US 8898260

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number and any 2026 CAFC activity.

Let me dig deeper into the 2026 docket activity and the reexamination/PTAB status specifically for the '260 patent.

One more targeted search for any 2026 Federal Circuit docket activity.

US 8,898,260 B2 — Analyst Summary

Caveat on scope of what I found: I searched for this exact number (8,898,260 / US14/297,616 / "8898260"). I found no Federal Circuit (CAFC) 2026 docket naming the '260 patent specifically. The 2026 activity I located for this patent is at the PTAB and in ex parte reexamination, not at the CAFC. The CAFC activity in the Cellspin family that surfaced concerns sibling patents, and it is from 2019/2024, not 2026. I flag this explicitly rather than infer an appeal exists.

---

1. Bibliographic data (from the patent text itself)

Priority chain (all sharing one specification): provisional 61/017,202 (filed 2007‑12‑28) → 12/333,303 (filed 2008‑12‑11, now US 8,392,591) → 13/740,214 (filed 2013‑01‑13, now US 8,700,790) → 14/172,913 (filed 2014‑02‑05, now US 8,798,539) → 14/297,616 (the '260 patent). The '260 is one of ~21 family applications.

Note on assignments: The 2018‑07‑27 "reassignment" records to Williams, Klein, Kessinger, Silverman, Khan, Kastelic, Akella, Lin, Virmani, McSweener, and Singh are recorded as security interests, not transfers of title. Current assignee of record remains CellSpinSoft Inc.

---

2. Abstract

A method and system for using a digital data capture device with a Bluetooth (BT)‑enabled mobile device to publish data and multimedia content to websites automatically or with minimal user intervention. A client application resides on the BT mobile device; if the capture device lacks built‑in BT, a BT communication device is attached. The BT device is paired with the mobile device. The client application detects capture of data/multimedia on the capture device and initiates transfer of the content and associated files. The capture device transfers the content to the client application. The client application automatically publishes the transferred content to one or more websites.

Important scope note: The specification and abstract are about camera‑to‑mobile‑to‑website publishing, but the claims as issued are narrower and different in emphasis — they are directed to application‑layer segmentation of a file and resilient, resumable transfer to a web service (segmentation, segment identifiers, user identifiers, reply messages, and post‑interruption synchronization).

---

3. Independent claims in plain language

Claim 1 — Segmented, resumable upload with application‑layer IDs (the base independent claim).
A software module on the BT‑enabled mobile device:

1. determines the file size;
2. splits the file into data segments at the application layer (layer 7 / Internet application layer — see claims 5, 9, 14, 18);
3. tags each segment with a segment identifier corresponding to the content range of file data in that segment;
4. tags each segment with a user identifier that uniquely identifies a particular user of the destination web service;
5. transfers a segment + user ID + segment ID to the web service and receives a reply message confirming successful transfer;
6. repeats until all segments are transferred;
7. if the transfer is interrupted, after the network connection is restored: sends a synchronization request at the application layer asking the web service what file data it has successfully received for that user identifier; receives a synchronization reply; and resumes the transfer based on that reply.

The web service side: receives all segments with the user ID and segment IDs, stores them for that user ID, and makes the segmented data available for public or private consumption over the internet.

Claim 6 — Two‑part segmentation (metadata segment + payload segment) with resume.
Same framework, but the file is split into a first segment containing metadata (at least one of file name, file size, file type) and a second segment containing the file data. Each is tagged with the user identifier and transferred separately, each with its own reply message. If the second segment's transfer is interrupted, the same sync‑request/sync‑reply/resume flow applies — where "resuming" means creating new segments containing the remaining data, applying content‑range segment identifiers and the user identifier at the application layer, and transferring them.

Claim 10 — Same as claim 1, but adds server‑side reassembly.
Identical client‑side steps to claim 1 (including the interruption/synchronization/resume flow), but the web service must automatically reassemble the received segments using the segment identifiers and the user identifier at the application layer, and then make the reassembled data file available for public or private consumption.

Claim 15 — Same as claim 6, but adds server‑side reassembly.
The two‑segment/resume flow of claim 6 plus the claim 10‑style requirement that the web service automatically reassemble the segments using segment identifiers and a user identifier at the application layer and make the reassembled data file available.

Dependent claims (recurring theme across 2‑5, 7‑9, 11‑14, 16‑18): data associated with file data = file name / size / type; file data = audio, video, image, text, or digital data; user identifier = user‑name, user‑password, user‑device‑information, user settings, or user preferences; application layer = OSI layer 7 or the Internet protocol suite application layer. (Minor drafting quirk: claim 9 depends on claim 7, not claim 6.)

---

4. Post‑grant proceedings and 2026 status (the part most relevant to your query)

• Ex parte reexamination 90/019,489 — Requested by Unified Patents on April 17, 2024 against the '260 patent. Granted July 15, 2024, finding a substantial new question of patentability on claims 1–18 (Art Unit 3992, Examiner Peng Ke). Requester correspondence: Ash Tankha; Unified Patent, LLC. I did not find a final reexamination certificate or termination in the results, so the outcome as of my search is uncertain.
• IPR2024-00760 — TikTok Inc. et al. v. Cellspin Soft, Inc. — Petition filed April 1, 2024 challenging claims 1–18 of the '260 patent (Petitioner RPIs included TikTok Inc., ByteDance Inc., ByteDance, Ltd., ByteDance PTE, Ltd., and TikTok PTE, Ltd.). Instituted September 30, 2024. Rehearing of the institution decision was denied (Paper 12, October 21, 2024). The proceeding was then stayed by Acting Director Stewart's sua sponte Director Review order (Paper 34, June 5, 2025), pending resolution of the RPI/sovereign‑entity issue.
• March 30, 2026 — Director Squires, Paper 42: Vacated the institution decisions and denied institution/terminated the seven "Cellspin Soft IPRs," including IPR2024‑00760, because TikTok failed to carry its burden to show a foreign government was not a real party‑in‑interest at petition filing (applying Tianma Microelectronics Co. v. LG Display Co., IPR2025‑01579, Paper 12 (Director Mar. 18, 2026) (precedential), and Return Mail). One aggregator now lists IPR2024‑00760 status as "Institution Denied" with decision date March 30, 2026.
• April 2026: Law360 reported (April 17, 2026) that the PTAB agreed to launch reviews of three Cellspin patents after the TikTok challenges were terminated. Whether the '260 patent is among those three is not confirmed in what I retrieved.
• June 30, 2026 (date is beyond the "current date" you supplied): Law360 reported three companies settled their Cellspin PTAB disputes after the Board agreed to review the patents. Again, tie to the '260 specifically is unconfirmed.

---

5. District court / CAFC litigation context

• Asserted in E.D. Tex.: Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. ByteDance, Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:23‑cv‑00496 (E.D. Tex.), and a related case at 2:23‑cv‑00227 — these are the parallel cases referenced in IPR2024‑00760 (Sotera stipulation, Fintiv arguments). Trial was scheduled for August 4, 2025 per the Patent Owner Preliminary Response in the sibling '030 IPR.
• Earlier campaign: Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (vacating §101 dismissal and attorney‑fee award, N.D. Cal.); on remand, summary judgment of noninfringement was affirmed in Nos. 2022‑2025, ‑2028, ‑2029, ‑2030, ‑2032, ‑2037 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2024), mandate Dec. 9, 2024; cert petition No. 24‑944. Those appeals involved the '794, '752, '698, and '847 patents — not the '260 patent.

---

6. Explicit uncertainties

1. No 2026 CAFC docket for the '260 patent was found. I cannot confirm any pending or decided Federal Circuit appeal in 2026 specifically involving 8,898,260.
2. Ex parte reexamination 90/019,489 outcome is unknown to me — granted July 15, 2024, but no certificate/termination surfaced.
3. Whether the '260 is among the three Cellspin patents the PTAB agreed to review in April 2026 is unconfirmed.
4. Date discrepancy: the environment date is October 1, 2026, while your instructions state April 26, 2026. I have reported the June 30, 2026 event because it appeared in search results, and flagged it.
5. Claim 9's dependency on claim 7 (rather than claim 6) is reproduced literally from the patent text; I have not corrected or reinterpreted it.

Primary sources: Google Patents full text (patents.google.com/patent/US8898260/en); PTAB IPR2024‑00760 papers (Institution Decision Sept. 30, 2024; Rehearing Decision Oct. 21, 2024; Director Review Order Paper 34 June 5, 2025; Paper 42 Mar. 30, 2026); USPTO ex parte reexamination 90/019,489 Order Granting Request (July 15, 2024); Federal Circuit Nos. 2022‑2025 et al. (Nov. 1, 2024); Unified Patents insight posts (May 15, 2024; July 16, 2024); Law360 items (Mar. 31, 2026; Apr. 17, 2026; June 30, 2026).

I'll research litigation involving US patent 8898260. Let me search multiple sources.

Let me dig deeper into the specific cases and verify which ones assert the '260 patent.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 8,898,260

Below is what I could verify from patent-litigation sources (Unified Patents litigation portal, Docket Alarm, Justia dockets, USPTO/PTAB records, and Federal Circuit/Supreme Court filings). I applied a strict literal match on 8,898,260 and excluded cases that assert only sibling patents from the same family (e.g., 8,738,794; 8,892,752; 9,528,698; 9,749,847; 8,756,336; 8,862,757; 8,904,030; 9,900,766; 10,425,806; 11,234,121; 11,659,381).

Note: I was not able to query PACER directly; the district-court entries below are drawn from docket aggregators and filed court documents. Where I could not confirm a disposition, I say so explicitly rather than guessing.

District court litigation in which the '260 patent was asserted

Patents asserted in Case 1 (per the AO 120 filing): 11,234,121; 10,425,806; 9,900,766; 8,898,260; 8,862,757; 8,756,336.
Patents asserted in Case 2 (per Dkt. 106): 11,659,381; 8,756,336; 8,862,757; 8,898,260; 9,900,766; 8,904,030; 11,234,121.

Related PTAB / administrative proceedings on the '260 patent (not district-court suits, but directly on point)

• IPR2024-00760, TikTok Inc. v. CellSpin Soft, Inc. (U.S. Pat. 8,898,260), petition filed early April 2024; instituted Sept. 30, 2024 on claims 1–18. The Board's June 2, 2025 order denied Cellspin's motion to terminate (real-party-in-interest / Return Mail arguments). On June 5, 2025 the Director initiated sua sponte Director Review and stayed the proceedings; a March 30, 2026 order (Paper 42) vacated the institution decision and denied institution, because Petitioner TikTok failed to carry its burden that a foreign government was not a real party-in-interest.
• Ex parte reexamination 90/019,489, requester Unified Patents, LLC, requesting reexamination of U.S. Pat. 8,898,260, filed April 17, 2024; granted July 15, 2024 (Art Unit 3992, Examiner Peng Ke), finding a substantial new question of patentability affecting claims 1–18.

Cases that do NOT involve the '260 patent (flagged to prevent confusion)

• The 2017–2018 N.D. Cal. round — Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., No. 4:17-cv-05928, and the consolidated suits against Nike, Fossil/Misfit, Garmin, Nikon, Panasonic, GoPro, Canon, JK Imaging, Moov, and Under Armour — asserted U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,738,794; 8,892,752; 9,749,847; and 9,528,698 — not 8,898,260. (Disposition: § 101 dismissals were reversed on appeal in Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2019); summary judgment of non-infringement followed in 2022.)
• Garmin USA, Inc. v. Cellspin Soft, Inc., No. 19-400 (U.S. Supreme Court cert. petition, 2019) — addressed the '794/'752/'847/'698 patents, not '260.
• Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Panasonic Corp., No. 2020-1948 (Fed. Cir., Rule 36 affirmance of IPR2019-00131) — the '698 patent, not '260.
• The 2025 Cellspin filings — Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:25-cv-00949 (E.D. Tex., filed Sept. 15, 2025); Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Garmin Corporation, No. 2:25-cv-00950 (E.D. Tex.); and Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fossil Stores I, Inc. et al., No. 2:25-cv-00683 (E.D. Tex., filed July 3, 2025). The DJI complaint asserts 9,900,766; 10,425,806; and 11,234,121 — not 8,898,260. I could not confirm the patent lists in the Garmin or Fossil complaints, so I cannot rule those two in or out for the '260 patent.

Bottom line

Two district-court actions are confirmed to assert U.S. Pat. No. 8,898,260: Cellspin Soft v. Panasonic (2:23-cv-00227, E.D. Tex., filed May 22, 2023) and Cellspin Soft v. ByteDance/TikTok (2:23-cv-00496, E.D. Tex., filed Oct. 20, 2023). Neither has produced a merits judgment on the '260 patent; the ByteDance case was stayed pending IPRs and is now active again after the March 30, 2026 Director Review vacated the IPR institutions. The '260 patent has also been the subject of PTAB IPR2024-00760 and ex parte reexam 90/019,489.

Caveats: (1) I could not verify docket status directly through PACER, so filing dates/case numbers come from aggregators and filed documents; (2) some search results reflected events dated after April 26, 2026 (e.g., a March 30, 2026 Director Review order and a June 2026 Law360 item), which I have reported as-is rather than resolving the date discrepancy; (3) if you need the Panasonic case's ultimate disposition or the Garmin/Fossil patent lists confirmed, those should be pulled from PACER.

I'll start by verifying the one proceeding hinted at in the patent record — IPR2024-00760 — and checking for any others.

Interesting — the record shows TikTok as petitioner, not Unified Patents (Unified filed the ex parte reexam). Let me dig into the trial history and post-institution events.

PTAB / AIA Trial Activity — US 8,898,260 B2 (Automatic multimedia upload for publishing data and multimedia content, Cellspin Soft, Inc.)

Threshold caveat on sourcing. Your structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block states that the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for '260. That is inconsistent with the patent record itself and with public PTAB documents. The Google Patents record for US 8,898,260 carries a litigation flag — "PTAB case IPR2024-00760 filed (Pending - Instituted)" — and I located the underlying Board and Director papers. I therefore do not default to "no PTAB activity." Note also that the "pending / instituted" status on that aggregator page appears stale: the institution was vacated and the petition denied on 2026-03-30. Prefer the Director's decision over the aggregator status string.

---

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding against US 8,898,260: IPR2024-00760, TikTok Inc. v. Cellspin Soft, Inc. Breakdown by ultimate status: 0 active, 0 claims invalidated by FWD, 0 claims sustained by FWD, 0 settled, 1 previously instituted but now terminated with the petition denied (institution vacated by the Director on 2026-03-30). No Final Written Decision was ever reached on any claim.

Bottom-line defensive posture: unusual and, on balance, favorable to a defendant. The patent has not been narrowed by the Board — claims 1–18 remain in force as issued, and there is no IPR estoppel because no trial was ever instituted on the merits (the 2024 institution was vacated). So the "the claims are already canceled" defense is not available. But the flip side is that TikTok's denial was procedural, not merits-based — meaning the prior art read (Aaltonen/Drescher; Takahashi/Na/Lind) was never adjudicated and is fully available to any defendant in litigation, unencumbered by § 315(e)(2). The real invalidity pressure on '260 today comes from the co-pending ex parte reexamination 90/019,489 (Unified Patents, filed 2024-04-17, granted 2024-07-15 on claims 1–18), not from the PTAB.

---

IPR2024-00760 — TikTok Inc. v. Cellspin Soft, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319)

• Filed: 2024-04-01 (petition). Patent Owner's Response was filed 2025-01-03; Petitioner's Reply 2024-08-16 to the POPR.

• Status: Structured/aggregator record says "Pending - Instituted" / "Institution Denied" depending on the source. Plain English: instituted 2024-09-30, then sua sponte Director Review stayed the case 2025-06-05, and on 2026-03-30 the Director vacated the institution decision, denied the petition, and terminated the IPR. The trial is over with no merits ruling.

• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Gregg I. Anderson, Cynthia M. Hardman, and Michael A. Valek (Scheduling Order, 2024-10-01; Patent Owner Response caption).

• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 1–18 (independent method claims 1, 6, 10, 15). Two asserted § 103 obviousness grounds:

  • Ground 1 — Aaltonen et al., US 2005/0209927 A1 (pub. 2005-09) in view of Drescher, WO 2008/028508 A1 (pub. 2008-03);
  • Ground 2 — Takahashi et al., JP 2005-303511 (pub. 2005-10) in view of Na et al., US 2006/0129631 A1 (pub. 2006-06-15) and Lind et al., WO 2005/109781 A1 (pub. 2005-11).

  No § 102 or § 112 grounds appear in the record I found. The dispute was heavily about claim construction of "application layer" (OSI layer 7 vs. Internet-protocol-suite application layer) and about the secondary references.

• Institution decision: Instituted 2024-09-30 (Paper 8) — "we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–18 of the '260 patent based upon the asserted grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition," finding a reasonable likelihood as to at least one challenged claim. The panel rejected Patent Owner's discretion arguments because Petitioner had filed a Sotera-style stipulation (Ex. 1026, 2024-04-01) not to pursue before the district court any ground raised or that reasonably could have been raised in the petition, contingent on institution. Patent Owner's Request for Rehearing (2024-10-11) attacked Fintiv factor four and §§ 314(a)/316(b); institution was not disturbed.

  • Institution decision: Docket Alarm, IPR2024-00760 Paper 8

• Final Written Decision: None. No FWD ever issued. All 18 claims were challenged; no claim was canceled and no claim was held patentable by the Board. Do not cite an FWD for this patent — there isn't one.

• Settlement / termination: Not a settlement. Termination came from Director Review:

  1. 2025-03-05 / 2025-03-18 — Patent Owner moved to terminate, arguing (a) TikTok failed to name the Chinese Communist Party as an RPI under § 312(a)(2), and (b) an entity controlled by a sovereign is not a "person" eligible to petition under Return Mail, Inc. v. USPS, 587 U.S. 618 (2019).
  2. 2025-06-02 — Board denied the motion (Paper 33), holding the alleged RPI omission did not require termination and declining to extend Return Mail to a foreign government.
  3. 2025-06-05 — Director (Stewart) initiated sua sponte Director Review and stayed all seven Cellspin IPRs (IPR2024-00757, -759, -760, -767, -768, -769, -770). (NYIPLA June 2025 PTAB update, Paper 34)
  4. 2026-01-15/23 — Post-YMTC briefing order (Paper 38), in view of Yangtze Memory Techs. Co. v. Micron Tech., Inc., IPR2025-00098/-00099, Paper 38 (Dir. Jan. 15, 2026) (informative) and TikTok's announced TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC (announced 2026-01-22).
  5. 2026-03-30 — Director John A. Squires, Paper 42: vacated the decisions granting institution, denied the petitions, and terminated the IPRs. Anchor holding: Tianma Microelectronics Co. v. LG Display Co., IPR2025-01579, Paper 12 (Dir. Mar. 18, 2026) (precedential) — "a foreign government is not a 'person' under the AIA." Because Patent Owner put RPI into dispute under Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., 903 F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and Petitioner elected to introduce no rebuttal evidence, "Petitioner failed to carry its burden to establish that a foreign government was not an RPI at the time of its petition."
     • Decision: USPTO, IPR2024-00757 et al., Paper 42 (2026-03-30); see also the earlier additional-briefing order and the Board's order denying termination, 2025-06-02.
  • Oral hearing: IPR2024-00760 was on the PTAB's published June 2025 hearing calendar for 2025-06-17 (PTAB June 2025 hearing schedule); however, the case was stayed 2025-06-05. I could not confirm whether the hearing went forward or was vacated — treat the hearing date as scheduled-but-moot.

• Appeal: None found. I located no Federal Circuit appeal (and no CourtListener docket) of the 2026-03-30 Director Review decision or of anything else in IPR2024-00760. The decision is less than three months old relative to the most recent public reporting, and Director Review decisions are directly reviewable under § 319/§ 141, so a future appeal is possible — but on the record I have, no appeal exists. (Distinguish the unrelated earlier Cellspin appeals: Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., No. 2020-1947 (Fed. Cir.), and the § 101 line of cases ending in [Garmin USA, Inc.](/litigations/by-defendant/Garmin%20USA%2C%20Inc.) v. Cellspin Soft, Inc., No. 19-400 (U.S.).)

• Defensive value: This proceeding cancels nothing and binds no one. Because institution was vacated and no trial was instituted, § 315(e)(2) estoppel never attached to TikTok or its privies, and the Sotera stipulation was expressly conditional on institution — so it too evaporated. Practically: TikTok (and anyone else) may freely re-assert the Aaltonen/Drescher and Takahashi/Na/Lind combinations, and any other art, in district court or a fresh petition. Do not represent to a court or client that '260 has been "PTAB-tested" or narrowed; it has not.

---

Strategic summary

Claim-by-claim status of US 8,898,260. All asserted claims are UNTESTED on the merits before the PTAB. Claims 1–18 (independents 1, 6, 10, 15) were challenged in IPR2024-00760 and all 18 survived the IPR by operation of procedure, not by adjudication — the Board instituted, then the Director vacated institution and denied the petition before any FWD. There are no CANCELED claims and no SUSTAINED claims to report. Do not say "claims 1–5 were canceled" or "the patent has survived two IPRs" — neither is true here. The patent also faced one prior ex parte reexamination, control no. 90/019,489 (Unified Patents, LLC; filed 2024-04-17; granted 2024-07-15 on a substantial new question of patentability affecting claims 1–18, Examiner Peng Ke, Art Unit 3992). I could not confirm the outcome of that reexamination (certificate issued, claims confirmed/cancelled/amended) from the sources available — flag it as open and check the reexamination file in Patent Center, because a reexam certificate cancelling or amending claims would be far more consequential than anything the PTAB did.

Estoppel landscape. The clean point: there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel on this patent. Because no inter partes review was instituted (institution vacated), the petitioner is not barred from raising in the parallel district court "any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised" in the IPR. The Sotera stipulation at Ex. 1026 was also conditional on institution and therefore does not bind TikTok. So a defendant/privy of TikTok retains the full prior-art menu — including, but not limited to, the Ground 1 and Ground 2 references — subject only to ordinary district-court invalidity practice and whatever IPR is later instituted. The only res judicata-adjacent effect is the Director's RPI/eligibility ruling: TikTok Inc. (as against Cellspin, on petitions identifying those ByteDance RPIs) was held ineligible to petition, and joined petitioners LifeScan, Senseonics and Ascensia had their joinders to IPR2024-00768/-769/-770 vacated with leave to proceed on their own petitions (IPR2025-00102/-00103/-00104). That is a petitioner-eligibility holding, not a validity holding.

Pattern signals. This is one node in a coordinated campaign. TikTok filed at least seven IPRs against Cellspin patents on 2024-04-01 (IPR2024-00757 ('336), -00759 ('757), -00760 ('260), -00767 ('381), -00768 ('121), -00769 ('766), -00770 ('030)), all instituted, all subject to the same 2025-06-05 sua sponte Director Review and the same 2026-03-30 vacatur/denial — a single-order kill, not seven merits losses. A defensive aggregator, Unified Patents, LLC, is in the chain, but via ex parte reexamination (90/019,489 on '260; a parallel Unified reexam on '757), not via IPR. Patent owner Cellspin has litigated aggressively: E.D. Tex. suits 2:23-cv-00496 (ByteDance/TikTok) and 2:23-cv-00227, a stay pending the IPRs (Dkt. 106, 2025-01-27) that was lifted on 2026-07-16 (Dkt. 119) after the IPRs died, and a track record of collateral appeals (Cellspin v. Canon, No. 2020-1947; the Garmin § 101 cert petition). Per Law360, after TikTok's rejection the Board instituted reviews of three Cellspin patents in April 2026 (different patents/petitioners) and three other companies settled their Cellspin PTAB disputes in June 2026 — signals that '260 is one of the more lightly-protected members of this family going forward.

---

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant: do not build your invalidity narrative on an "already-canceled claims" theory — there is no FWD and no canceled claim. Instead (i) cite the 2026-03-30 Director Review decision, Paper 42, for the proposition that the Board's institution in IPR2024-00760 was vacated and the petition denied ("the decisions granting institution are hereby vacated, the Petitions are denied, and these IPRs are terminated"), which confirms no IPR estoppel; and (ii) preserve and press the Ground 1 (Aaltonen + Drescher) and Ground 2 (Takahashi + Na + Lind) combinations in district court, where they were never adjudicated. A fresh IPR by a U.S.-eligible petitioner on the same or better art remains open — subject to the Director's newly tightened institution practice and the Tianma/RPI eligibility trap, which now cuts against foreign-government-controlled petitioners.
• Track the reexamination before anything else. Control no. 90/019,489 (Unified Patents; filed 2024-04-17; granted 2024-07-15) is the live validity attack on claims 1–18 of '260, and is not subject to PTAB estoppel or the Tianma petitioner-eligibility bar. Check Patent Center for a reexamination certificate (confirmed/cancelled/amended claims). If claims are canceled, that is your citation; if not, the claims stand untouched by any tribunal.
• Calendar the district court. The E.D. Tex. stay in Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. ByteDance, Ltd. et al., 2:23-cv-00496, was lifted 2026-07-16 (Dkt. 119) after the IPRs terminated, so infringement/f invalidity deadlines are running again. No statutory PTAB trial clock applies to '260, because no trial is instituted.
• No appeal to monitor yet. No Federal Circuit appeal of the 2026-03-30 decision was found. If Cellspin (or TikTok) appeals the Director Review decision, the disposition would matter chiefly on the RPI/Return Mail issue, not on claim validity — but it would not resurrect the vacated institution in the meantime.

Confidence and open items: High confidence on the IPR2024-00760 timeline (petition 2024-04-01; institution 2024-09-30; stay 2025-06-05; vacatur/denial 2026-03-30) and on the absence of any FWD. Lower confidence / unverified: (1) whether the 2025-06-17 oral hearing occurred; (2) the disposition of Patent Owner's 2024-10-11 request for rehearing of institution; (3) the outcome of reexamination 90/019,489; (4) whether any notice of appeal has since been filed. I found no second AIA trial on '260 and no settlement in IPR2024-00760.

I'll research the assignment chain, litigation, and PTAB record before reconstructing.

Let me dig for the assignment reel/frame records, the litigation history, and the company's product status.

Now let me try to pin down the actual reel/frame numbers from USPTO assignment records.

I'll research US patent 8898260 and its cited prior art references. Let me start with targeted searches.

Let me get the exact front-page references and the IPR prior-art analysis.

Let me pin down the exact front-page references and the IPR grounds' references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 8,898,260 B2

1. Verification of the target patent (literal identification)

Per the strict rule, I am reading the number literally as 8,898,260 — not rounding, substituting, or "correcting" it. The search confirmed exactly this patent and no close variant:

Sources: Google Patents US8898260; FreePatentsOnline 8898260.

Claim subject matter (important for the § 102 analysis): all four independent claims are directed to segmented file transfer from a Bluetooth-enabled mobile device to a web service, characterized by (i) segmenting at the application-layer level, (ii) a segment identifier keyed to the content range, (iii) a user identifier, (iv) a per-segment reply message, and (v) a synchronization request/reply + resume routine after an interrupted transfer. Claim 10 and claim 15 add reassembly at the web service. This matters because the examiner-cited references on the face of this patent were cited against the publishing disclosure, not against the segmentation/synchronization concept that the issued claims actually recite.

---

2. Face-of-patent "References Cited" (§ 102/§ 103 candidates at examination)

⚠️ Honesty caveat: I was able to retrieve only a partial, truncated view of the (56) references block for the '260 patent itself. The single most direct extraction (IPR2024-00760, Ex. 1001 — the patent itself, via Docket Alarm) shows the examiner-cited U.S. documents as:

Important nuance you should not miss: the "References Cited" lists are not identical across the family. For example:

• US 8,738,794 (same family) lists Kennedy '960, US 2006/0264176 (Hong), US 2008/0163311 (St. John-Larkin), and US 2009/0023428 (Behzad et al.).
• US 8,756,336 lists US 7,519,916 (Hartwell), US 2002/0167932 (McGowan), Kennedy '960, US 2008/0109377 (Singh), and Behzad.

Those are different patents, so I have deliberately not attributed them to 8,898,260. I could not verify whether the '260 face list contains more than the two Kennedy/Kelley entries shown above. Do not treat the table as a certified complete list.

---

3. The substantive, currently-relevant prior art: PTAB IPR2024-00760 (TikTok v. CellSpinSoft)

The most probative prior-art record for the issued claims is IPR2024-00760, filed April 1, 2024, challenging claims 1–18 of the '260 patent. Institution was granted on 2024-09-30 (Institution Decision, Docket Alarm; Petition, Docket Alarm).

Asserted grounds and the references:

Full citations, dates, descriptions, and claim mapping (per the record I retrieved):

Key legal point on § 102 vs § 103: every reference in IPR2024‑00760 was pleaded as a § 103 obviousness combination, not as a § 102 anticipation. Aaltonen is the only stand-alone candidate strong enough to be argued as anticipatory, and even there Petitioner chose to combine it with Drescher, which suggests Petitioner did not believe Aaltonen alone discloses the application-layer content-range segment identifier and the sync/resume routine of the independent claims.

---

4. Which claim(s) each reference potentially anticipates/reaches under § 102

Applying 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires every element of the claim in a single reference. On this record:

• Claim 1 (and its dependents 2–5): no single reference located discloses all of — application-layer segmentation, a segment identifier corresponding to the content range, a user identifier, a per-segment reply message, and the sync-request/sync-reply/resume routine. Kennedy and Kelley (face-cited) do not reach these; Aaltonen alone was not asserted as anticipatory. Best § 102 candidate: none conclusively; Aaltonen is the closest but was used under § 103.
• Claim 6 (and 7–9): the "first segment = metadata (name/size/type), second segment = file data" split. None of the retrieved references expressly discloses this two-segment architecture as anticipation.
• Claim 10 (and 11–14): adds web-service reassembly from segment identifiers + user identifier. No single reference located discloses this in the application-layer, content-range form claimed.
• Claim 15 (and 16–18): combines the metadata-first split and web-service reassembly. Same conclusion.

---

5. Verification gaps and cautions (I will not fabricate these)

1. Face-of-patent (56) list is incomplete in my retrieval. I can only confirm Kennedy 2003/0157960 and Kelley 2003/0217189 for the '260 patent; do not cite that as the full list without pulling the granted PDF cover page directly from USPTO PatentCenter.
2. Takahashi and Lind citations were not recovered — I could not retrieve their patent/application numbers, dates, or titles. Treat them as unverified.
3. Drescher's date vs. priority date. WO 2008/028508 (2008‑03‑13) post-dates the 2007‑12‑28 priority date. The Institution Decision states the record "does not show there is any issue about whether the references relied on are prior art," which implies the parties treat the challenged segmentation claims' effective date as later than the 2007 provisional — worth confirming, because it is outcome-determinative for the § 102/§ 103 date analysis.
4. Proceeding status conflict. One aggregator (ipverse.greyb.com IPR2024-00760) lists "Institution Denied" with a 2026‑03‑30 decision date, which contradicts the 2024‑09‑30 institution-grant decision I extracted. I could not reconcile these. Verify current status on the PTAB PTACTS/portal before relying on either.
5. Related but distinct proceedings (do not conflate):
   • Unified Patents ex parte reexaminations against the '260 (filed 2024‑04‑17).
   • Sibling IPRs: IPR2024‑00757 ('757), ‑00759, ‑00767 ('381), ‑00768 ('121), ‑00769 ('766), ‑00770 ('030).
   • IPR2019‑00127 (Canon v. CellSpin) concerns a different patent (the '698), not 8,898,260.

Bottom line: The examiner-facing citations for 8,898,260 (Kennedy '960, Kelley '189 — and I could not rule out additional entries) are general-context art that support at most the broad "mobile device transfers content to a service" idea, and do not appear to anticipate the issued segmentation claims under § 102. The genuinely material prior art for the issued claims is the IPR2024‑00760 set — Aaltonen (US 2005/0209927 A1) primary, with Drescher (WO 2008/028508 A1), Na (US 2006/0129631 A1), plus Takahashi and Lind — and it is asserted under § 103, not § 102. Any § 102 anticipation position on claims 1/6/10/15 would fail on the present record because no single reference discloses the application-layer content-range segment identifier together with the user-identifier sync/resume routine.

I'll ground this §103 analysis in actual prior-art references. Let me search for the key technical elements.

The search surfaced the actual TikTok IPR petition against the '260 patent and its prior-art references. Let me pin down the exact grounds and reference identities.

Let me nail down the remaining references (Lind, and the reexam's references) to complete the picture.

Obviousness Analysis — US 8,898,260 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note on "the Prior Art section of this page." The Google Patents record for US 8,898,260 does not contain a substantive prior-art reference list. Its prior-art content consists only of (i) the prior-art keywords — data, file, web service, user, segment — and (ii) classification/citation metadata. There is no cited-art table in the fetched page. The operative prior-art universe for this patent is therefore the co-pending IPR2024-00760 record and ex parte reexamination 90/019,489, both of which attack claims 1–18. I ground this analysis there and cite those sources. Where I lack a reference's content, I say so rather than infer it.

Critical date. December 28, 2007 (provisional 61/017,202). All references below except Drescher pre-date it squarely. Drescher is dated March 13, 2008 but is asserted under pre-AIA §102(e) on the strength of a September 7, 2006 PCT filing date (PCT/EP2006/008710) designating the US — which predates December 28, 2007. The IPR petition argued this expressly.

A note on the priority date that matters to invalidity. The reexamination order records that the Examiner amended claims 1, 7, 12 and 18 on 10/10/2014 to insert "wherein the segment identifier corresponds to the content range of said file data that is being transferred in a given data segment," and cited that limitation as part of the reason for allowance. That is the single most prosecution-critical limitation, and every ground below meets it head-on.

---

1. Legal framework and level of ordinary skill

Under Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the question is whether the differences between the claims and the prior art would have been obvious to a POSITA at the critical date. KSR supplies the combination rationales used below: (a) combination of familiar elements according to known methods yielding predictable results; (b) a known technique ready for improvement; (c) a design incentive suggested by the nature of the problem.

POSITA (as Petitioner's declarant Dr. Traynor framed it, and as the Board accepted at institution): a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering or computer science, plus roughly two to three years of experience in mobile application development, network/Internet protocol design, or multimedia content management — a level at which HTTP, the OSI stack, chunked/resumable upload, and Bluetooth WPAN were all firmly conventional.

---

2. The prior-art universe

Assessed grounds (identical claim set, claims 1–18):

• Ground 1 — Aaltonen + Drescher
• Ground 2 — Takahashi + Na
• Ground 3 — Takahashi + Na + Lind

---

3. Ground 1 — Aaltonen + Drescher

What each reference teaches

Aaltonen is the closest single-reference art and supplies nearly the whole client-side flow:

• Upload content is segmented into blocks ("upload content 114" divided into blocks of packets, FIG. 10).
• Transfer occurs via HTTP POST/PUT — i.e., "at the application layer level," which the claims (¶5/9/14/18) define as OSI layer 7 or the Internet protocol suite application layer.
• Interruption recovery (FIG. 11) — precisely the claimed sync/resume loop: after re-establishing communication the sender "request[s] the bit-length or size of the portion of the upload content 114 received by the upload agent"; the recipient "can return a response, such as a 200 OK message, that includes header information (e.g., content-length) specifying the size of the received portion"; the sender then uploads "only the remaining portion of the content… a range of 'X+1' through the last bit," using a partial POST/PUT with a range header. That is a synchronization request → synchronization reply → resumption keyed to a content range.
• Reassembly: data packets include "a table uniquely identifying the block of packets before or after the respective information packet… and the correct order of the packets"; "[b]y directly or indirectly identifying the order of the data packets, the upload agent can subsequently order the packets in the same order that the [sender] uploaded the packets."
• Content types: "graphic, audio and/or video content" and "text content"; a terminal "coupled to one or more portable electronic devices 33, such as digital cameras and/or other multimedia capturing… devices."

Drescher supplies the missing element — a per-segment user identifier. It discloses chunked upload of large files/resources over the Internet, and that an "identity provider 220" at the client "adds to each HTTP request 802 sent to the server (i.e. for each chunk, and for PUT and GET) a header for each identity to be transferred," including "a name particularizing the role of the… party[] involved in the request," which the server's security system uses to determine permissions. Drescher's PUT Response may return "the server's log of progress in processing the PUT Request."

Element mapping

Motivation to combine

1. Same field, same problem, same protocol. Both address "sending large files or resources over the internet" via HTTP requests, both divide content into chunks, and both use HTTP request/response pairs. KSR predictable-results rationale applies directly.
2. Drescher solves the precise gap. The '260's own framing is a mobile device with limited memory/processing and intermittent connectivity, uploading to a multi-user web service. Drescher's per-chunk identity header is the conventional way to attribute chunks to a party and enforce access permissions — exactly the "user identifier that uniquely identifies a particular user of the web service." A POSITA adding per-user attribution to Aaltonen's chunked upload would naturally place the identity in the HTTP request header, because Drescher teaches doing so "for each chunk."
3. Articulated business/technical need. Aaltonen's upload agent stores content in "content storage 112" for later sharing; attributing stored content to a user requires exactly Drescher's header mechanism.

Where Ground 1 is weakest (Patent Owner's attacks in the POR)

The Patent Owner Response (Jan. 3, 2025) mounted four specific attacks — these are the pressure points to brief:

1. "Segment identifier" vs. UDP "information packets." PO argues Aaltonen's information packets are transport-layer (UDP) constructs, not application-layer segment identifiers, and that Aaltonen teaches they "need not [be] maintain[ed] in storage" — antithetical to a reassembly identifier. This attacks both the "application layer" and "segment identifier = content range" limitations. Petitioner answers by pointing to Aaltonen's HTTP blocks and partial HTTP POST/PUT range header.
2. "For said user identifier" asymmetry. PO argues Petitioner mapped "user identifier" to Drescher for element 1[e] but then, for the sync request in 1[j], relied on Aaltonen's HEAD <URI>, where URI is a location within content storage 112, not a user identifier. This is a real consistency problem for the interruption branch of claim 1 and claims 6/15.
3. "Web service" / "the internet." PO argues Aaltonen's recipient is a DVB digital broadcast receiver/broadcaster, not a web service, and that none of Aaltonen's servers is "based on HTTP, XML, and SOAP." Claims 1/6/10/15 all require the destination be a web service and that the data be made available "over the internet."
4. Bodily incorporation. PO characterizes Drescher's ParHTTP as a different protocol (parallel HTTP for grid computing / UNICORE, replacing GridFTP), not HTTP, so a POSITA could not simply drop ParHTTP into Aaltonen.

Bottom line on Ground 1: the Board instituted on September 30, 2024, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one of claims 1–18 is unpatentable, so the Board viewed these attacks as answerable. Element 4 (bodily incorporation) is legally weak as a defense — KSR and In re Mouttet reject the bodily-incorporation standard — but elements 1–3 are genuine factual disputes on which a final written decision would have turned.

---

4. Ground 2 — Takahashi + Na

What each reference teaches

Takahashi (JP 2005-303511) discloses a mobile terminal that divides image data and uploads it in parts to a server. Its file name is formatted as "user ID + YYYYMMDDHHMISS" — i.e., a user identifier that uniquely identifies a particular user, carried with the data at the application layer. Its request messages carry header information including content type and content length (data associated with the file data). Critically, it uses a sequence number indicating from which point the upload should be resumed, so the server can "match the previously uploaded data and data to be newly uploaded" and the terminal can "resume the stopped upload from the point at which the previous upload was stopped," avoiding re-uploading the whole file.

Na (US 2006/0129631 A1) discloses upload of divided media data to an application server using request messages (either a request message preceding each upload, or a request message whose body contains the divided media data), each carrying a message ID (X-Msg-id, e.g., terminal number + upload time). Na expressly motivates resumption: "[t]he upload of the whole media […] be conducted again despite the fact that a portion of the media data has been already uploaded to the server" is undesirable; the sequence number lets the server "match the previously uploaded data and data to be newly uploaded."

Element mapping

Motivation to combine

1. Both are mobile-terminal-to-server media upload systems using divided data and request/response messaging. Same field, same problem (KSR factors a and c).
2. Na supplies the HTTP/application-layer framing and the request-message architecture that makes the combination work; the Petition argued MMS is "compatible with and endorses HTTP," rebutting the bodily-incorporation defense. Na's own background explicitly identifies the problem Takahashi's sequence number solves, so the references are not merely combinable — they are mutually corroborating.
3. Both identifiers are functionally synonymous in the combination. Takahashi's file-name user ID and Na's terminal number both uniquely identify a particular user; the Petition mapped the user identifier consistently across elements 1[e], 1[j], and 1[k] (transfer, sync request, and sync reply) to Takahashi's "user ID," with Na's message ID used to put that user ID into each request message. That consistency defeats the POR's "inconsistent mapping" argument (POR 84–91).

Weaknesses

• Takahashi is a Japanese-language reference; its probative value depends entirely on the certified translation (Ex. 1016, 23–45), which is attackable.
• Both references are mobile terminal-to-server, and the "web service" / "public or private consumption over the internet" requirement is met only by inference from the server architecture.
• PO's best argument is again "transferring a data segment along with said user identifier" construed as "in addition to" (POR 68–69). Petitioner's answer: Takahashi's filename is in the request message, and In re claim-construction practice does not read "along with" as requiring physical separateness — a strong rebuttal.

---

5. Ground 3 — Takahashi + Na + Lind

Ground 3 is the alternative formulation (Takahashi + Na + Lind, WO 2005/109781 A1, pub. Nov. 17, 2005). Lam not in a position to state Lind's substantive disclosure with confidence from the retrieved record — the searches returned its identity and date but not its technical content, and I will not fabricate it. The Petition presented Ground 3 as an alternative to Ground 2 over the same claim set (1–18), which indicates Lind supplies a secondary limitation rather than the core mapping. If Lind is a segmented-media-transfer / streaming disclosure, it would most plausibly be deployed to reinforce the "application layer segmentation," "web service," or "making available over the internet" elements. This should be verified against WO 2005/109781 before relying on it.

---

6. The reexamination art (90/019,489)

Independently of the IPR, the CRU granted ex parte reexamination on July 15, 2024 (Art Unit 3992), finding an SNQ on claims 1–18 on five references: Sohn (KR 100537818 B1), Bodic (SMS, EMS and MMS, 2d ed. 2005), Jin (KR 100608841 B1), Deshpande (US 7,206,804), and Wagner (US 8,385,950). The order states these were not applied in any prior rejection of the '260, which is what permits the SNQ on old-art grounds under the 2002 amendments to 35 U.S.C. § 303(a).

Two observations:

• Bodic is a textbook on MMS — a natural source for "segment the file, attach identifiers, upload to a server, notify/reply" messaging architecture on mobile devices, and it corroborates the Na-MMS line in Ground 2.
• Wagner (US 8,385,950) is an odd citation for pre-AIA §102(a) given its 2013 issue date; the order characterizes all five as §102(a) art and places the burden on the Patent Owner to establish an earlier invention date. The §102(a) characterization of Wagner is worth flagging as potentially incorrect — its availability more likely depends on §102(e) and its underlying filing date. I report the order as written rather than correcting it.

I cannot confirm the outcome of 90/019,489 (no reexamination certificate or termination surfaced in my searches). The earlier section flagged this uncertainty; I have nothing to add.

---

7. Dependent claims — all follow

The dependent claims add no independent inventive weight; each maps to express or inherent prior-art disclosures:

• Claims 2, 11 (file name/size/type): Takahashi's filename + Na's content-type/content-length headers; Drescher's HTTP headers.
• Claims 3, 7, 12, 16 (audio/video/image/text/digital data): Aaltonen's "graphic, audio and/or video content" and "text content"; Takahashi's image data; Na's media data; Aaltonen's MPEG-2 transport streams for "digital data."
• Claims 4, 8, 13, 17 (user-name/password/device-info/settings/preferences): Drescher's identity headers; Takahashi's user ID; Na's terminal number.
• Claims 5, 14, 18 (application layer = OSI layer 7 / Internet protocol suite): Aaltonen's HTTP; Drescher's ParHTTP; Na's HTTP messaging. These are definitional claims that are obvious on their face once the base claim falls.
• Claim 9 depends on claim 7, not claim 6 — a drafting quirk reproduced literally from the patent. It does not change the analysis, but any element-by-element chart must be built to the literal dependency or it will be attacked as a mapping error.

Net: if any one independent claim (1, 6, 10, or 15) falls, claims 2–5, 7–9, 11–14, and 16–18 fall with it.

---

8. Procedural posture — and why it does not establish validity

• IPR2024-00760 was instituted September 30, 2024 on claims 1–18 and all three grounds, the Board finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim. Rehearing was denied (Paper 12, Oct. 21, 2024).
• On March 30, 2026, Director Squires issued Paper 42, vacating the institution decisions and denying/terminating the seven Cellspin IPRs (including IPR2024-00760) because TikTok failed to carry its burden that a foreign government was not a real party-in-interest at petition filing, applying Tianma Microelectronics v. LG Display, IPR2025-01579, Paper 12 (Director Mar. 18, 2026) (precedential), and Return Mail. See the NYIPLA PTAB Committee materials (Apr. 21, 2026): https://www.nyipla.org/images/nyipla/Programs/2026/April21PTAB/April%[202026](/patent/202026)%20PTAB%20Committee%20Meeting.pdf

This termination is jurisdictional/procedural, not merits. No final written decision issued. Accordingly:

• There is no §315(e) estoppel, and no merits adjudication that the claims are non-obvious — the March 2026 paper expressly states the Board made no merits determination.
• The ex parte reexamination 90/019,489 continues in parallel, on a different reference set.
• The E.D. Tex. cases (2:23-cv-00496, 2:23-cv-00227) resume now that the IPRs are terminated.

So the record is best read as: the Board's institution decision is a strong signal that grounds 1–3 are, at minimum, non-frivolous and likely to succeed on the merits, but the '260 has not yet been adjudicated invalid.

---

9. Assessment and explicit uncertainties

Bottom line. Claims 1, 6, 10, and 15 of the '260 are, on the current record, most plausibly invalid under §103 over Aaltonen + Drescher (Ground 1), with Takahashi + Na (Ground 2) as an independently viable alternative. The strongest §103 case focuses on the two elements the Examiner used to allow the claims — segmentation at the application layer and a content-range segment identifier — both of which Aaltonen (resume Range (X+1):…), Drescher (Range: bytes=0-1048575), Takahashi (sequence-number resume point), and Na (sequence number) disclose. The motivation to combine is supplied by KSR's predictable-results and known-technique rationales: same field (HTTP file upload), same problem (large files, intermittent mobile connections), and mutual corroboration between references that identify and solve the same re-upload inefficiency.

Where invalidity could still fail (be candid about these):

1. "Segment identifier" as an application-layer construct. Aaltonen's information packets are characterized by PO as UDP/transport-layer; the application-layer requirement is a genuine dispute.
2. The "for said user identifier" chain in the interruption branch. Ground 1's use of Aaltonen's HEAD <URI> for the sync request, while the user identifier comes from Drescher, is a mapping asymmetry the Petitioner must cure.
3. "Web service" and "over the internet." Aaltonen's recipient is arguably a DVB broadcast receiver; the web-service limitation is not cleanly met in Ground 1.
4. The "Bluetooth enabled mobile device" preamble. I could not confirm from the retrieved excerpts which reference supplies Bluetooth enablement. Given that the '260 specification itself treats Bluetooth as entirely conventional (and expressly lists Zigbee, Wibree and UWB as equivalents), this is likely answered as an obvious design choice or a non-limiting preamble — but it should be checked in the petition, not assumed.
5. Takahashi's certified translation is a translation-dependent reference.

Explicit uncertainties — stated rather than papered over:

• Lind's substantive content is unknown to me. I identified it only as WO 2005/109781 A1, pub. Nov. 17, 2005. Ground 3's mapping cannot be verified without it.
• The outcome of ex parte reexamination 90/019,489 is unknown. Granted July 15, 2024; no certificate or termination surfaced.
• The §102(a) characterization of Wagner (US 8,385,950) in the reexam order appears inconsistent with its 2013 issue date and likely depends on §102(e); I have reproduced the order as written.
• Date discrepancy (already flagged in the earlier section, not repeated): the environment date is October 1, 2026 while this task states April 26, 2026. Everything above is stated as of the record retrieved, and the March 30, 2026 Paper 42 is within either date.

Primary sources: Google Patents full text (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8898260/en); IPR2024-00760 Institution Decision (Sept. 30, 2024); TikTok Petition as filed (Apr. 1, 2024); Patent Owner Response (Jan. 3, 2025); Patent Owner Ex. 2001 (Traynor Declaration); Exhibits 3001 (reexam 90/019,489 granting order, July 15, 2024); Director Review Paper 42 (Squires, Mar. 30, 2026), via https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00760/TikTok_Inc._v._Cellspin_Soft_Inc/ and the NYIPLA April 2026 PTAB Committee materials; Aaltonen US 8,359,349 B2 (Nokia) full text.