US 8630612

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent, including any 2026 CAFC docket activity.

Let me search for the actual claim text and any litigation record.

Let me search for the specific claim language and any 2026 Federal Circuit activity.

Patent US 8,630,612 — Summary

Caveat up front, in line with your instructions: I searched for the literal number 8630612 / 8,630,612 and did not auto-correct. The following is grounded in the authoritative Google Patents full text you supplied plus targeted searches. Two things I could not verify authoritatively, and will flag rather than guess: (1) the literal text of the independent claims, and (2) any 2026 CAFC docket for this patent.

Bibliographic data (high confidence)

Assignee note (uncertainty flagged): The Google Patents page states the current assignee is Wireless Management Solutions LLC, with an assignment recorded 2025-01-29 from KAJEET, INC. There is also a 2021-12-17 security interest to SILICON VALLEY BANK, released 2025-01-21. Google expressly cautions that its assignee determinations are not legal conclusions, and secondary sources (e.g., Justia/Radaris inventor listings) still show Kajeet, Inc. as assignee of family members. Treat the current ownership as not fully confirmed.

Continuity (from the specification)

This patent is a continuation of Appl. 13/763,348 (filed 2013-02-08) → continuation of 13/603,218 (2012-09-04) → continuation of 12/950,379 (2010-11-19, now US 8,285,249) → continuation of 11/881,460 (2007-07-26, now US 7,899,438) → continuation-in-part of 11/824,336 (2007-06-28, now US 7,945,238). It is one of a large set of co-filed Mar. 6, 2013 applications (13/786,685 … 13/787,111), all titled "Feature Management of a Communication Device."

Abstract (verbatim)

"A system and method for the real-time management of a device, and more particularly to the establishment and enforcement of policies or rules associated with the feature or functions that may be performed with the device, such as making and receiving calls, exchanging data, playing games and music, sending and receiving email, accessing web sites, and paying for goods and services. If a child or employee is using the device, there may be a need to regulate how that device can be used and to determine who will pay for what goods or services. In addition to providing all of the features associated with a device, service providers need to be able to establish and enforce rules (policies) regulating how and when that device can be used and who will pay for a good or service requested by the user of the device."

Independent claims — plain-language overview

Uncertainty: I do not have authoritative claim text for US 8,630,612. The Google Patents full text you provided is truncated before the claims section (it ends mid-sentence in the Detailed Description: "…but could pay for thos…"). My search results surfaced the abstract, bibliographic data, and family members, but not the numbered claims. I therefore cannot give you claim numbers or quote/paraphrase independent claims without risking fabrication. I am explicitly declining to invent them.

What I can state with reasonable confidence from the specification (clearly labeled as inference, not literal claim language):

• The disclosure centers on a policy/rule enforcement architecture in which a service manager (20) and/or a policy decision point (29) evaluates provisioned policies — wallet balance/status, provisioned services, contact restrictions, time-of-day restrictions, allowed/blocked number lists, and similar functional restrictions — against a requested service transaction, and a policy enforcement point (28) accepts, rejects, redirects/rewrites, or degrades the transaction accordingly (see the FIG. 1 / FIG. 2 discussion).
• A second axis of the disclosure is wallet architecture, with a user wallet and an administrator wallet (plus promotional and dynamic wallets) and rules governing order of precedence and back-up funding among them.
• Given the patent's title and family, the independent claims most likely recite a system/apparatus and/or method for managing features of a communication device by establishing and enforcing such policies. I cannot confirm the number of independent claims, their statutory category (apparatus vs. method), or their exact scope.

If you need the literal claims, the authoritative sources are the USPTO PatentCenter/Patent Full-Text record for 13/786,922, or the granted-PDF on Google Patents — both of which I could not fully retrieve in this session.

Litigation / dockets

District court (confirmed via Google Patents' litigation links and corroborating searches): three California Central District Court cases are linked to this patent family:

• 8:18-cv-01519 — Kajeet Inc v. Qustodio LLC. Search results confirm US Patent No. 8,630,612 was attached as Exhibit B to the First Amended Complaint in this case (also referencing US 8,712,371).
• 8:18-cv-01312
• 2:18-cv-00643

Related Kajeet enforcement activity involving the same portfolio includes Kajeet v. Mobicip (C.D. Cal., 2:18-cv-03899), Kajeet v. Mosyle (D. Del., 1:21-cv-00006), Kajeet v. McAfee (D. Del., 1:21-cv-00005), Kajeet v. JAMF Software (W.D. Tex., 6:20-cv-00302), Kajeet v. Lightspeed Solutions (W.D. Tex., 6:20-cv-00203), and Kajeet v. Asavie Technologies (W.D. Tex., 6:20-cv-00705).

CAFC 2026 dockets: I found no 2026 Federal Circuit docket attributable to patent 8630612. Searches for that combination returned unrelated 2026 CAFC items — e.g., FullView, Inc. v. Polycom, Inc., No. 2026-121 (nonprecedential § 1292(b) order, Apr. 16, 2026) and an Arendi § 101 disposition — neither of which concerns this patent or its parties. Likewise, the PTAB 2026 activity surfaced (various IPR/PGR numbers) does not name 8630612. Conclusion: no verified 2026 CAFC appeal for this patent number.

Bottom line

• Title, number, application number, filing/issue dates, inventors, and abstract are confirmed from the authoritative Google Patents text.
• Ownership is uncertain (Kajeet, Inc. original; Wireless Management Solutions LLC listed as current, with intervening SVB security interest).
• Independent claim text is not available to me and I will not reconstruct it from memory.
• Litigation is real and well-documented in district court (esp. Kajeet v. Qustodio, 8:18-cv-01519, where '612 was Exhibit B); no 2026 CAFC docket was found.

Sources: Google Patents full text, https://patents.google.com/patent/US8630612/en ; Unified Patents litigation portal entry for 8:18-cv-01519, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/California%20Central%20District%20Court/case/8%253A18-cv-01519 ; Justia/Radaris inventor-and-family listings (secondary, non-authoritative).

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 8630612 across the sources you mentioned.

Let me dig deeper into the specific cases.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 8,630,612

Patent identified literally as requested: U.S. Patent No. 8,630,612 B1, titled "Feature management of a communication device." Original assignee: Kajeet, Inc. Current assignee of record: Wireless Management Solutions, LLC (assignment recorded 2025‑01‑29). Priority date 2007‑06‑28; anticipated expiration 2027‑06‑28. I did not auto-correct or conflate this number with any sibling patent in the family (e.g., 8,712,371; 8,667,559; 8,630,601; 8,594,619), several of which were asserted in the same campaigns and are easy to confuse.

Below are the cases I could confirm — with the caveat that the '612 patent was typically asserted alongside other Kajeet family members, so I flag exactly where the '612 patent is documented in the record.

Case 1 — Kajeet, Inc. v. Qustodio, LLC (CONFIRMED assertion of '612)

Evidence the '612 patent was in suit: Kajeet attached "Exhibit D – US8630612" to both its First Amended Complaint and its Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 146, Nov. 22, 2019), and to its opening claim‑construction brief. The docket and the Court's § 101 analysis expressly reference the three asserted patents, including the '612.

Procedural history (confirmed):

• Qustodio moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing the claims were patent‑ineligible abstract ideas under Alice v. CLS Bank.
• Feb. 28, 2019 — The court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice, holding it premature to decide § 101 eligibility until Kajeet had an opportunity to file an amended complaint with "express, factual allegations" supporting eligibility (consistent with Berkheimer and Aatrix). (Reported as Kajeet v. Qustodio, CV18‑01519 JAK.)
• Oct. 22, 2019 — Further ruling reported at 2019 WL 8060078 (addressing damages/foreign‑sales issues and eligibility).
• Dec. 9, 2019 — Order dismissing the case without prejudice (Dkt. 149), following a notice of settlement.
• Feb. 7, 2020 — Joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice granted (Dkt. 151): all claims and counterclaims dismissed with prejudice; each party to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees, "other than those already awarded." Report of determination of patent action filed (Dkt. 152).

Note: Defense counsel's own firm biography states Qustodio "secured a motion to dismiss on patent ineligibility … and was awarded attorneys' fees for striking the plaintiff's SLAPP claims" (Kajeet v. Qustodio, Central District, CA). This indicates some fee exposure on the SLAPP theory ran against Kajeet, separate from the patent‑eligibility ruling.

Cases 2 & 3 — Additional Central District of California matters listed on the '612 patent's litigation record

The patent's own litigation record (Unified Patents / Google Patents) lists two further C.D. Cal. filings in addition to the Qustodio case:

• Case No. 8:18‑cv‑01312 — U.S. District Court, Central District of California
• Case No. 2:18‑cv‑00643 — U.S. District Court, Central District of California

Important caveat: I was able to retrieve these case numbers as litigation events tied to the '612 patent's family record, but I was not able to pull the party identifications, filing dates, or outcomes for these two dockets within this research session. I cannot confirm the plaintiff/defendant or that the '612 patent itself (as opposed to a family member) was the asserted patent in each. I am flagging them as unverified rather than guessing.

Related Kajeet enforcement campaign — NOT confirmed as asserting the '612 patent

For completeness (and to avoid the confusion you flagged about similar numbers), the following Kajeet suits asserted other patents in the same family and should not be attributed to the '612 patent without further verification:

• Kajeet, Inc. v. Gryphon Online Safety, Inc., No. 1:19‑cv‑02370‑MN (D. Del., Judge Maryellen Noreika), filed Dec. 30, 2019, terminated Feb. 27, 2024. The court's March 1, 2021 opinion addressed U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,667,559 and 7,899,438 — not the '612. Related D. Del. cases: 1:19‑cv‑02371, 1:20‑cv‑01339, 1:21‑cv‑00004, 1:21‑cv‑00005, 1:21‑cv‑00006. The case was stayed (June 10, 2022) pending PTAB final written decisions.
• Kajeet, Inc. v. NortonLifeLock Inc. / Gen Digital Inc., No. 1:20‑cv‑01339‑MN (D. Del.) — subject of IPR2022‑00001, which challenged U.S. Pat. No. 8,667,559 (same title, "Feature management of a communication device"). This is the '559 patent, not the '612.
• Kajeet, Inc. v. Trend Micro, Inc., No. 6:21‑cv‑389‑ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.) — venue dispute decided Jan. 12, 2022; patent(s)‑in‑suit not confirmed here.

I found no record of any Federal Circuit (CAFC) appeal involving the '612 patent. The Qustodio case settled before any appeal; the Delaware matters were resolved via IPR stays/settlement and are not '612 assertions.

Summary

Bottom line: The only litigation I can affirmatively tie to U.S. Pat. No. 8,630,612 is Kajeet, Inc. v. Qustodio, LLC, No. 8:18‑cv‑01519 (C.D. Cal.), which ended in a with‑prejudice settlement/dismissal in early 2020. Two additional C.D. Cal. dockets (8:18‑cv‑01312 and 2:18‑cv‑00643) are listed on the patent's litigation record but remain unverified as to parties, patents‑in‑suit, and outcome. I recommend pulling those two dockets directly (USPTO PatentCenter / PACER / Unified Patents litigation portal) to confirm.

I'll verify the "no PTAB activity" default against public sources before concluding.

The ODP block says none, but my first search surfaced an IPR involving Kajeet. Let me determine whether it targets this patent and look for others.

The IPR I found targets the sibling '559 patent, not the '612 patent. Let me confirm whether any IPR targets '612 specifically and check the related Kajeet IPR cluster.

I'll research the assignment record for US 8630612 before drafting.

Let me pull the recorded assignment details and correspondent information.

Found key reel/frame data. Let me verify the full chain and litigation history.

Assignment & Ownership Reconstruction — US 8,630,612 B1 ("Feature Management of a Communication Device")

Analyst note on provenance: The three post-issuance recordings below carry reel/frame numbers I captured from the recorded-assignment text of the Kajeet family (the same EOG records surface on Assignment Center / Patent Assignment Search). I could not retrieve the correspondent of record field or the original inventor→Kajeet reel/frame from the sources reachable in this session. Where a field is missing I say so rather than guess. Verify all three reel/frames at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 8,630,612).

Inventors

All six appear as assignors to Kajeet, Inc. on the family applications, so employment at Kajeet at filing is determinable for the group.

Unusual-pattern check — negative (important): there is no "all inventors departed within 12 months" pattern here. Inventor records show Matthew Donald Baker still signing Kajeet assignments as late as 2020-04-21 (app. 16/854,731 / 16/854,746) and Daniel John Neal signing Kajeet assignments 2013, 2018 and 2020 (e.g., app. 13/916,997; app. 16/054,964; app. 16/999,757). The inventor bench stayed with the operating company for over a decade — consistent with a real product-development company, not a portfolio assembled for resale.

Recent twist: inventor-profile aggregators now show the top assignee for these inventors' applications as Wireless Management Solutions, LLC, Chevy Chase, MD — i.e., the inventors' output is now flowing to the 2024 acquirer, not to Kajeet.

Original assignee

• Entity on the issued patent: Kajeet, Inc. (original assignee of record; Google Patents "Original Assignee: Kajeet Inc").
• Primary line of business: Wireless managed-service provider / MVNO and IoT connectivity, historically focused on K–12 education (off-campus student internet, SmartSpot hotspots) and now private LTE/5G. Founding year 2003; current HQ 7901 Jones Branch Drive, Suite 350, McLean, VA 22102 (earlier Bethesda, MD).
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Yes. Kajeet's Sentinel® platform is marketed with exactly the claim subject matter — real-time device management, time-of-day data-access policies, daily/monthly consumption limits, policy control, content filtering, suspend/un-suspend. Kajeet's own "Patents and Licensing" page lists 8,630,612 among patents "protecting" its products.
• Current status: Operating. ~150 employees, 3,000+ customers, 5.5M+ lines, 40–43 U.S. patents claimed in its own collateral. No bankruptcy filing found. The 2021 SVB lien and its 2024 release are consistent with a refinancing / portfolio-monetization transaction, not insolvency.

Assignment timeline

Pre-note — original inventor→Kajeet assignment: Not surfaced on this patent's legal-events record. The inventors' rights were assigned to Kajeet in connection with the 2007 original application (Ser. No. 11/881,460) and its continuation chain, but I could not confirm a reel/frame for the original conveyance and will not invent one.

Related Kajeet collateral record (not confirmed for this patent): Plansite's Kajeet docket shows Bluecrest Venture Finance Master Fund, Ltd. as a recorded party on Kajeet applications on 2009-02-25 and 2011-03-16. These read as venture-debt collateral records on the Kajeet portfolio generally. I could not confirm they attach to the 8,630,612 chain, so I list them only as a flag.

• 2021-12-17 (executed) / recorded 2021-12-17 — Reel 058421/0170

  • Conveyance: Security Interest (grant of security interest)
  • Assignor: Kajeet, Inc.
  • Assignee: Silicon Valley Bank, California
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved — the correspondent/attorney of record field was not accessible from the sources reachable in this session. Not assessable.
  • Context: Securitization — venture-debt collateral lien over the Kajeet patent portfolio.

• 2024-12-09 (executed) / recorded 2025-01-21 — Reel 069940/0783

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Silicon Valley Bank
  • Assignee: Kajeet, Inc., Virginia
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved.
  • Context: Release of the 2021 collateral lien — recorded after the portfolio transfer was executed, i.e., the lien release was obtained to deliver clean title to the purchaser.

• 2024-10-03 (executed) / recorded 2025-01-29 — Reel 070046/0381

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: Kajeet, Inc.
  • Assignee: Wireless Management Solutions, LLC, Maryland (address of record: Chevy Chase, MD)
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved. This is the one field I most wanted and could not get — see Signal 3.
  • Context: Transfer-to-holding/asserter entity — the operating company moves the patent (and the wider family) to a non-practicing Maryland LLC; WMS is now prosecuting continuations of the family (e.g., US 12,382,259 B2, granted 2025-08-05, listed to Wireless Management Solutions, LLC).

No post-2024 assignment out of WMS is recorded. WMS is the terminal owner of record.

Litigation overlay (for the pre-litigation-transfer test)

All known assertions on this patent were brought by Kajeet, Inc., against device-management / parental-control competitors, years before the 2024 transfer:

• 2018-01-25 — Kajeet, Inc. v. Liminex, Inc. d/b/a GoGuardian, 2:18-cv-00643 (C.D. Cal.)
• 2018 — C.D. Cal. case 8:18-cv-01312 (defendant not confirmed from available sources)
• 2018-08-24 — Kajeet, Inc. v. Qustodio, LLC, 8:18-cv-01519 (C.D. Cal.) — asserted 8,712,371; 8,630,612; 8,667,559; dismissed on §101 grounds, with fees later awarded to Qustodio
• 2018-05-10 — Kajeet, Inc. v. Mobicip, LLC, 2:18-cv-03899 (C.D. Cal.)
• 2020-03-20 — Kajeet, Inc. v. Lightspeed Solutions, LLC, 6:20-cv-00203 (W.D. Tex.)
• 2020-04-21 — Kajeet, Inc. v. JAMF Software, LLC, 6:20-cv-00302 (W.D. Tex.)
• 2020 — Kajeet, Inc. v. NortonLifeLock, Inc., 1:20-cv-01339-MN (D. Del.) — subject of IPR2022-00001 on the sibling '559 patent

Stanford's NPE database classifies Kajeet, Inc. as a "Practicing Entity / product company" — i.e., the historical assertion was operating-company-vs-competitor, not troll-vs-industry.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8630612
    2007 : Filed by inventors
         : Assigned to Kajeet Inc
    2014 : Patent issued to Kajeet Inc
    2018 : Kajeet sues GoGuardian
         : Kajeet sues Qustodio
    2020 : Kajeet sues Lightspeed and JAMF
    2021 : SVB security interest recorded
    2024 : Portfolio transfer to WMS executed
    2025 : SVB lien release recorded
         : WMS assignment recorded

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear
The transfer fact is present: the patent moved from operating assignee Kajeet, Inc. to non-operating Wireless Management Solutions, LLC (Reel 070046/0381, executed 2024-10-03). But none of the stated tells are satisfied: the name suffix is "Solutions" (not IP/Patents/Licensing/Holdings/Ventures); the entity is a Maryland LLC (not Delaware or Texas); the address Chevy Chase, MD is a general business address, not a registered-agent service address, and sits in the same metro area as Kajeet's original Bethesda, MD HQ. No products of WMS in commerce are evident, but that is true of any newly formed holding vehicle. Call: unclear — real non-practicing transfer, classic shell markers absent.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present
Neither Kajeet, Inc. nor Wireless Management Solutions, LLC appears on the enumerated public NPE lists (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). To the contrary, Stanford's NPE dataset affirmatively labels Kajeet a "product company / practicing entity." No Unified Patents or RPX high-frequency-plaintiff designation found for WMS.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not assessable (no data)
I could not retrieve the correspondent/attorney-of-record for any of the three recordings (058421/0170, 069940/0783, 070046/0381). This is the single most probative field for this chain and it should be pulled directly from Assignment Center. No finding is made — naming a firm here without the record would be fabrication. Note for follow-up: because WMS took the entire family and is prosecuting continuations (US 12,382,259 B2, 2025), the same prosecution/recording firm likely carries over; confirm from the reel images.

4. Cascading transfers — not present
Only one operating→holding transfer in the record (070046/0381). The 2021 lien (058421/0170) and 2024 release (069940/0783) are financing events, not chained entity-to-entity hops. No sequence of LLCs sharing an address or principal within 24 months.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present (inverted)
The 2024-10-03 transfer postdates every known assertion by ~6 years. The 2018 and 2020 suits were filed by the then-owner Kajeet. There is no assignment within 6 months before a suit on this patent. Caveat: if WMS files fresh 2025–2026 complaints, this signal flips; I found no such suits.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present
No Kajeet Chapter 7/11 found. Kajeet remains an operating company. The pattern (lien → lien release → assignment) is a refinancing/monetization, not a bankruptcy sale.

7. Privateering — unclear, with supporting indicia
Indicia for an insider licensing vehicle rather than an arm's-length sale: (a) WMS's Chevy Chase, MD address is in the same area as Kajeet's founding HQ (Bethesda, MD); (b) WMS took the entire family and is actively prosecuting continuations (US 12,382,259 B2, granted 2025-08-05); (c) Kajeet's own website still lists 8,630,612 among patents protecting its products — either a stale page or evidence of a retained license/field-of-use. Against that, there is no SEC filing (Kajeet is private), and no Patent Progress / EFF / RPX coverage of a privateering arrangement. Call: unclear.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. The patent is not neutralized.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

The chain turns decisively at Reel 070046/0381 (executed 2024-10-03, recorded 2025-01-29), which moves US 8,630,612 from the practicing operating company Kajeet, Inc. to Wireless Management Solutions, LLC — a Maryland LLC with no evident products that holds the whole family and is prosecuting continuations of it (US 12,382,259 B2, 2025-08-05). That single operating→non-practicing transfer is the only substantive signal; every classic corroborating marker is absent or unverified — no listed asserter name (Signal 2), no cascading LLCs (Signal 4), no pre-suit timing (Signal 5), no bankruptcy (Signal 6), no defensive-aggregator endpoint (Signal 8), and the correspondent field could not be retrieved (Signal 3), so recurrence cannot be tested. I therefore decline "high confidence," and I flag the strong competing reading — a Kajeet insider licensing vehicle (Chevy Chase MD address, whole-portfolio transfer, live continuation prosecution, Kajeet still advertising the patent) rather than a classic third-party troll. Note also that all actual assertion on this patent was performed by the operating company against real competitors in 2018–2020, which is operating-company behavior, not NPE behavior.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 8630612) — pull the reel images for 058421/0170, 069940/0783, and 070046/0381 to capture the correspondent of record and confirm WMS's signatory; that single data point is what would move this verdict to high confidence or knock it down to ordinary corporate reorganization.

I'll search for the specific patent and its cited prior art references.

Let me retrieve the specific citation list for US8630612B1.

Let me fetch the actual citation list from the patent document itself.

US 8,630,612 B1 — Patent Identification and Prior‑Art Review

Important caveat up front: I was able to confirm the patent's identity and bibliographic record, but I was not able to retrieve the complete, verbatim, front‑page list of all cited references (Google Patents reports 141 patent citations for this document) within the search budget for this task, and the authoritative text I was given for the patent ends mid‑sentence in the Detailed Description and does not include the claims. That materially limits any precise, element‑by‑element § 102 mapping. I flag below exactly what is verified versus what is inferred. I have not auto‑corrected any identifier.

1. Patent record (verified from the authoritative source)

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8630612/en

Google Patents shows "Patent Citations (141)" for this document (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8600348](/patent/US8600348)#14). That count is the total cited patent documents; it does not include the non‑patent literature.

2. References I can cite with high confidence (from the patent's own text)

These are self‑citations / related applications and incorporated‑by‑reference documents, all verified from the "Cross Reference to Related Applications" section of the patent itself. Under § 102(e)/§ 103 they matter mainly as priority‑chain evidence and as potential § 102(e) art, not as third‑party prior art.

3. Background art affirmatively identified inside the specification (verified)

The specification itself characterizes the following as the state of the art, which makes them the most likely candidates for § 102/§ 103 challenges:

1. The Telcordia™ Converged Real‑Time Charging system — described as allowing "limited real‑time controls over prepaid and postpaid accounts," e.g., parental controls that "limit that child's spending within a set of parameters" for premium data. Described at the end of the Background section. Potentially anticipatory of claims directed to real‑time policy enforcement with spending parameters, subject to whatever narrower claim elements distinguish the invention.
2. Standardized network protocols invoked as conventional: IS‑136 (TDMA), IS‑95 (CDMA), IS‑41, IS‑771, IS‑826 — architectural background for the O‑MSC/service‑manager/PEP/PDP flow of FIGS. 1–2.
3. General admission of prepaid accounts, rollover minutes, and automated refill services — treated as known.

4. Partial list of cited U.S. published applications (retrieved from the family's citation record — verify against the '612 front page)

The following were retrieved from the "References Cited" record of a same‑family Kajeet patent (US 11,516,629) on Justia (https://patents.justia.com/patent/[11516629](/patent/11516629)#5). These are strong candidates for the '612 citation list but are not confirmed as identical to it, because later continuations accumulate additional citations. Treat each as provisional until checked against the '612 front page or USPTO PatentCenter.

Critical date analysis: Because the '612 priority date is June 28, 2007, any reference published after that date is not printed prior art under § 102(a)/(b) and can only qualify under § 102(e) (pre‑AIA) if it was filed before the '612 effective date. Several entries above (2013/2014 publications) fail even that test and should be excluded from any § 102 table unless an earlier provisional/priority filing is documented. This is the single most common error in citation‑list‑based anticipation analysis and I am flagging it rather than asserting dates I did not individually verify.

Foreign patent documents in the same citation record (provisional): AU 2006100397; EP 0137884; EP 0172670; EP 1041520; EP 1072997 ("Electronic purse system and electronic purse unit" — appears directly relevant to the wallet concept); EP 1132839; EP 1450322; EP 1528513; EP 1798659; EP 1798943; FR 2863088; GB 2419970; GB 2425621; GB 2431072; JP 59062976; JP 9‑179921; JP 9‑185658; JP 12‑48144; JP 12‑251154; JP 12‑331100.

5. What I could not verify (stated explicitly)

• The complete 141‑reference citation list of US 8,630,612 B1. I could not pull the full front‑page list in this session.
• The verbatim claim set of US 8,630,612 B1. The authoritative text supplied ends mid‑sentence ("…but could pay for thos…"), before the claims. Without the claims, no defensible element‑by‑element § 102 anticipation mapping is possible, and I will not fabricate claim numbers or limitations. Note also that the six‑figure ‑612‑class Kajeet patents were deliberately issued with different claim scopes (hence 30+ sibling patents), so which claim a given reference "anticipates" cannot be assumed from the shared specification.

6. Recommended next steps to complete the analysis

1. Pull the front page of US 8,630,612 B1 from USPTO PatentCenter or patentimages (the "References Cited" box) — this is the only way to enumerate the exact 141 citations.
2. Pull the full claim set (cols. of the ‑612 patent) and run the standard § 102 single‑reference element chart, then § 103 combinations.
3. Cross‑check the C.D. Cal. litigation (8:18‑cv‑01519 / 8:18‑cv‑01312 / 2:18‑cv‑00643) pleadings — invalidity contentions there will name the asserted prior art that the parties themselves consider most relevant, and IPR petitions (if any) against the family would give a vetted § 102/§ 103 mapping.
4. Separately screen the citation list against the June 28, 2007 priority date to separate true § 102(a)/(b) art from § 102(e)‑only art.

If you can supply the ‑612 front‑page citation box and the claim text (both available from the USPTO PatentCenter Full‑Page PDF), I will produce the complete reference‑by‑reference table with claim‑level § 102 anticipation mapping.

I'll note up front: the Google Patents text you supplied contains the abstract, description, classifications, and "Definitions" — but it does not include a "Prior Art" / "References Cited" section with actual reference citations. Let me try to retrieve whatever prior-art listing is available for US 8,630,612 before I analyze.

I have partial prior-art data. One critical gap: the page text you supplied does not include the claims of US 8,630,612, and claims are the unit of analysis under § 103. Let me try to pull the claim set and the patent's own "References Cited" listing.

The claims are still missing from what I can retrieve so far. Let me try the patent PDF and the Google Patents citation listing directly.

Obviousness Analysis — US 8,630,612 B1 ("Feature management of a communication device")

0. Three threshold caveats you need before reading the analysis

(a) The claims are not in the material supplied. The page text you provided contains the abstract, the full description/DETAILED DESCRIPTION, classifications, and the "Definitions" panel — but no claim set. Under § 103 the claim is the unit of analysis, so a limitation-by-limitation obviousness chart cannot be honestly constructed from what I was given. Everything below is therefore framed around the limitations the specification itself identifies as the invention's "key features" (quoted below), and each mapping must be re-verified against the actual claims of US 8,630,612. I flag this rather than invent claim language.

(b) The page text you supplied contains no labeled "Prior Art" section. What exists on the Google Patents record is:

• a "Patent Citations" list (231 entries) — i.e., the references the applicant/Examiner cited against this patent; and
• a "Cited By" list (71 entries) — later patents that cite this patent.

Per the pages I retrieved (US11689901B2, US20090006200, justia/11206516), only the Patent Citations list can serve as § 102/§ 103 prior art. I retrieved a partial rendering of that list, not all 231 rows; I note where coverage is incomplete.

(c) Do not treat the "Cited By" references as prior art. The Headwater Partners I family (priority 2009-01-28) and the T-Mobile USA references (2010) that appear in the "Cited By" table are later-in-time than this patent's 2007-06-28 priority date. They are analytically irrelevant to § 103 here. This is the single most common error when people mine these Google Patents pages.

1. Governing law and critical date

• Effective filing date: 2007-06-28. The 13/786,922 application (filed 2013-03-06) is a straight continuation chain: 13/763,348 → 13/603,218 → 12/950,379 (US 8,285,249) → 11/881,460 (US 7,899,438, a CIP) → 11/824,336 (US 7,945,238).
• Pre-AIA § 102/§ 103 governs. The application was filed 2013-03-06 — ten days before the AIA first-inventor-to-file date of 2013-03-16. So the AIA §§ 102/103 do not apply. Prior art is measured under pre-AIA § 102(a)/(b)/(e)/(g).
• Practical cutoff: references publicly available before 2007-06-28 are § 102(a)/(e) art; references published more than one year before the filing date (≈ before 2006-06-28) are § 102(b) statutory bars. Note that the CIP '460 (filed 2007-07-26) contains matter added after 2007-06-28, so any claim limitation relying solely on that new matter may carry a 2007-07-26 effective date — relevant to GB 2 425 621 A (published 2006-11-29), which is § 102(a) art but not § 102(b) art.
• Family/commonly-owned references are not prior art. US 7,899,438, US 7,945,238, US 8,285,249 and the nineteen sibling applications filed 2013-03-06 (13/786,735, 13/786,754, 13/786,775, …) share the same inventive entity/disclosure and are not available as § 102(e) art. Do not build a combination from them.

2. What the specification identifies as the inventive "key features"

The specification states them explicitly:

"Some of the key features of wallets in the context of the present invention are: (1) that they enable real-time management or control of a device; (2) that each device requires at least two wallets to be associated with it, at least one user wallet and at least one administrator wallet; (3) that an order of precedence can be established between the wallets, as to which wallet pays for what, and any wallet can be used to back up a payment by a second wallet…; and (4) that local rules and global rules can be established for the wallets that enable the administrator to manage the functions of a device in many different ways, including who can be contacted, what transactions are permitted, what time of day the device and features/functions can be used, what features or functions are enabled…"

For § 103 purposes this decomposes into roughly seven limitation clusters:

3. Candidate prior art (all drawn from this patent's own Patent Citations list, plus the specification's admitted background)

Coverage caveat: I retrieved a partial rendering of the 231-entry Patent Citations list. Full claim-level review of the EP/FR/GB and Japanese entries was not possible within the tool budget; the combinations below rely on the references whose disclosures I could verify from the retrieved text.

4. Proposed § 103 combinations

Combination A — Fleming + Ericsson '074 + Telcordia-style real-time charging

Covers: L1, L2, L3, L4, L5

• Fleming '710 supplies the administrator/user dyad, the administrator-set spending and category limits, and the replenishment/allowance mechanic — i.e., L2 and the core of L3.
• Ericsson '074 supplies the network-side association of usage parameters with a particular subscriber and the selective enablement of device capabilities — i.e., L1 and L5.
• Telcordia Converged Real-Time Charging supplies the real-time rating/enforcement engine for prepaid and postpaid accounts — i.e., L1, and directly the "limit that child's spending within a set of parameters" teaching.
• Motivation: The specification itself concedes the problem is known and that these partial solutions exist ("This system and other solutions… are only partial solutions"). A POSITA in 2007, faced with the spec's own stated problem ("a prepaid phone service does not solve the problem of ensuring availability of key services even if the prepaid account has run out of money"), would predictably combine a network charging platform with known subscriber usage-parameter control and known parent-controlled spending accounts. KSR motivation: same field (wireless service control), familiar elements, predictable result.

Combination B — Fujitsu '390 + Fleming '710 + Ericsson '291

Covers: L3 (multi-wallet + precedence), L1, L4

• Fujitsu '390 supplies the multi-wallet architecture (plural electronic wallets, wallet management).
• Fleming '710 supplies the administrator-over-user control relationship and funding hierarchy (one party funds/limits another party's spending).
• Ericsson '291 supplies the network-programmable subscription profile — the natural vehicle for implementing "global rules" applied before "local rules."
• Motivation: allocating a charge to "the most appropriate wallet first" is a routine implementation choice once multiple wallets exist; the specification's promotional → user → administrator → dynamic precedence is the kind of "order of precedence" a POSITA arranges as a matter of design preference. Weakest link: no single reference was retrieved that expressly teaches cross-device dynamic wallets with administrator override and automatic fallback funding, so if that exact architecture is positively recited, expect applicant to press here.

Combination C — Combination A or B + Tracbeam '252 (+ location-conditional policy)

Covers: L8

• Tracbeam '252 teaches wireless location determination; Ericsson '074/'291 teach feature restriction by subscriber parameter. Gating a policy on geographic containment ("only be operational when Steve's phone was on school property") is the straightforward application of a known location estimator to a known conditional-policy engine.
• Motivation: the specification itself frames this as a resolution of a known social conflict ("mobile phone usage by kids"), i.e., a known problem with a known technical solution. Post-KSR, combining location sensing with policy gating is predictable.

Combination D — Combination A/B + GB 2 425 621 A

Covers: L5 (time, location, and nature-of-goods restrictions), L6

• GB 2 425 621 A claims programming a payment token with machine-readable data specifying "the times at which the transaction can be executed," "the locations," and "the nature of the goods/services." That is a near-literal teaching of the spec's time-of-day, location, and content-type restriction categories.
• Caveat on date: GB 2 425 621 A published 2006-11-29 — more than one year before the 2013 filing but less than one year before the 2007-06-28 priority date, so it is § 102(a) (not § 102(b)) art. It is antedatable by a sworn § 1.131 showing, and its use against new matter added in the '460 CIP (2007-07-26) is cleaner than against the '336 original disclosure.

Combination E — For L7 (notifications, low-balance alerts, auto-refill)

• The specification's own background admits alerts as prior art: "Another partial solution is to provide the administrator (parent) with an alert when a user has reached some limit," and admits automated refill as prior art ("Other service providers have provided an automated refill service, which automatically bills some amount to a credit card to recharge the user's prepaid account"). These admissions are § 102(b)-class admissions against interest. A claim to mere alerting/auto-refill over Combination A adds nothing patentably distinct.

5. Where the obviousness case is genuinely weak (be candid in the write-up)

1. The specific multi-wallet precedence-plus-backup architecture in real time on a prepaid platform. The parent patent US 7,945,238 issued over this citation list. If the claims of 8,630,612 recite the inter-wallet hierarchy with automatic fallback (promotional → user → dynamic → admin, with reversal when the admin wallet is empty), I could not identify a retrieved reference that expressly teaches that ordering. The "order of precedence" is asserted in the spec as a key feature, which suggests the applicant believed it was the point of novelty.
2. Location-conditional, group-scoped institutional control (school restricting by grade or activity, active only on school property) is a fairly specific combination.
3. The network enforcement split (PEP/PDP/service manager) with redirection/rewriting/degradation remedies. Opposers would point to the spec's own admission that the triggers are "standardized methods, e.g., as defined in IS-41, IS-771, IS-826" — an admission that the IN/CAMEL infrastructure for real-time policy enforcement was known. That cuts against the applicant.

6. Objective indicia and enforcement context (for completeness)

• Long-felt but unmet need: unusually strong here, because the specification itself recites the long-felt need and the inadequacy of prior partial solutions (postpaid abuse, prepaid exhaustion, rollover minutes, auto-refill, alerts, Telcordia parental controls). Careful: that same passage is simultaneously the best § 103 motivation evidence. It cuts both ways.
• Commercial success / copying: not evidenced in the supplied materials; no nexus evidence available. I will not assert it.
• Enforcement: the Google Patents record shows three California Central District Court cases (8:18-cv-01519, 8:18-cv-01312, 2:18-cv-00643) and a Darts-IP global litigation family (family 40161185). Ownership moved to Wireless Management Solutions LLC on 2025-01-29 following a Silicon Valley Bank security interest (2021-12-17) and release (2025-01-21). The asserted claims in those suits — not the specification — define what actually must be invalidated, reinforcing why the claim set is indispensable.

7. Bottom line

On the record available, the strongest § 103 attack is:

Fleming US 5,953,710 + Ericsson US 6,253,074 + Telcordia Converged Real-Time Charging, optionally with Fujitsu US 7,024,390 for the multi-wallet architecture, Tracbeam US 6,249,252 for location gating, and GB 2 425 621 A for time/location/goods-type restrictions.

That combination reaches limitation clusters L1–L6 and L8 with articulated, KSR-compliant motivations (same field; the specification's own admissions of the problem and of partial prior solutions; predictable combination of known elements; the spec's admitted use of standardized IS-41/IS-771/IS-826 triggers).

Two things I cannot do without more data, and will not fake:

1. I cannot map this to specific claim language, because the claim set of US 8,630,612 was not in the page text you supplied. Please provide the claims (or confirm which of the sibling applications' claims you want analyzed).
2. I could not retrieve the complete 231-entry Patent Citations list, so my reference set is partial; the primary references above are verified from retrieved content, but several EP/FR/GB/JP entries remain unreviewed at the disclosure level.