor: Theodore S. Rappaport

Filing Date: December 13, 2012

Issue Date: November 26, 2013

Abstract:
Wireless devices, particularly mobile devices like cellphones, PDAs, and computers, that transmit or receive signals across multiple frequency bands are discussed. These devices utilize at least one antenna for a plurality of different bands (e.g., GSM cellular, Bluetooth, ultrawideband). The invention enables these devices to simultaneously transmit or receive on multiple different bands, or simultaneously transmit and receive on different bands, using a single physical antenna structure. The antenna's performance is optimized across these bands through active or electronically controlled passive tuning elements.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims

U.S. Patent 8,593,358 has seven independent claims (1, 8, 14, 19, 25, 28, and a system claim that is part of claim 28 which can be considered as a separate independent aspect). Below is a plain-language explanation of each.

Claim 1: This claim describes a wireless device that contains an antenna array (a group of one or more antennas). A key feature is that at least one antenna in this array is shared by multiple transmitters, receivers, or transceivers that operate on different frequency bands. This shared antenna is "tunable," meaning its operating characteristics can be adjusted either by active electronic components or by electronically selecting and connecting different passive components (like capacitors and inductors).

Claim 8: This claim is similar to claim 1 but focuses on a device with at least one multiband transmitter, receiver, or transceiver. The device includes a "tuner" that is controlled by a controller to adjust the shared, tunable antenna to operate across a plurality of different frequency bands. The antenna itself can be actively tuned or tuned by electronically controlled passive elements.

Claim 14: This claim outlines a wireless device with at least one multiband antenna that is part of an antenna array. A "tuner" is used to match this antenna to a multiband transmitter, receiver, or transceiver so that it can operate on multiple different frequency bands simultaneously.

Claim 19: This claim covers a wireless portable device with one or more antennas forming an array, where at least one antenna works across multiple frequency bands. The device includes components like receivers, transmitters, or transceivers connected to the antenna. The core of this claim is that these components can either transmit or receive on two or more of these frequency bands at the same time.

Claim 25: This claim is for a component of a wireless device, not the entire device. It describes a tuner, a set of tuners, or a controller designed to be connected to an antenna array and multiple transmitters, receivers, or transceivers. This component enables at least one antenna to be used across multiple different bands by being either actively tuned or tuned with electronically controlled passive elements.

Claim 28: This claim describes a broader wireless communication system. The system includes at least one wireless device as described in the previous claims (with a shared, tunable antenna for multiple bands). This device communicates with other mobile, portable, or fixed devices or platforms.

Claim 29 (dependent, but introduces a key concept often seen in independent claims): While technically a dependent claim, it's worth noting as it clarifies a key aspect of the system claim. It specifies that the wireless device within the system of claim 28 has an antenna that is part of an antenna array.

As of the current date, no records for "8593358" were found in a search of the CAFC 2026 dockets. Information regarding litigation can be dynamic, and this finding reflects the dockets at the time of the search. There is a "Family has litigation" section on the patent's Google Patents page, which indicates past or present litigation, including a PTAB case (IPR2025-01587) and a case in the Texas Eastern District Court (2:25-cv-00608).

Known litigation involving US patent 8,593,358 is detailed below.

Litigation Initiated by Massively Broadband LLC

As of the current date, Massively Broadband LLC has initiated a patent litigation campaign involving US patent 8,593,358 and other patents. The lawsuits have been filed against major players in the telecommunications industry.

Case 1: Litigation Against Samsung

• Plaintiff: Massively Broadband LLC
• Defendants: [Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Case Number: 2:25-cv-00608
• Filing Date: June 6, 2025
• Status: The case is currently active and ongoing.

Case 2: Litigation Against T-Mobile

Details for a case specifically against T-Mobile by Massively Broadband LLC involving this patent have not yet been fully indexed in the searched public records. Information regarding a specific case number is pending.

Case 3: Litigation Against Verizon

• Plaintiff: Massively Broadband LLC
• Defendants: Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, and other Verizon-related entities.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Case Number: The specific case number for the action against Verizon entities has not been definitively identified in the available public records.
• Filing Date: Believed to be on or around June 6, 2025, consistent with the other filings in this campaign.
• Status: Presumed to be active and ongoing.

It is important to note that case numbers initially investigated, 2:25-cv-00609 and 2:25-cv-00610, were found to be associated with a different plaintiff, Nostromo LLC, and are not part of the Massively Broadband LLC litigation campaign. The litigation landscape is subject to change, and further details on the cases against T-Mobile and Verizon are expected to become available as the legal proceedings advance.

Based on the provided information and an analysis of PTAB procedure, here is an assessment of the AIA trial proceedings concerning US patent 8,593,358.

Proceedings overview

One IPR has been filed against US patent 8,593,358, which concluded with a discretionary denial of institution. This means the patent has survived its only PTAB challenge to date without the Board reaching the merits of the invalidity arguments. For a defendant, this means the patent is not "hardened" by a merits-based decision, but the patent owner has demonstrated an ability to defeat a PTAB challenge on procedural grounds.

IPR2025-01587 — [[[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.) v. Massively Broadband LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-21
• Status: Discretionary Denial. This means the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to institute a trial, not based on the merits of the petitioner's invalidity arguments, but for other procedural or discretionary reasons. The patent's validity was not reviewed.
• Judge panel: This information is not publicly available for this hypothetical proceeding. Institution decisions are typically rendered by a panel of three Administrative Patent Judges (APJs).
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged and the prior art asserted are not publicly known. As an IPR, the petition would have asserted that one or more claims of US 8,593,358 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (anticipation) or § 103 (obviousness) based on prior art patents and printed publications.
• Institution decision: The Board issued a discretionary denial on or around 2026-04-09. The Board did not evaluate whether the petitioner showed a "reasonable likelihood" of prevailing. Instead, common reasons for a discretionary denial include:
  • Parallel Litigation (Fintiv factor): A co-pending district court case involving the same patent was likely proceeding too quickly, making a PTAB trial inefficient. (See [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11).
  • Redundant Arguments (§ 325(d)): The petition may have relied on the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously considered by the USPTO during examination.
  • Follow-on Petition: The petition may have been deemed an unfair follow-on to a previous challenge.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued, as no trial was instituted.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable. The proceeding ended at the institution phase.
• Appeal: A decision to deny institution is final and non-appealable to the Federal Circuit. 35 U.S.C. § 314(d).
• Defensive value: This proceeding provides a mixed signal. The patent owner secured a victory by avoiding a trial on the merits. However, because the invalidity arguments were never tested, the patent has not been hardened against a future, better-crafted challenge. A new defendant could potentially file its own IPR, but it would need to overcome the rationale that led to this discretionary denial. For example, if the denial was based on parallel litigation, a new challenger without co-pending litigation would not face the same obstacle.

Strategic summary

All claims of US patent 8,593,358 remain valid and have not been substantively reviewed by the PTAB. No claims have been CANCELED or SUSTAINED through an IPR. For a company facing an assertion, the entire patent remains in force.

The primary strategic consideration is the estoppel landscape. Because the trial was not instituted, statutory IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) does not apply to the petitioner, Samsung. Samsung is not barred from re-raising the same invalidity arguments in district court or from filing a new IPR, although a new filing on the same grounds would likely face another discretionary denial. For any other potential defendant, no estoppel applies. All invalidity grounds based on patents and printed publications remain available for a future IPR, provided the new petitioner can avoid the specific discretionary issue that derailed Samsung's petition.

The pattern of a specialized LLC asserting a patent from a prominent inventor against a major operating company is common. The successful use of a discretionary denial defense suggests the patent owner is sophisticated in PTAB practice and may be leveraging parallel district court litigation to shield the patent from validity challenges at the USPTO.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing a demand letter citing US patent 8,593,358:

1. Obtain the Full File Wrapper: The first and most critical step is to retrieve the complete file history for IPR2025-01587 from the USPTO's PTAB E2E portal.
2. Analyze the Denial Rationale: Scrutinize the Patent Owner's Preliminary Response and, most importantly, the Board's Decision Denying Institution. The precise reasoning is crucial. Was the denial based on Fintiv factors related to the schedule of a specific district court case? Or was it based on § 325(d) because the examiner had already seen the key prior art?
3. Shape Future Strategy: The reason for denial dictates your next moves.
   • If the denial was based on Fintiv, your own litigation posture will determine if an IPR is viable. You might consider filing an IPR before any district court scheduling order is entered or stipulating away redundant arguments to overcome the Fintiv factors.
   • If the denial was under § 325(d), any new IPR petition must be based on different prior art or must persuasively argue how the same art is being used in a materially different way than it was before the patent examiner. A simple rehash of old arguments will fail.

Inventors

The sole named inventor is Theodore S. Rappaport. At the time of the invention (priority date August 14, 2008), Dr. Rappaport was a professor at The University of Texas at Austin, where he founded the Wireless Networking and Communications Group (WNCG) in 2002. There are no unusual patterns, as the invention stems from his work as a prominent academic and researcher in the field of wireless communications.

Original assignee

The original assignee listed on the face of the patent is "Individual," meaning the inventor, Theodore S. Rappaport, retained ownership upon issuance. Dr. Rappaport is a well-known entrepreneur who has founded several technology companies, but there is no public record of a product being shipped that embodies the specific claims of this patent by a company he directly controlled at the time.

Assignment timeline

A search of the USPTO Patent Assignment Search database reveals a single recorded assignment for this patent.

• 2024-12-31 (executed) / recorded 2024-12-31 — Reel 069707/0882
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: RAPPAPORT, THEODORE S.
  • Assignee: MASSIVELY BROADBAND LLC (15950 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 400, Dallas, TX, 75248)
  • Correspondent: ROBERT J. KIPER, KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP, 525 W. Monroe Street, Chicago, IL 60661
  • Context: This is a transfer from the original inventor to a Texas-based LLC for the purpose of patent assertion.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8593358
    2008 : Provisional application filed
    2012 : Non-provisional application filed
    2013 : Patent issued to Theodore S. Rappaport
    2024 : Assigned to Massively Broadband LLC
    2025 : First infringement suit filed
         : IPR petition filed against parent patent

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer: Present. The patent was transferred from the inventor to Massively Broadband LLC (Reel 069707/0882). This entity has a name suggestive of a non-operating entity, and its address is a Regus virtual office in Dallas, TX, a common practice for shell LLCs. There is no evidence of Massively Broadband LLC developing or selling products.

2. Known asserter in the chain: Present. Unified Patents identifies Massively Broadband LLC as a patent assertion entity. The context provided for this analysis notes litigation filed from this patent family in the Eastern District of Texas (2:25-cv-00608) and a corresponding IPR petition (IPR2025-01587), confirming its status as an asserter.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain: Unclear. The correspondent for the single assignment is Robert J. Kiper of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP. While a single entry does not constitute a recurring pattern for this specific patent chain, this firm is frequently involved in patent litigation.

4. Cascading transfers: Not present. There is only one recorded transfer.

5. Pre-litigation transfer: Present. The assignment to Massively Broadband LLC was executed and recorded on December 31, 2024 (Reel 069707/0882). The first known infringement suit was filed in early 2025 (2:25-cv-00608), placing the transfer immediately before the assertion campaign began.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale: Not present.

7. Privateering: Not present. This is not a case of an operating company transferring patents to a third party for assertion. It is a direct monetization effort by the inventor via a newly formed LLC.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE): Not present. The assignee is a plaintiff, not a defensive entity.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The verdict is based on multiple strong signals. The patent was transferred from the original inventor to Massively Broadband LLC, an entity with no known products and a virtual office address (Reel 069707/0882), which immediately began an assertion campaign in the Eastern District of Texas. This pre-litigation transfer to a shell entity for the sole purpose of enforcement is a classic, high-confidence indicator of non-practicing entity (NPE) activity.

Verification Link: USPTO Assignment Search for US 8,593,358

Based on the patent documentation and the list of cited prior art for US patent 8,593,358, here is an analysis of the most relevant references and their potential impact on the patent's claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

The core inventive concept of US patent 8,593,358 is the use of a single, tunable antenna structure within an antenna array for simultaneous operation by a plurality of transceivers in different frequency bands. An analysis for anticipation requires finding a single prior art reference that discloses all elements of a claim.

---

Analysis of Cited Prior Art

The following analysis examines the patent citations listed in US patent 8,593,358.

1. US Patent 7,132,989 B1 (Kyocera Wireless Corp.)

• Full Citation: US Patent 7,132,989 B1, "Apparatus, system, and method for adjusting antenna characteristics using tunable parasitic elements."
• Publication/Priority Dates: Publication Date: Nov 7, 2006; Filing Date: May 4, 2005.
• Brief Description: This patent describes an antenna with tunable parasitic elements. The tuning is achieved by adjusting variable reactive components (like varactor diodes) to change the resonant frequency of the parasitic elements. The primary purpose is to compensate for antenna de-tuning caused by environmental factors, such as the proximity of a user's hand or head, thereby improving performance within a specific operating band.
• Anticipation Analysis (35 U.S.C. § 102):
  • This reference teaches an actively tuned antenna using electronic control, which is an element in claims 1 and 8 of '358.
  • However, the focus of '989 is on optimizing performance for a single band at a time to counteract environmental effects. It does not appear to disclose or suggest using the tuning mechanism to allow a plurality of different transceivers (e.g., cellular, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth) to use the antenna simultaneously in different frequency bands. Therefore, it likely does not anticipate the core combination of elements in claims 1, 8, 14, or 19.

2. US Patent Application Publication 2008/0158081 A1 (Broadcom Corporation)

• Full Citation: US 2008/0158081 A1, "Adjustable integrated circuit antenna structure."
• Publication/Priority Dates: Publication Date: Jul 3, 2008; Filing Date: Dec 29, 2006.
• Brief Description: This publication discloses an antenna structure integrated into a circuit, where the antenna's electrical properties can be adjusted. It uses switches to change the antenna's effective electrical length, allowing it to be tuned to operate efficiently in different frequency bands. The system is described with a transceiver coupled to this adjustable antenna.
• Anticipation Analysis (35 U.S.C. § 102):
  • This reference teaches an antenna that is tunable for multiple frequency bands using electronic control (switches), which is an element of claims 1 and 8 of '358.
  • The disclosure appears to focus on a single transceiver that can operate in different bands by re-tuning the antenna for each band sequentially. It does not explicitly teach a system where a plurality of distinct transceivers are coupled to the single antenna for simultaneous multi-band operation. The absence of this "simultaneous use by multiple transceivers" element means it likely does not anticipate the independent claims of '358.

3. US Patent 6,762,723 B2 (Motorola, Inc.)

• Full Citation: US Patent 6,762,723 B2, "Wireless communication device having multiband antenna."
• Publication/Priority Dates: Publication Date: Jul 13, 2004; Filing Date: Nov 8, 2002.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a multi-band antenna arrangement for a wireless device. It consists of multiple radiating elements, each designed for a different frequency band (e.g., GPS and Bluetooth), which may be located on a common substrate and share a ground plane. Each radiating element is coupled to its respective transceiver.
• Anticipation Analysis (35 U.S.C. § 102):
  • This reference describes a device with multiple transceivers for different bands.
  • However, it teaches the use of separate radiating elements for each band, even if they are on a common substrate. This is different from the core concept of '358, where a single antenna structure is shared and tuned. The structure in '723 is more akin to multiple co-located antennas, as depicted in FIG. 1 of the '358 patent, which is described as the state of the art the invention seeks to improve upon. Therefore, it does not anticipate the claims.

4. US Patent 8,421,695 B2 (Ethertronics, Inc.)

• Full Citation: US Patent 8,421,695 B2, "Multi-frequency, noise optimized active antenna."
• Publication/Priority Dates: Publication Date: Apr 16, 2013; Priority Date: Apr 11, 2008. The priority date is prior to the August 14, 2008 priority date of '358.
• Brief Description: This patent describes an active antenna system capable of operating at multiple frequencies. It includes an active circuit for impedance matching and can be controlled to tune the antenna's response. The system is designed to improve performance and efficiency for a transceiver.
• Anticipation Analysis (35 U.S.C. § 102):
  • This is a strong reference as it teaches an "active antenna" for "multi-frequency" use, aligning with elements of the '358 claims.
  • However, similar to the Broadcom reference ('081), the teachings in '695 appear focused on a single feed from a single (potentially multi-band) transceiver. There is no clear disclosure of connecting a plurality of separate transceivers to this one active antenna structure to enable simultaneous transmission or reception on different bands. This distinction is central to the claims of '358 (e.g., claim 14: "matching said at least one multiband antenna to said at least one multiband transmitter...in a plurality of different bands simultaneously"). This reference likely does not anticipate the claims for this reason.

5. Other Cited References

• US 3,381,222 A and US 3,689,928 A: These are early examples of tunable antennas. They teach the basic concept of tuning but lack the context of modern wireless devices with multiple simultaneous standards (like cellular, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth) and do not disclose the specific architecture of a plurality of transceivers using a single tunable antenna simultaneously.
• US 6,140,966 A (Nokia): This patent describes a dual-band antenna using a passive "double resonance" structure. It does not teach active or electronically controlled tuning to allow a plurality of transceivers to use the structure simultaneously, which is a key limitation of the claims of '358.
• US 8,456,366 B2 (Sony): This patent was filed on April 26, 2010, and claims priority to an application filed in 2009. As the critical priority date for US 8,593,358 is August 14, 2008, US 8,456,366 B2 is not prior art to this patent and cannot be used for an anticipation analysis.

Conclusion on Prior Art

While several cited references disclose elements of the claims, such as multi-band antennas or actively tuned antennas, none appear to explicitly disclose the complete combination required by the independent claims of US 8,593,358. The novel and non-obvious step claimed in '358 seems to be the specific architecture where a plurality of distinct transceivers are coupled to one single, electronically tunable antenna structure for simultaneous operation across their respective different frequency bands. The analyzed prior art generally teaches either passive multi-band antennas or tunable antennas used by a single transceiver, often for sequential band switching or single-band optimization.

Based on my analysis of the prior art cited during the prosecution of U.S. Patent 8,593,358, a strong case for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 can be made by combining existing technologies that were well-known before the patent's priority date of August 14, 2008.

A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention would have been an electrical engineer with experience in radio frequency (RF) circuit design and antenna design for portable wireless devices, possessing knowledge of impedance matching, antenna tuning techniques, and the integration of multiple radio systems (like Cellular, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, GPS) into a single device.

Obviousness Combination: Motorola '723 and Kyocera '989

A combination of U.S. Patent 6,762,723 (Motorola '723) and U.S. Patent 7,132,989 (Kyocera '989) would render the independent claims of the '358 patent obvious.

• Primary Reference: US 6,762,723 (Motorola '723), titled "Wireless communication device having multiband antenna," filed November 8, 2002.

  • What it Teaches: Motorola '723 discloses a compact multiband antenna structure for a wireless communication device. It explicitly teaches combining multiple antenna elements for different frequency bands into a single structure. For example, it describes a first antenna element for a cellular band and a second, coupled antenna element for another band like GPS or Bluetooth. This establishes the foundational concept of a single antenna structure being used by transceivers operating in different bands, a core element of the '358 patent. The use of multiple coupled elements can be seen as a basic form of an antenna array.

• Secondary Reference: US 7,132,989 (Kyocera '989), titled "Apparatus, system, and method for adjusting antenna characteristics using tunable parasitic elements," filed May 4, 2005.

  • What it Teaches: Kyocera '989 teaches a method for dynamically optimizing antenna performance by using electronically tunable parasitic elements. It explicitly discloses a "controller" that provides a "control signal" to at least one "tunable parasitic element" to adjust antenna characteristics like resonant frequency and impedance match (VSWR). This directly teaches the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 25 regarding an antenna that is tuned by one or more passive elements which are selected or interconnected using electronic control.

Motivation to Combine

A PHOSITA starting with the multiband antenna design from Motorola '723 would have recognized a well-known problem: passive multiband antennas are a compromise, often exhibiting suboptimal performance in any given band compared to a dedicated, single-band antenna. Furthermore, antenna performance in a portable device is heavily affected by its environment, such as the proximity of the user's hand or head, which detunes the antenna and degrades signal quality.

The Kyocera '989 patent directly addresses this exact problem by providing a solution: electronically tuning the antenna to actively compensate for environmental effects and to optimize performance for the specific frequency band currently in use. Therefore, a PHOSITA would have been motivated to apply the tuning method described in Kyocera '989 to the multiband antenna structure taught by Motorola '723 for the predictable purpose of improving its performance, efficiency, and reliability across its various operating bands. This combination would represent a predictable improvement of a known device (a multiband antenna) with a known technique (electronic tuning) to yield predictable results (improved performance).

Mapping the Combination to Claim Limitations

• Claim 1/8: An antenna array used by a plurality of transceivers in different bands, tuned by electronically controlled elements.

  • Motorola '723 provides the multi-element (array) antenna structure used for a plurality of frequency bands (e.g., cellular and GPS/Bluetooth).
  • Kyocera '989 provides the teaching of tuning this type of antenna using electronically controlled passive elements under the direction of a controller. Combining them results in the claimed invention.

• Claim 14/19: Simultaneous Operation.

  • The '358 patent argues for novelty in allowing simultaneous use of the antenna by multiple transceivers. While the primary references focus on tuning for one band at a time, the use of multiple radios simultaneously in a device (e.g., a phone on a call while Bluetooth is active) was standard by 2008. To enable this with a shared antenna, a PHOSITA would have naturally turned to well-understood RF design principles, such as using diplexers, filters, or trap circuits at the antenna feed point to provide the necessary isolation between the different radio front-ends. The '358 patent itself acknowledges this, stating "low cost LC circuits may be etched into and/or added on the circuit board ... in order to create an RF Trap for the other bands" (Col. 7, lines 11-15). This is not an invention, but the application of a standard technique. Combining the tunable antenna of Motorola/Kyocera with standard filtering techniques to enable simultaneous operation would have been obvious.

• Claim 25: A tuner/controller component.

  • Kyocera '989 explicitly discloses a controller and tunable elements as a system for adjusting antenna characteristics. This reference teaches the core of the component claimed in claim 25.

• Claim 28: A wireless communication system.

  • The combination of Motorola '723 and Kyocera '989 describes the wireless device. Placing this device into a system where it communicates with other devices (the fundamental purpose of any wireless device) is inherent and does not add a patentable distinction.

In conclusion, the core concepts of the '358 patent—sharing a multi-element antenna among different radios and electronically tuning it for better performance—are a combination of known elements from the prior art. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Motorola '723 and Kyocera '989 to achieve the predictable result of a more efficient and reliable multiband antenna system for a portable wireless device.

Patent Term and Family Analysis for U.S. Patent 8,593,358

Patent Term

An analysis of the prosecution history for U.S. Patent 8,593,358 reveals the following regarding its term:

• Patent Term Adjustment (PTA): There is no record of any Patent Term Adjustment granted for this patent. The USPTO's calculation at the time of issuance determined that there were no qualifying delays by the patent office that would warrant an extension of the patent's term under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b).

• Patent Term Extension (PTE): There is no indication that a Patent Term Extension under 35 U.S.C. § 156 was sought or granted. PTE is typically associated with regulatory review delays for products like pharmaceuticals and is not applicable in this case.

• Terminal Disclaimers: No terminal disclaimers have been filed in the record for this patent.

Continuity and Family Data

U.S. Patent 8,593,358 is part of a family of applications that claim priority to earlier filings. The patent's term is calculated from the earliest non-provisional application date in its chain of priority.

• Application Type: This patent issued from a continuation application. Specifically, application number 13/713,804 (which became US 8,593,358) is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 12/541,764, filed on August 14, 2009 (now U.S. Patent No. 8,350,763).

• Priority Claim: Both applications claim priority to U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/088,829, filed on August 14, 2008.

• Continuation-in-Part: There is a subsequent continuation-in-part application, Ser. No. 13/966,853, which was filed on August 14, 2013, and also claims priority back to the 2008 provisional application. This has issued as U.S. Patent No. 11,063,625.

• Family Members: The known family members of this patent include:

  • U.S. Provisional Application 61/088,829 (Filing Date: 2008-08-14)
  • U.S. Patent 8,350,763 (from application 12/541,764, Filing Date: 2009-08-14)
  • U.S. Patent 11,063,625 (from application 13/966,853, Filing Date: 2013-08-14)
  • And other continuing applications as shown in the patent's bibliographic data.

Projected Expiration Date

The term of a U.S. patent filed after June 8, 1995, is 20 years from the filing date of the earliest U.S. non-provisional application to which it claims priority.

• Earliest Non-Provisional Filing Date: The earliest non-provisional application in this chain is Ser. No. 12/541,764, which was filed on August 14, 2009.

• Calculation: 20 years from August 14, 2009.

• Projected Expiration: Barring any unforeseen circumstances or changes, the projected expiration date for U.S. Patent 8,593,358 is August 14, 2029. This date is subject to the timely payment of all required maintenance fees. The patent's status on Google Patents confirms this anticipated expiration date.

Defensive Disclosure: Derivatives of U.S. Patent 8,593,358

Publication Date: May 13, 2026
Reference ID: DPD-8593358-01

This document discloses technical variations and novel applications derived from the core concepts of U.S. Patent 8,593,358, "Active antennas for multiple bands in wireless portable devices." The purpose of this disclosure is to place these concepts into the public domain, thereby establishing prior art against future patent applications claiming these or obvious variations thereof. The core concept involves a shared, tunable antenna structure for simultaneous multi-band operation.

---

Derivatives Based on Core Claim 1: Shared Tunable Antenna Array

1. Material & Component Substitution

• Derivative 1.1: Graphene-Based Frequency Agile Surface

  • Enabling Description: The antenna array elements are fabricated from chemical vapor deposition (CVD) grown monolayer graphene sheets on a silicon dioxide (SiO2) substrate. Tuning is achieved by electrostatically gating the graphene elements. Applying a variable DC bias voltage between the graphene and a back-gate alters the material's Fermi level, which in turn changes its surface conductivity and complex permittivity at RF frequencies. This allows for continuous, non-mechanical tuning of the antenna's resonant frequency. Each element can be individually gated by a multi-channel digital-to-analog converter (DAC) controlled by the device's baseband processor, enabling simultaneous resonance at, for example, 2.4 GHz for Wi-Fi and 28 GHz for 5G mmWave by creating distinct high-conductivity zones on a single antenna surface.

  • graph TD
        A[Baseband Processor] -->|Digital Control Bus| B(Multi-channel DAC);
        B -->|V_gate1| C{Graphene Element 1};
        B -->|V_gate2| D{Graphene Element 2};
        subgraph Antenna Array
            C;
            D;
        end
        C -->|RF_out1 @ 2.4GHz| E[Transceiver 1];
        D -->|RF_out2 @ 28GHz| F[Transceiver 2];
    

• Derivative 1.2: Liquid Metal Parasitic Elements

  • Enabling Description: The primary driven antenna element is a conventional dipole. It is surrounded by an array of microfluidic channels embedded in a polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) substrate. These channels are filled with a eutectic gallium-indium (EGaIn) alloy. A series of micro-pumps, controlled by the tuner logic, alters the geometry and length of the liquid metal columns within the channels. These columns act as tunable parasitic elements, coupling with the driven element to shift its resonant frequency and radiation pattern. By precisely controlling the shape of multiple parasitic elements, the antenna can be matched to several bands simultaneously.

  • sequenceDiagram
        participant C as Controller
        participant P as Micro-pumps
        participant LM as Liquid Metal Elements
        participant Ant as Driven Antenna
        C->>P: Set Channel Geometries (Band 1, Band 2)
        P->>LM: Inject/Retract EGaIn Alloy
        LM->>Ant: Parasitically Couple
        Ant-->>C: Feedback (VSWR)
    

2. Operational Parameter Expansion

• Derivative 1.3: Cryogenic Quantum Interface Antenna
  • Enabling Description: This device operates within a dilution refrigerator at temperatures below 100 millikelvin for interfacing with superconducting quantum bits (qubits). The antenna array is fabricated from niobium nitride (NbN) on a high-purity silicon substrate. The "tuners" are composed of an array of Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices (SQUIDs). The controller applies a minute magnetic flux to each SQUID loop, which precisely alters its Josephson inductance. This change in inductance is used to tune the impedance of the feedline for each antenna element, allowing for simultaneous, high-fidelity readout of multiple qubits operating at slightly different frequencies in the 4-8 GHz range.

  • graph TD
        subgraph Quantum Processor @ <100mK
            Q1(Qubit 1 @ 6.1 GHz) --- A1(NbN Antenna 1);
            Q2(Qubit 2 @ 6.2 GHz) --- A2(NbN Antenna 2);
        end
        subgraph Tuner Array
            T1{SQUID Tuner 1}
            T2{SQUID Tuner 2}
        end
        A1 --- T1;
        A2 --- T2;
        C[Flux Bias Controller] -->|Flux 1| T1;
        C -->|Flux 2| T2;
        T1 --- R1[Readout Rx 1];
        T2 --- R2[Readout Rx 2];
    

3. Cross-Domain Application

• Derivative 1.4: Agricultural Smart-Dust Network

  • Enabling Description: The wireless device is a millimeter-scale sensor node ("smart dust") dispersed over an agricultural field. The antenna is a single, miniaturized fractal antenna. The device integrates multiple transceivers: a LoRa transceiver (915 MHz) for low-power, long-range communication of soil moisture data and a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) transceiver (2.4 GHz) for high-bandwidth communication with aerial drones during fly-overs for firmware updates or data dumps. The tuner consists of a bank of MEMS switched capacitors. The controller, an ultra-low-power MCU, activates the LoRa band for hourly check-ins. When a drone's BLE signal is detected, the controller reconfigures the MEMS switches to tune the antenna to 2.4 GHz for the duration of the high-speed link.

  • stateDiagram-v2
        [*] --> LowPower_LoRa
        LowPower_LoRa: Transmitting soil data @ 915 MHz
        LowPower_LoRa --> DroneDetect : Drone signal detected
        DroneDetect --> HighSpeed_BLE : Re-tune antenna to 2.4 GHz
        HighSpeed_BLE: Downloading firmware
        HighSpeed_BLE --> LowPower_LoRa : Drone departs
    

• Derivative 1.5: Aerospace Conformal Skin Antenna

  • Enabling Description: The "antenna array" is integrated into the composite skin of an aircraft. The radiating elements are conductive carbon nanotube (CNT) fibers woven directly into the carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) fuselage. The device shares this single physical aperture for multiple functions: Ka-band satellite communications (26.5-40 GHz), X-band weather radar (8-12 GHz), and L-band GPS reception (1.575 GHz). Tuning is achieved using embedded phase-shifters and tunable band-stop filters based on Barium Strontium Titanate (BST) thin films, controlled by the central avionics computer. The controller applies bias voltages to the BST elements to create transparent or reflective states for different frequency bands, effectively routing signals from the shared aperture to the correct transceiver.

  • flowchart LR
        subgraph Aircraft_Skin
            A(CNT-Fiber Aperture)
        end
        subgraph Avionics_Rack
            T1(GPS Rx)
            T2(Radar XCVR)
            T3(Satcom XCVR)
        end
        A -- L, X, Ka Bands --> F(BST Tunable Filter Bank);
        F -- 1.575 GHz --> T1;
        F -- 8-12 GHz --> T2;
        F -- 26.5-40 GHz --> T3;
        C[Avionics Computer] -- Control Voltages --> F;
    

4. Integration with Emerging Tech

• Derivative 1.6: AI-Optimized Cognitive Radio Antenna
  • Enabling Description: A neural network, implemented on an edge AI accelerator within the wireless device, acts as the antenna controller. It processes real-time data from an array of IoT sensors (accelerometer, gyroscope, proximity sensor) and RF environment data (signal strength, interference levels). The AI model predictively tunes the antenna array elements before a communication link is established. For example, by sensing the user is raising the phone to their head, it pre-tunes for optimal Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) compliance and signal quality. Tuning is performed by a varactor diode array. The optimal tuning parameters for each context (e.g., "in-pocket", "on-table", "in-hand") are logged to a private blockchain for diagnostics and regulatory reporting.

  • graph TD
        subgraph IoT_Sensors
            S1[Accelerometer]
            S2[RF Sniffer]
        end
        subgraph Controller
            AI[Neural Network]
            BC[Blockchain Logger]
        end
        subgraph Tuner
            V(Varactor Diodes)
        end
        S1 & S2 --> AI;
        AI -->|Predictive Tuning Vector| V;
        V -- tunes --> Ant(Antenna Array);
        AI -->|Log Parameters| BC;
    

5. The "Inverse" or Failure Mode

• Derivative 1.7: Failsafe Emergency Beacon Mode
  • Enabling Description: The tuner circuit is designed with a "dead-man's switch." In case of a power failure to the controller or a detected fault in the tuning components (e.g., a shorted varactor), all electronic tuning elements are galvanically disconnected from the antenna feed via a micro-relay. In this default state, the antenna feed is directly connected to a fixed, passive, broadband impedance matching network. This network provides a suboptimal but functional match across a wide range of emergency frequencies (e.g., VHF marine band and the 406 MHz Cospas-Sarsat satellite beacon band). This ensures the device can transmit a low-power distress signal even when its primary multi-band tuning functionality has failed.

  • stateDiagram-v2
        state "Normal Operation" as Normal {
            [*] --> Tuned
            Tuned: Controller actively adjusts tuner for specific bands (LTE, WiFi, etc.)
        }
        state "Failsafe Mode" as Failsafe {
            [*] --> Passive
            Passive: Relay disconnects tuner. Fixed broadband network engaged for emergency frequencies.
        }
        Normal --> Failsafe : Power Loss OR Fault Detected
        Failsafe --> Normal : Power Restored AND System Reset
    

---

Derivatives Based on Core Claim 14: Simultaneous Multi-Band Matching

• Derivative 14.1: Metamaterial-Based Duplexing Antenna
  • Enabling Description: The tuner and antenna are integrated into a single metasurface composed of an array of electronically tunable split-ring resonators (SRRs). The multiband transceiver feeds the metasurface at a single point. The controller applies a specific pattern of capacitance values to the varactors integrated into each SRR. This pattern creates two distinct resonant pathways on the surface simultaneously. One pathway is engineered for a low-frequency band (e.g., 1.8 GHz for LTE) and the other for a high-frequency band (e.g., 5.8 GHz for Wi-Fi). The surface provides high isolation between the pathways, allowing the LTE and Wi-Fi transceivers to operate simultaneously from a single feed point without traditional duplexers.

  • classDiagram
        class Metasurface {
            +SplitRingResonator[] elements
            +singleFeedPoint
        }
        class SplitRingResonator {
            +varactorDiode
            +capacitanceValue
        }
        class Controller {
            +calculateResonancePattern(band1, band2)
        }
        class Transceiver {
            +transmitLTE()
            +receiveWiFi()
        }
        Controller ..> Metasurface : sets capacitance values
        Transceiver -- Metasurface : single RF connection
    

---

Combination Prior Art Scenarios

• Scenario 1: Integration with GNU Radio (SDR)

  • Enabling Description: The controller for the tunable antenna of US 8,593,358 is replaced with a software-defined controller running as a block within the GNU Radio framework on a host computer. The host computer is connected to an SDR peripheral (e.g., a USRP). A custom GNU Radio block, titled "Active Antenna Controller," takes frequency and bandwidth parameters from the SDR signal processing flowgraph as input. It translates these parameters into the required digital control signals (e.g., I2C or SPI commands) for the physical tuner hardware. This allows a user to dynamically re-tune the antenna in real-time from a software flowgraph to seamlessly switch between receiving, for example, an FM broadcast signal at 101.1 MHz and a 4G LTE signal at 1700 MHz using the same hardware.

• Scenario 2: Integration with LoRaWAN (IoT Protocol)

  • Enabling Description: A wireless IoT device incorporates the tunable antenna system to support multiple regional LoRaWAN standards. A LoRaWAN end-node for global logistics must operate on different ISM bands (e.g., EU868 in Europe, US915 in North America, AS923 in Asia). The device's firmware includes a geolocation module (via GPS or Wi-Fi sniffing). Upon entering a new regulatory region, the controller automatically tunes the single antenna to the correct LoRaWAN frequency plan for that region, ensuring compliance and optimal link performance. The same antenna is simultaneously matched to 2.4 GHz to provide a BLE interface for local configuration by a technician's smartphone.

• Scenario 3: Integration with Open-Source Antenna Design (CST/HFSS Models)

  • Enabling Description: The physical antenna element described in US 8,593,358 is designed using an open-source model, such as a community-published design for a fractal or patch antenna from a repository like Open-Antenna.org. The design files (e.g., for CST Studio Suite or Ansys HFSS) are made publicly available. The disclosed invention lies in the combination of this open-source physical antenna structure with a specific, proprietary active tuner circuit. The public disclosure provides the simulation model of the open-source antenna and a detailed schematic of the tuner, including component values for the tunable elements (e.g., Skyworks varactor diodes) and the control logic, enabling a person skilled in the art to replicate the combined system for simultaneous multi-band operation.