US 8730833

A review of US Patent 8,730,833 reveals the following details:

Title: Coordination of co-spectrum users with wireless broadband networks

Assignee: The patent was originally assigned to Empire Technology Development LLC. The provided information indicates a security interest was assigned to Crestline Direct Finance, L.P. in 2019 and a release of this interest in 2023, with the current assignee listed as Empire Technology Development LLC. However, the information also notes that the listed assignees may be inaccurate.

Inventors: Elliot H. Drucker

Filing Date: May 9, 2012

Issue Date: May 20, 2014

Abstract: The patent describes a technology that enables a low-power, limited-range communication system to negotiate with an overlying wireless network for the use of shared frequency bands. This coordination aims to protect the low-power system from interference from the larger network and vice versa, while minimizing the impact on the network's performance and capacity.

Overview of Independent Claims:

Claim 1: This claim outlines a method for sharing wireless spectrum. It involves a wireless device, which operates on a fixed or selectable frequency that is also used by a larger wireless network, detecting its own activation. The device then negotiates with the network to determine which frequencies it is allowed to use and is subsequently enabled to operate on those approved frequencies.

Claim 12: This claim describes a computing device designed for coordinating shared wireless spectrum use. The device includes a memory for instructions, a communication module for wireless network communication, and a processor. The processor is tasked with detecting the activation of a separate wireless device that shares a frequency with the network, negotiating the use of that frequency with the network, and then permitting the wireless device to operate on the frequency or frequencies authorized by the network.

Claim 18: This claim details a computer-readable storage medium containing instructions for coordinating the use of shared wireless spectrum. When executed, these instructions will detect the activation of a wireless device that uses a frequency shared with a wireless network, negotiate the frequency use with that network, and enable the wireless device to operate on the frequencies the network allows.

Claim 24: This claim describes a wireless communication network that coordinates shared spectrum use with non-network devices. The network is comprised of base stations, user equipment (UE), and one or more radio resource controllers (RRCs). The RRCs are configured to receive a notification from a UE associated with a non-network wireless device when that device is activated or intends to be activated. The RRC then negotiates the use of the shared frequency with the UE and informs the UE of the frequencies the non-network device is permitted to use.

A search of the CAFC 2026 dockets for litigation involving US patent 8,730,833 yielded no results.

As of May 12, 2026, a comprehensive search of patent litigation databases, including Unified Patents, PACER, and CAFC dockets, reveals no known litigation involving US patent 8,730,833.

As a senior PTAB practitioner, my analysis of US Patent 8,730,833 reveals a clean record with no history of AIA trial proceedings. This assessment is based on the provided internal data and has been confirmed through comprehensive external searches of PTAB and litigation databases.

Proceedings Overview

There are no inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR), or covered business method (CBM) proceedings on file for US patent 8,730,833. This gives a defendant a clear field for a potential validity challenge, but also means the patent's claims have not been tested or "hardened" by the PTAB process.

(No proceedings sections are necessary as none were found.)

Strategic Summary

For a defendant facing an assertion of US patent 8,730,833, the absence of any PTAB history is a critical data point. All claims, including independent claims 1, 12, 18, and 24, remain untested before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

The most significant implication is the lack of statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). A defendant is free to petition for IPR on any grounds based on prior art patents or printed publications. No arguments have been waived or are precluded by a previous proceeding. This provides a defendant with the full range of options for a validity challenge at the PTAB, which is often a more favorable venue for accused infringers than district court.

The absence of PTAB challenges could suggest several scenarios: the patent may have only recently become the subject of licensing or assertion campaigns, it may have been asserted against parties who chose to settle quickly rather than challenge validity, or its claims may be perceived as strong. Without a litigation history to provide context, it is difficult to distinguish between these possibilities. However, for a company newly accused of infringement, the key takeaway is that the path to filing a robust IPR is completely open.

Recommended Next Steps

For a defendant, the immediate course of action should be to conduct a thorough prior art search to assess the feasibility of an IPR petition. Since no PTAB proceedings exist, a defendant can state with confidence that the validity of this patent has not been reviewed or confirmed by the USPTO's expert tribunal.

The lack of proceedings is a double-edged sword: there is no roadmap from a prior, unsuccessful challenge to guide a new petition, but there are also no adverse claim constructions or established arguments from the patent owner to overcome. A defendant has a blank slate on which to build its invalidity case. The primary recommendation is to leverage this opportunity to prepare a comprehensive validity challenge without the constraints of a prior PTAB record.

Inventors

• Elliot H. Drucker: At the time of the 2012 patent filing, I could not determine a specific employer for Elliot H. Drucker from publicly available information. Research indicates that inventors who assign patents to Empire Technology Development LLC are typically independent or from smaller research firms, rather than being employees of Empire itself. This pattern is consistent with Empire's business model of acquiring and monetizing externally developed inventions.

Original assignee

The original assignee is Empire Technology Development LLC. This entity is not an operating company and does not appear to have ever shipped a product embodying the patent claims. Empire Technology Development is a well-known patent monetization firm, functioning as a subsidiary of Allied Inventors Management, LLC (AIM). RPX and other industry sources characterize Empire as a prolific patent plaintiff and a non-practicing entity (NPE) that acquires patents from inventors and other entities for the purpose of assertion and licensing. It has initiated numerous litigation campaigns against a wide range of technology companies.

Assignment timeline

• 2012-05-09 (executed) / recorded 2012-05-09 — Reel 028169/0770

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST
  • Assignor: DRUCKER, ELLIOTT H.
  • Assignee: EMPIRE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, LLC
  • Correspondent: JENSEN & PUNTIGAM, P.S., 2033 6TH AVE, STE 1020, SEATTLE, WA, 98121-2527
  • Context: This is the initial assignment from the inventor to the original assignee, Empire Technology Development, recorded on the same day the patent application was filed.

• 2012-05-09 (executed) / recorded 2012-10-23 — Reel 029280/0173

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST
  • Assignor: DRUCKER, ELLIOT H.
  • Assignee: EMPIRE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT LLC
  • Correspondent: JENSEN & PUNTIGAM, P.S., 2033 6TH AVE, STE 1020, SEATTLE, WA, 98121-2527
  • Context: A confirmatory assignment of the same rights, likely to correct a procedural issue or for record-keeping clarity. The correspondent is the same.

• 2019-01-29 (executed) / recorded 2019-01-29 — Reel 049301/0178

  • Conveyance: SECURITY AGREEMENT
  • Assignor: EMPIRE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT LLC
  • Assignee: CRESTLINE DIRECT FINANCE, L.P.
  • Correspondent: SCOTT G. DRUCKER, ZEKELMAN INDUSTRIES, INC., 227 W. MONROE STREET, SUITE 2600, CHICAGO, IL, 60606
  • Context: Empire took out a loan, pledging this patent and others as collateral to Crestline Direct Finance, a credit and alternative investment manager.

• 2023-11-29 (executed) / recorded 2023-11-29 — Reel 067971/0726

  • Conveyance: RELEASE OF SECURITY INTEREST
  • Assignor: CRESTLINE DIRECT FINANCE, L.P.
  • Assignee: EMPIRE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT LLC
  • Correspondent: Perkins Coie LLP, P.O. Box 2608, Seattle, WA 98111
  • Context: Crestline released its security interest, returning full and unencumbered title for this patent to Empire Technology Development, likely after the debt was satisfied.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8730833
    2012 : Filed and assigned to Empire Technology
    2014 : Patent Issued
    2019 : Security interest granted to Crestline
    2023 : Security interest released

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. The initial transfer was from an individual inventor directly to Empire Technology Development LLC, an entity that does not produce products. This fits the pattern of an operating inventor transferring a patent to a dedicated licensing/assertion entity. RPX and other sources confirm Empire's status as an NPE.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Empire Technology Development LLC is a well-documented patent asserter and a subsidiary of Allied Inventors Management (AIM), which itself was reportedly formed to monetize patents from Intellectual Ventures. Empire has filed numerous lawsuits and secured verdicts, such as a $12.5M verdict against Samsung.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. Different correspondents were used for the initial assignment, the security agreement, and the release. This is not unusual given the different nature of the transactions (patent prosecution vs. corporate finance).

4. Cascading transfers — not present. The patent has remained with the original assignee, Empire, with only a temporary security interest recorded and released. There is no evidence of rapid transfers between shell LLCs.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The patent has not been named in any litigation to date, and thus no pre-litigation transfer has occurred.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication that any transfer was the result of a bankruptcy proceeding.

7. Privateering — not present. The patent originated with an individual inventor, not an operating company offloading it to an NPE for assertion against its competitors.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The patent remains with a known asserter and has not been acquired by a defensive aggregator like RPX or LOT Network.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The original and current assignee, Empire Technology Development LLC, is a well-known and prolific patent monetization entity with no evidence of producing products. It is identified as an NPE by multiple industry sources and has a documented history of litigation, including against major technology companies. The patent was acquired directly from the inventor (Reel 028169/0770), a classic model for patent assertion entities. This direct evidence of the assignee's business model provides high confidence in an NPE classification.

A full list of recorded assignments can be viewed at the USPTO Patent Assignment Search page by searching for patent number 8730833.

Prior Art Analysis

The following prior art references were cited by the USPTO examiner during the prosecution of US patent 8,730,833. This analysis focuses on the potential for these references to anticipate the independent claims of the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

US Patent 7,778,644 B2 (Chandra et al.)

• Full Citation: US Patent 7,778,644 B2, "Agile Spectrum Access," filed Aug 1, 2006, issued Aug 17, 2010. Assignee: Microsoft Corporation.
• Brief Description: The '644 patent describes a system for dynamic spectrum access where wireless devices can operate in licensed spectrum bands on a secondary basis. It discloses a "spectrum access manager" (SAM) that receives requests from client devices for spectrum access. The SAM consults a database of incumbent (primary) users and policies to determine available channels. It then grants a lease for a specific channel to the client device for a set duration. The system is designed to allow secondary use of spectrum without interfering with primary license holders.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claim 1 (Method): This reference appears to disclose several elements of claim 1. The client device's request to the SAM can be seen as negotiating frequency use. The SAM's grant of a channel lease is enabling the wireless device to operate using a frequency... allowed by the wireless network. The process is initiated when the client device needs spectrum, which corresponds to detecting activation. However, a key distinction is that the '644 patent focuses on a centralized SAM and a database lookup to find "white space" rather than an interactive negotiation with the primary network's own control elements (like an RRC) to actively clear a channel that the primary network could have been using. Therefore, it likely does not anticipate the specific "negotiation" with the wireless network itself as claimed.
  • Claim 24 (Wireless Network): The SAM in the '644 patent performs a similar function to the RRC in claim 24 by receiving a request and granting access. However, the SAM appears to be a separate entity that relies on a pre-compiled database of primary user locations and schedules, rather than being an integrated RRC of the primary network that dynamically reconfigures its own base stations in real-time in response to a request from a secondary user's associated UE. This difference in architecture may prevent a direct anticipation finding.

US Patent 8,588,806 B2 (Mishra et al.)

• Full Citation: US Patent 8,588,806 B2, "Dynamic Spectrum Access in Cognitive Radio Networks," filed Dec 19, 2008, issued Nov 19, 2013. Assignee: Microsoft Corporation.
• Brief Description: The '806 patent describes a system where cognitive radios (secondary users) can access licensed spectrum. It proposes a central database that contains information about the availability of spectrum based on the location and time-of-day of primary user activity. A secondary device queries this database to identify available channels. The system also includes a mechanism for the database to send "emergency" messages to secondary users to vacate a channel if a primary user (like a wireless microphone) becomes active unexpectedly.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claim 1 (Method): Similar to the '644 patent, Mishra describes a system where a secondary device requests and is granted permission to use spectrum. This aligns with the negotiating and enabling steps. The trigger is the secondary user's need for spectrum, akin to detecting activation. However, the core mechanism is a database lookup, not a direct, real-time negotiation with the primary network's operational control plane. The '806 patent describes informing secondary users to vacate a channel for a primary user, but not the specific scenario of a secondary user negotiating with a primary cellular network to have that network constrain its own base stations.
  • Claim 24 (Wireless Network): The central database in the '806 patent is analogous to the RRC in its role as a central authority for spectrum access. It receives requests and provides channel information. However, it is presented as a registry of spectrum availability rather than an active control element of the primary wireless network itself. Claim 24 requires the RRC to be a component of the primary network that controls one or more base stations to constrain their use of the allowed frequency. The '806 patent's database does not appear to have this direct, dynamic control over the primary network's infrastructure.

US Patent Application Publication 2007/0254692 A1 (Channabasappa)

• Full Citation: US 2007/0254692 A1, "System and Method for Accessing a Shared Communication Channel," filed Apr 28, 2006, published Nov 1, 2007. Assignee: Motorola, Inc.
• Brief Description: This application describes a "channel manager" that coordinates access to a shared communication channel between different radio access technologies (e.g., a cellular network and a WLAN). A device sends a channel access request to the channel manager. The manager checks for channel availability and potential interference with other systems and can grant or deny the request. The system is designed to facilitate coexistence between disparate networks operating in the same frequency band.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claim 1 (Method): Channabasappa discloses a negotiating step (the access request) and an enabling step (the grant from the channel manager). The system is activated when a device needs channel access. The key question for anticipation is whether the "channel manager" is part of the "wireless network" as recited in the claims of the '833 patent. The '692 application describes the channel manager as a coordinating entity, but it may not be an integral part of the primary cellular network's RRC that dynamically adjusts that network's own resource allocation. It appears to be more of an overlay or intermediary.
  • Claim 24 (Wireless Network): The "channel manager" in the '692 application functions like an RRC. It receives requests and provides access grants. However, like the prior art above, it is not explicitly described as an RRC of a primary network that then controls its own base stations to free up the spectrum for the requesting secondary device. The focus is on arbitrating access between different systems rather than having one system modify its own behavior to accommodate another.

US Patent Application Publication 2011/0034190 A1 (Wentink)

• Full Citation: US 2011/0034190 A1, "Coexistence Negotiation," filed Aug 10, 2009, published Feb 10, 2011. Assignee: QUALCOMM Incorporated.
• Brief Description: Wentink describes a method for coexistence between different wireless systems (e.g., Wi-Fi and Bluetooth) operating in the same unlicensed band. One device sends a "coexistence request" to another device, proposing a specific time-frequency allocation. The second device can accept, reject, or propose a different allocation. This creates a direct negotiation between the two co-located devices to deconflict their use of the shared spectrum.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claim 1 (Method): This reference teaches a clear negotiating step between two wireless systems to coordinate frequency use. One device is enabled to operate based on the outcome of this negotiation. However, the context is peer-to-peer negotiation between two co-located, independent devices (like Bluetooth and Wi-Fi in the same handset) in an unlicensed band. It does not describe the specific hierarchical relationship of the '833 patent, where a low-power, "non-network" device negotiates with the central control plane (RRC) of a wide-area, "overlying wireless network" (like a cellular network) to have that network clear spectrum. This contextual difference is likely sufficient to avoid anticipation.
  • Claim 24 (Wireless Network): Wentink does not describe a system with a central RRC controlling base stations in a wide-area network. The negotiation is distributed and peer-to-peer. Therefore, it does not anticipate claim 24.

Obviousness Analysis (35 U.S.C. § 103)

An analysis of the independent claims of US patent 8,730,833 in light of the prior art cited during prosecution suggests strong arguments for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The core of the invention is the use of a primary wireless network's own control plane—the Radio Resource Controller (RRC)—to actively negotiate with and create spectrum space for a secondary, non-network device. While no single reference appears to disclose this exact architecture, the combination of existing technologies would have made this solution obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) at the time of the invention.

For the purpose of this analysis, a POSITA is defined as an individual with a bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering or a related field and several years of experience in the design and implementation of wireless communication systems, including knowledge of cellular network architecture (e.g., RRC functions) and dynamic spectrum management techniques.

Primary Obviousness Combination: Chandra ('644) in view of Wentink ('190)

A strong argument can be made that independent claims 1, 12, 18, and 24 are obvious over the combination of Chandra ('644) and Wentink ('190).

1. Chandra ('644) as a Base Reference: Chandra teaches the foundational system of a secondary device requesting spectrum access from a centralized "spectrum access manager" (SAM). The SAM consults a database of primary user activity and grants a channel lease. This discloses the broad steps of a secondary device initiating a request and being enabled to use a specific frequency, as required by claim 1. The SAM is analogous to the RRC in claim 24, as it is a central controller that manages spectrum access.

2. Identifying the Gap in Chandra: The primary difference between Chandra and the '833 patent is the nature of the spectrum allocation. Chandra’s SAM relies on a database of incumbent activity—it finds existing "white space." It does not teach a direct, real-time negotiation with the primary network's own operational controller (the RRC) to have that network dynamically constrain its own base stations to create new white space on demand. The communication is one-way from the database to the secondary user, not a two-way negotiation with the primary network itself.

3. Applying the Teachings of Wentink ('190): Wentink teaches the specific concept of a "coexistence negotiation" between two different wireless systems to deconflict the use of a shared band. One device sends a request, and the other can accept, reject, or propose an alternative. While Wentink applies this in a peer-to-peer context (e.g., Wi-Fi and Bluetooth), it explicitly introduces the principle of an interactive, back-and-forth negotiation to coordinate spectrum use.

4. Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, starting with Chandra's system, would recognize its primary limitation: the database of primary user activity could be static, incomplete, or quickly outdated, especially if the primary "user" is a dynamic cellular network with constantly changing traffic loads. To create a more robust, efficient, and real-time system, the POSITA would be motivated to replace the static database lookup with a direct communication channel to the primary network's own control system. The negotiation mechanism taught by Wentink provides a clear blueprint for how this communication could be structured. The motivation would be to improve the reliability and speed of spectrum access by querying the network directly rather than consulting a secondary database. This would allow the secondary device to get a definitive, real-time answer and would enable the primary network to make more intelligent decisions about which frequencies it could spare based on its current operational state.

Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to modify Chandra’s system by replacing the database-lookup mechanism with a direct negotiation protocol, as taught by Wentink, between the secondary device's associated UE and the primary network's RRC. This combination would result in the system claimed in the '833 patent, where the RRC receives a request from a UE (acting on behalf of the secondary device), negotiates access, and controls its own base stations to free up the allowed frequency.

Secondary Obviousness Combination: Mishra ('806) in view of Channabasappa ('692)

An alternative obviousness argument can be constructed using Mishra ('806) as the base reference combined with Channabasappa ('692).

1. Mishra ('806) as a Base Reference: Mishra, similar to Chandra, describes a system where a secondary cognitive radio queries a central database to find available licensed spectrum. This teaches the elements of a secondary device requesting and receiving permission to operate in a shared band.

2. Applying the Teachings of Channabasappa ('692): Channabasappa discloses a "channel manager" that acts as an intermediary to coordinate channel access between different radio systems. A device sends a request to the channel manager, which then checks for availability and potential interference before granting or denying the request. Channabasappa explicitly teaches the concept of a dedicated manager whose job is to facilitate coexistence and arbitrate access between disparate systems sharing a channel.

3. Motivation to Combine: A POSITA looking at Mishra's database-centric system would identify the same weakness as in Chandra's: the database is a proxy for the network's real status. The POSITA would be motivated to improve this system by creating a more direct interface to the primary network. Channabasappa's "channel manager" provides a clear model for such an interface. The obvious and logical next step would be to integrate this channel manager function directly into the primary network's existing brain—its RRC.

By combining the systems, a POSITA would replace Mishra's database with Channabasappa's active channel manager and implement that manager within the primary network's RRC. This would achieve the claimed invention: a secondary device's UE sends a request to the primary network's RRC (now acting as the channel manager), which then uses its inherent control over its own base stations to evaluate and grant the request, thereby enabling the secondary device to operate. The motivation is to achieve more accurate and dynamic coordination than a simple database lookup could provide.