Invalidity dossier
US 8942664
System, method, and apparatus for using alternative numbers for routing voice calls and short messages in a communications network
Current assignee: Tango Networks Inc
Added 9/20/2026, 5:18:01 AM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview: US 8,942,664 B2
Title: System, method, and apparatus for using alternative numbers for routing voice calls and short messages in a communications network
Patent number: US 8,942,664 B2
Application number: US 14/140,497
Inventors: Andrew Silver; Patricia A. Landgren
Original/current assignee: Tango Networks Inc
Priority date: 2007-05-18
Filing date: 2013-12-25
Publication date: 2015-01-27
Legal status (as listed): Active; anticipated expiration 2027-05-18
Purpose and plain-language scope (based only on the supplied excerpt): The patent relates to routing voice calls and short messages (SMS) in a communications network using alternative numbers. The excerpt characterizes the subject matter through its classification entries — wireless communication networks, communication routing/path finding and route modification (H04W40/00, H04W40/34), messaging and SMS (H04W4/12, H04W4/14), call transfer/diverting (H04W4/16, H04M3/54, H04M3/546), emergency/hazardous-situation services (H04W4/22, H04W4/90), and interconnections between wireless and PSTN/ISDN or IP core networks (H04M7/12xx). The prior-art keywords listed are "enterprise," "party," "mobile," "network," and "hlr." The excerpt also notes a related continuation/priority chain to US 9,596,353 B2, US 10,820,255 B2, US 11,659,471 B2, and US 12,219,460 B2.
What the supplied excerpt does not establish:
- It contains no claims, abstract prose, or detailed description of how the routing actually operates, so the specific mechanism, message flows, and scope of coverage cannot be stated from this text alone.
- The excerpt does not identify any prior-art documents, so no novelty or validity analysis can be made here.
- It does not establish ownership transfers or litigation history (only an assignment record listing Silver and Landgren as assignors).
- The legal status and dates are explicitly presented in the source as assumptions, not legal conclusions.
Generated 10/1/2026, 10:02:52 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 8942664. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.