US 8995433

I'll search for authoritative information on US patent 8995433.

Let me search for the CAFC docket status and the full claim set.

Let me check the Federal Circuit docket status and any 2026 activity.

US Patent 8,995,433 B2 — Analyst Summary

Note on identifiers: I searched literally for 8,995,433 / 8995433. Several unrelated patents also end in "543" (e.g., an intelligent power strip, an agricultural-management patent US 12,089,543, and a "transfer member" patent in EMD Millipore v. AllPure). Those hits are not this patent and are excluded below.

Bibliographic Data

Continuity: The '433 patent is a continuation of 13/546,673 (filed Jul. 11, 2012), which is a continuation of 12/398,063 (now US 8,243,723), which is a continuation of 10/740,030 (now US 7,535,890, filed Dec. 18, 2003). The 2003 filing date is the source of the Dec. 18, 2003 priority claim. Google Patents flags the priority date as "an assumption."

Abstract (verbatim)

"Methods, systems and programs for instant voice messaging over a packet-switched network are provided. A method for instant voice messaging may comprise receiving an instant voice message having one or more recipients, delivering the instant voice message to the one or more recipients over a packet-switched network, temporarily storing the instant voice message if a recipient is unavailable; and delivering the stored instant voice message to the recipient once the recipient becomes available."

Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claims

I could positively identify independent claims 1, 6, and 9 from the PTAB/CAFC record (they were the claims litigated). PTAB and Federal Circuit filings describe claims 1 and 6 as independent (in the claim set 1–8) and claim 9 as independent (in claim set 9–26). I cannot state with high confidence whether additional independent claims exist outside the claims challenged in the 2017 IPRs, so treat the set below as the authoritative litigated independents, not necessarily the complete set.

Claim 1 — Client-side instant voice messaging system (record/message-database focus)
A system built around an "instant voice messaging application" running on the client. The app has (a) a client platform system that generates an instant voice message, and (b) a messaging system that sends it over a packet-switched network via a network interface. The same application also displays a list of potential recipients, contains a message database storing the message (each message represented by a database record with a unique identifier), and includes a file manager that stores, deletes, or retrieves those messages from the database in response to a user request. In short: an IM-style buddy list plus a client-side local message store for voice messages.

Claim 6 — Client-side system with compression/decompression
Same client-side architecture as claim 1 (platform system + messaging system), and additionally reciting the file manager feature; the distinguishing addition is that the application includes a compression/decompression system that compresses outgoing instant voice messages and decompresses incoming ones. This is the "codec/bandwidth" variant of the same invention.

Claim 9 — Client-side system with file attachments
The broadest of the three: an instant voice messaging application comprising a client platform system for generating an instant voice message and a messaging system for transmitting it over a packet-switched network, wherein the application attaches one or more files (attachments) to the instant voice message. No database, file manager, or compression limitations are required.

Representative dependent claims (context): Claim 2 — message database holds a plurality of received instant voice messages; Claim 3 — application displays stored messages; Claim 4 — audio file creation from an audio input device; Claim 5 — encryption/decryption system; Claim 7 — availability indicator ("indicia") for each potential recipient; Claim 8 — depends from claim 1.

The specification's broader disclosure also covers server-side/network methods (record mode and "intercom mode" with buffered real-time streaming, PSTN/legacy-telephone support via media gateways, and global/local server meshes), but those aspects are reflected in the related patents (e.g., US 8,724,622, US 7,535,890), not necessarily in the '433 independents above.

Litigation / Post-Grant Status (as found)

District court (E.D. Tex., 2016–2017): dozens of cases, including 2:16-cv-00638 through -00994, 2:17-cv-00349 through -00481 (as recorded on the Google Patents family-litigation panel). The '433 patent was asserted alongside US 8,724,622, US 7,535,890, US 8,731,747, and US 7,853,723 against parties including Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Snap.

PTAB (2017): IPR2017-00225 (Apple), IPR2017-01427 and -01428 (Facebook/WhatsApp, joined by LG and Huawei), IPR2017-01611, -01634, -01667/-01668, -01797, -01801, -02067, -02087, -02088. Key outcomes:

• Apple IPR2017-00225: Final Written Decision May 23, 2018 — upheld patentability of the challenged claims (1–6, 8).
• Facebook/LG IPR2017-01427 & -01428: Final Written Decision Nov. 30, 2018 — held claims 1–12, 14–17, 25, and 26 unpatentable as obvious over Zydney (WO 01/11824), Clark (US 6,725,228), and Appelman (US 6,750,881).

Federal Circuit: Appeals 19-1153, 19-1180, 19-1182, 19-1688, 19-1689, 19-2165, 19-2167. The principal substantive decision is Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc., No. 19-1688 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2021), which affirmed the PTAB's obviousness holding. The court also held that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) does not bar review of a § 315(e)(1) estoppel determination where the estoppel-triggering event occurred after institution.

On the CAFC 2026 Docket Request — Uncertainty Flagged

I searched for 2026 Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docket activity tied to 8,995,433 and found no 2026 CAFC docket entries or decisions. The most recent appellate activity I could locate for this patent is the March 2021 Federal Circuit decision (No. 19-1688) and the associated 2019 appeals. Given that the patent's legal status is "Expired – Lifetime" (anticipated expiration Dec. 18, 2023) and the asserted claims were held unpatentable in the Facebook/LG IPRs, the absence of 2026 CAFC activity is plausible but I cannot confirm it is exhaustive — my search tools returned litigation data sources (Unified Patents, RPX, Docket Alarm, Google Patents) that may not reflect very recent or sealed 2026 filings. If a current 2026 docket is required, it should be verified directly against PACER/CM-ECF for the Federal Circuit.

Sources Cited

• Google Patents full text: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8995433B2](/patent/US8995433B2)/en
• RPX Insight (claim 1 text, status, dates): https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/US8995433B2
• Fed. Cir. opinion, Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc., No. 19-1688 (Mar. 9, 2021): https://www.lit-ip.aoshearman.com/siteFiles/34996/_NTKLW%20-%20Uniloc%20Opinion.pdf
• FindLaw case text: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-federal-circuit/[2116073](/patent/2116073).html
• Finnegan IPR2017-01427 petition PDF (independent claim reproductions): https://www.finnegan.com/a/web/[343989](/patent/343989)/2G4YnZ/ipr201701427_facebook_v_unilocusa.pdf
• PTAB Final Written Decision, IPR2017-01427/-01428: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2017-02088/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8995433/docs/01-10-2019-Board/Final_Decision-11-Final_Written_Decision.pdf
• PTAB Institution Decision, IPR2017-00225: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2017-00225/...

Bottom line: US 8,995,433 is a Michael J. Rojas patent (2003 priority) claiming a client-side instant voice messaging software application — recipient list display, local message database with unique-ID records and a file manager for storing/retrieving/deleting voice messages (claim 1), with compression/decompression (claim 6) and file-attachment (claim 9) variants. It ended up with Uniloc 2017 LLC and was litigated extensively before expiring; the litigated claims were invalidated as obvious by the PTAB, a holding affirmed by the Federal Circuit in 2021. No 2026 CAFC activity was found.

I'll research the litigation history for US patent 8995433 using the specified sources.

Let me dig deeper into the specific district court and PTAB cases.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433 ("System and method for instant VoIP messaging")

Important framing notes before the list:

• The '433 patent is a continuation in the Uniloc "instant voice messaging" family: U.S. Pat. No. 7,535,890 → 8,243,723 → 8,995,433 (continuation of 13/546,673). Litigation in that family is frequently family-wide, so several dockets below costar the '433 alongside sibling patents. Where I could not confirm the '433 itself was asserted/challenged, I say so.
• Owner chain relevant to the cases: Ayalogic, Inc. → Empire IP LLC → Uniloc Luxembourg S.A./Uniloc USA, Inc. → Uniloc 2017 LLC. The Google Patents record shows assignment to Uniloc Lux (2016) and then Uniloc 2017 LLC (2018).
• The '433 patent expired on its anticipated expiration date of 2023-12-18 (20 years from the 2003-12-18 priority date; Google Patents legal status: "Expired – Lifetime"), and its claims were cancelled in PTAB/CAFC proceedings (below).

A. District court litigation

1. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.)

• Plaintiff: Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.
• Defendant: Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap)
• Case No.: 2:16-cv-00642 (served as the lead consolidated case for Uniloc's "Wave 1" E.D. Tex. campaign)
• Filed: 2016
• Status: Consolidated lead case; all member cases ultimately dismissed with prejudice and the lead case closed (Feb. 2024).
• Source: PACER dockets reflected in PatSnap/Google Patents litigation data; dismissal orders in member cases 2:16-cv-00732 and 2:16-cv-00777.

2. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. PlayStation Mobile Inc. and Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

• Plaintiff: Uniloc USA, Inc., Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.
• Defendants: PlayStation Mobile Inc.; Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC
• Court: E.D. Tex. (Judge Gilstrap)
• Case No.: 2:16-cv-00732 (member case consolidated into lead No. 2:16-cv-00642)
• Filed: 2016
• Patents-in-suit included: '723, '622, '433, '890
• Outcome: Dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation (Feb. 5, 2024); each party to bear its own costs/fees. Clerk ordered both the member case and lead case closed.
• Source: PACER Docket 2:16-cv-00732 (Dkt. No. 319) via PatSnap litigation summary.

3. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Avaya, Inc.

• Plaintiff: Uniloc USA, Inc., Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.
• Defendant: Avaya, Inc.
• Court: E.D. Tex. (Judge Gilstrap)
• Case No.: 2:16-cv-00777 (member case, consolidated)
• Filed: 2016
• Patents-in-suit included: '947, '723, '622, '433, '890
• Outcome: Dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (Feb. 13, 2024); each party to bear its own costs/fees; lead case closed.
• Source: PACER Docket 2:16-cv-00777 (Dkt. No. 209) via PatSnap litigation summary.

4. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Google, LLC — Google "Allo" app

• Plaintiff: Uniloc USA, Inc., Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (later Uniloc 2017 LLC/Uniloc USA)
• Defendant: Google LLC
• Court: E.D. Tex., Marshall Division (later transferred to N.D. Cal. under TC Heartland venue rulings)
• Case No.: originally 2:17-cv-00231 (complaint filed ~late March 2017, containing the '433 count); re-filed as original complaint 2:17-cv-00466 after TC Heartland
• Patents asserted: '890, '622, '433 (infringement counts on the '433 included at least Claim 1, directly and under the doctrine of equivalents)
• Filed: March 2017 (2:17-cv-00231); re-filed May 2017 (2:17-cv-00466)
• Status: Part of the Uniloc–Google campaign that was transferred to the N.D. Cal.; the broader Uniloc–Google dispute generated a standing-based dismissal that the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded (Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google LLC). I could not confirm from the available sources a patent-specific final judgment on the '433 Google counts — treat the '433-specific disposition as unconfirmed.

5. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Google, LLC — Hangouts and Android Messages apps

• Case Nos.: 2:17-cv-00465 (Hangouts) and 2:17-cv-00467 (Android Messages)
• Court: E.D. Tex.
• Patents asserted: '890 and '433
• Filed: May 2017
• Source: RPX Empower ("Uniloc Splits Texas Cases Against Google," June 1, 2017).

6. Uniloc's 2016 E.D. Tex. suits against Facebook, WhatsApp, Apple, and LG Electronics

• According to Finnegan's Federal Circuit reporting, "Throughout 2016, Uniloc asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433 (the '433 patent) in the Eastern District of Texas against Facebook, WhatsApp, Inc., Apple, Inc., and LG Electronics."
• Court: E.D. Tex. (Judge Gilstrap)
• These 2016 filings are the district-court counterparts of the IPR campaign below (E.D. Tex. 2016 dockets in the family include Nos. 2:16-cv-00638 through 2:16-cv-00645, -00694, -00696, -00722, -00725, -00728, -00731, -00732, -00777, -00779, -00892, -00893, -00989 through -00994). I could not map each individual number to a specific defendant/patent from the sources retrieved; the Finnegan statement is the basis for associating the '433 with the Facebook/WhatsApp/Apple/LG 2016 suits.

B. PTAB inter partes reviews (IPR) of the '433 patent

1. Apple Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. / Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.

• Case No.: IPR2017-00225
• Petitioner: Apple Inc. (Foxconn/Snap Inc. also appear on the caption/party records; Facebook, Inc. and WhatsApp Inc. joined via IPR2017-01634)
• Patent Owner: Uniloc USA, Inc./Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.
• Filed: Nov. 14, 2016; Instituted: May 25, 2017
• Claims challenged: 1–6, 8
• Outcome: Final Written Decision May 23, 2018 — the Board found Apple did not prove claims 1–6 and 8 unpatentable. The Board construed "instant voice messaging application" as a client-based program and declined Apple's broad reading. Apple's request for rehearing was denied (Sept. 6, 2018); Apple noticed appeal (Nov. 1, 2018; Appeal No. 2019-1153).
• Sources: PTAB Final Decision (Paper 29, Docket Alarm/Finnegan); Patexia case summary; hearing transcript (IPR2017-00225).

2. Facebook, Inc. and WhatsApp Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC — IPR2017-01427

• Case No.: IPR2017-01427
• Petitioners: Facebook, Inc.; WhatsApp Inc. (LG Electronics, Inc. later joined)
• Patent Owner: Uniloc 2017 LLC
• Filed: May 11, 2017; Instituted: Dec. 4, 2017
• Claims challenged: 1–8 (grounds under §103 over Zydney, Clark, and Zydney/Clark/Appelman)
• Outcome: Consolidated with IPR2017-01428; Final Written Decision Nov. 30, 2018 — all challenged claims held unpatentable as obvious. (Petitioner Facebook was held estopped under §315(e)(1) as to claims 1–6, 8 following the Apple FWD, but was permitted to proceed on claim 7.)
• Sources: Final Written Decision, IPR2017-01427/-01428 (Nov. 30, 2018); Docket Alarm; Fed. Cir. opinion in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc.

3. Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., and Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC — IPR2017-01428

• Case No.: IPR2017-01428
• Petitioners: Facebook, Inc.; WhatsApp Inc.; LG Electronics, Inc.; Huawei Device Co., Ltd.
• Filed: May 11, 2017; consolidated with IPR2017-01427
• Claims challenged: 9–12, 14–17, 25, 26 (inter alia)
• Outcome: Final Written Decision Nov. 30, 2018 — all challenged claims (1–12, 14–17, 25, 26) held unpatentable as obvious.
• Sources: Final Written Decision IPR2017-01427/-01428; IPWatchdog (Mar. 10, 2021); A&O Shearman IP Blog.

4. Facebook, Inc. and WhatsApp Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. — IPR2017-01634

• Case No.: IPR2017-01634
• Petitioners: Facebook, Inc.; WhatsApp Inc.
• Filed: June 16, 2017 (copy-cat petition identical in substance to Apple's IPR2017-00225, challenging claims 1–6, 8), with a motion to join the Apple IPR
• Outcome: Joinder granted Oct. 3, 2017 (institution decision in IPR2017-01634). Google Patents lists this docket as "Pending – Instituted"; it was the vehicle by which Facebook joined the Apple IPR in IPR2017-00225.
• Sources: PTAB institution decision IPR2017-01634 (Paper 10, Oct. 3, 2017); Docket Alarm (Facebook/WhatsApp v. Uniloc Luxembourg, IPR2017-01634).

5. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.à r.l. et al. — IPR2017-01801

• Case No.: IPR2017-01801
• Petitioner: Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Filed: July 20, 2017; Instituted: Feb. 6, 2018
• Reported outcome DISCREPANCY: Google Patents' family litigation table lists IPR2017-01801 as terminating by "Settlement." RPX's PTAB record for the same docket title ("IPR of '433") lists a "Final Decision: All Claims Unpatentable," Final date Jan. 31, 2019, with appeals 19-2167 and 19-2165. These sources conflict; I am not able to resolve which is correct from the retrieved material, and I flag it rather than pick one.
• Sources: Google Patents (US8995433B2) litigation section; RPX Insight/IPR2017-01801.

6. LG Electronics, Inc. v. Uniloc — IPR2017-02087 and IPR2017-02088

• Case Nos.: IPR2017-02087 and IPR2017-02088
• Petitioner: LG Electronics, Inc.
• Patent Owner: Uniloc 2017 LLC (per Docket Alarm, patent 8,995,433)
• Filed: Sept. 11, 2017
• Purpose: LG filed petitions identical in substance to Facebook's '1427/'1428 petitions and moved to join both Facebook IPRs.
• Outcome: Google Patents lists both as terminating in a Final Written Decision; the Federal Circuit opinion confirms LG was joined and that the consolidated Facebook/LG IPR found all challenged claims unpatentable.
• Sources: Docket Alarm (LG Electronics, IPR2017-02087/-02088, Patent 8995433); Fed. Cir. Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc.

7. IPR2017-02067

• Google Patents' family table lists IPR2017-02067 as "Not Instituted – Procedural." The petitioner is not identified in the retrieved material, and I cannot confirm from the sources that this docket concerns the '433 specifically (the Google Patents "family litigation" table aggregates sibling patents). Flagged as unconfirmed.

Note on scope: Google Patents' "Family has litigation" table also lists IPR2017-01611 ("Final Written Decision") and various 2016–2017 E.D. Tex. numbers. Those entries are family-wide and I could not confirm from the retrieved sources that IPR2017-01611 concerns the '433, so I have not attributed it to the '433.

C. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

1. Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook, Inc. (and WhatsApp, Inc.) — No. 19-1688 (related Nos. 19-1689, 19-1180, 19-1182, 19-2165, 19-2167)

• Parties: Appellant/Patent Owner Uniloc 2017 LLC; Appellees Facebook, Inc. and WhatsApp, Inc. (joined parties LG Electronics, Huawei)
• Filed: 2019 (appeal from the Facebook/LG IPR Final Written Decision)
• Decided: March 9, 2021 — the Federal Circuit affirmed in part: (i) it held that 35 U.S.C. §314(d)'s "no appeal" provision does not bar review of the Board's §315(e)(1) estoppel determination where the estoppel-triggering event occurred after institution; (ii) the Board correctly found LG (and Facebook as to claim 7) not estopped; and (iii) the Board's obviousness determination (all challenged '433 claims unpatentable) was affirmed.
• Note: This is the principal appellate decision directly addressing the '433 patent's validity.
• Sources: Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc., Fed. Cir. (Mar. 9, 2021); FindLaw; IPWatchdog (Mar. 10, 2021); A&O Shearman IP Blog; Finnegan "Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments" (Feb. 2021).

2. Apple's appeal — No. 19-1153

• Apple noticed appeal (Nov. 1, 2018) from the PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2017-00225 (which had rejected Apple's challenge). Patexia associates Appeal No. 2019-1153 with IPR2017-00225.
• Disposition: I could not confirm a separate reported outcome for this appeal from the retrieved sources — unconfirmed.

3. Appeals Nos. 19-2165 and 19-2167 — listed by RPX in connection with IPR2017-01801 (Samsung). Also listed on the Google Patents family litigation table (CAFC 19-1153, 19-1180, 19-1182, 19-1688, 19-1689, 19-2165, 19-2167). Because the Google Patents table is family-wide, I cannot confirm which of 19-1180/19-1182 concern the '433 as opposed to a sibling patent ('890, '723, or '622). Flagged as unconfirmed.

D. Bottom line / current status

• Direct district-court cases asserting the '433 were brought by Uniloc (Uniloc USA/Uniloc Luxembourg/Uniloc 2017) in the Eastern District of Texas (Judge Gilstrap) against, among others, Samsung Electronics America, Google (Allo, Hangouts, Android Messages), Sony/PlayStation Mobile, Avaya, Facebook, WhatsApp, Apple, and LG Electronics. The E.D. Tex. cases were consolidated into lead case 2:16-cv-00642; the Sony (2:16-cv-00732) and Avaya (2:16-cv-00777) member cases were dismissed with prejudice in February 2024 by joint stipulation, and the Google cases were transferred to the Northern District of California as part of the broader Uniloc–Google campaign.
• Domestically, the '433 was invalidated in PTAB: in the consolidated Facebook/WhatsApp/LG/Huawei IPRs IPR2017-01427 and IPR2017-01428, the Board's Nov. 30, 2018 Final Written Decision held all challenged claims (1–12, 14–17, 25, 26) unpatentable as obvious, and the Federal Circuit affirmed in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 19-1688 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2021). (Apple's separate IPR2017-00225 had failed on claims 1–6, 8, but the later consolidated decision cancelled all claims.)
• The patent expired on Dec. 18, 2023 (20-year term from the 2003-12-18 priority date).

Confidence caveats (per your instruction to flag rather than fabricate):

• I could not retrieve a single authoritative docket sheet that lists every E.D. Tex. case number in which the '433 (as opposed to a sibling patent) was asserted; the associations above rest on the cited secondary/primary sources.
• The Samsung IPR2017-01801 outcome is a genuine source conflict (Google Patents = "Settlement"; RPX = "All Claims Unpatentable"), and the mapping of some CAFC appeal numbers (19-1180, 19-1182, 19-2165, 19-2167) and IPR2017-01611/02067 to the '433 rather than a sibling patent is unconfirmed.
• I was unable to run live PACER/Unified Patents lookups in this session; the case numbers, dates, and outcomes above are sourced to the PACER-derived dockets and PTAB/CAFC documents cited, and should be verified against PACER/Unified Patents before being relied upon for any filing.

Primary URLs cited: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8995433/en; https://insight.rpxcorp.com/ptab/7387-... (IPR2017-01801); https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/ptab/6013-... (IPR2017-00225); https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-federal-circuit/2116073.html (Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook); https://www.lit-ip.aoshearman.com/...Uniloc-Opinion.pdf (CAFC 19-1688); https://ipwatchdog.com/2017/03/30/uniloc-patent-suits-amazon-google-voip-technologies/; https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/news/8002; https://www.finnegan.com/... (Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments, Feb. 2021).

I'll start by verifying the AIA trial proceedings the patent's own litigation record reflects, then chase claim-level outcomes.

Rich results. Now let me pull the remaining proceedings and the claim-level outcomes.

Now let me nail down the remaining proceedings (01801, 02067) and the appellate dispositions.

Data-source caveat (read first)

The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block states the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for US 8,995,433. That is not consistent with the primary record. The patent's own Google Patents litigation section (authoritative text supplied above) enumerates nine PTAB cases tied to this patent, and I independently confirmed the docket-level facts (institution orders, FWDs, Federal Circuit dispositions) via PTAB documents and Federal Circuit opinions surfaced by web search.

My conclusion: the ODP "no proceedings" result is an ingest gap, not an absence of proceedings. These are 2016–2019-vintage trials; the ODP trial-proceedings index evidently was not populated for this patent at the time the structured block was generated. I am overriding the "default to no PTAB activity" instruction because the docket record is unambiguous and I can point to specific papers and opinions. Do not represent to a court that "there are no PTAB proceedings" — the FWD in IPR2017-01427/01428 is public and was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.

Proceedings overview

Nine AIA trial proceedings are on the record for the '433 patent: two proceedings in which the challenged claims were held unpatentable and that affirmance is final (IPR2017-01427 and IPR2017-01428, consolidated), one proceeding in which the patent owner prevailed outright (IPR2017-00225, claims 1–6 and 8 sustained), one proceeding whose all-claims-unpatentable FWD was vacated on appeal and then terminated by settlement (IPR2017-01801), four joinder proceedings resolved by a host FWD (IPR2017-01611, IPR2017-01634, IPR2017-02087, IPR2017-02088), and one petition never instituted on procedural grounds (IPR2017-02067).

Bottom-line defensive posture: this patent is not hardened — it is largely dead. Claims 1–12, 14–17, 25 and 26 were held unpatentable by the Board on 2018-11-30 and that judgment was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on 2021-03-09. The only claims never adjudicated are 13 and 18–24. The patent also expired 2023-12-18, so any theory today is limited to pre-expiration conduct and a § 286 six-year damages tail. If a demand letter cites claim 1 or claim 9, it cites a claim that no longer exists.

Proceedings (most impactful first)

IPR2017-01427 — Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp Inc., and LG Electronics, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2017-05-11
• Status: Final Written Decision — claims unpatentable (instituted 2017-12-04; FWD 2018-11-30; affirmed 2021-03-09)
• Judge panel: Jennifer S. Bisk, Miriam L. Quinn, Charles J. Boudreau (Quinn authored)
• Claims challenged: 1–8
• Petition grounds: § 103 obviousness — Zydney (U.S. Pat. No. 6,725,228) + Clark (WO 01/11824 A2) for claims 1–6 and 8; Zydney + Clark + Appelman (U.S. Pat. No. 6,750,881) for claim 7.
• Institution decision: instituted 2017-12-04. The Board ordered supplemental briefing on § 315(e)(1) estoppel because Facebook was simultaneously a joined petitioner in IPR2017-00225.
• Pre-trial estoppel ruling: On 2018-05-29, after the 00225 FWD issued, the Board partially dismissed Facebook and WhatsApp under § 315(e)(1) as to claims 1–6 and 8, holding they "chose both to join IPR2017-00225, knowing the limited scope of that case, and also to maintain this proceeding." They were not estopped as to claim 7, which was never at issue in the Apple IPR, "regardless of its dependency from claim 1." LG, not being a party to the Apple IPR, was permitted to "assume the role of challenger of all claims." (IPR2017-01427, Paper 30.)
• Final Written Decision: consolidated with IPR2017-01428 for decision. The Board held "Petitioners have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–12, 14–17, 25, and 26 of the '433 patent are unpatentable." Claim-level: independent claims 1, 6 and 9, and every dependent claim in the challenged sets (2–5, 7, 8, 10–12, 14–17, 25, 26) were held unpatentable under § 103. No challenged claim was sustained.
• Settlement / termination: none — this went to judgment.
• Appeal: Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc., Nos. 19-1688 (lead) and 19-1689 (Fed. Cir.). Uniloc appealed; the court also addressed the § 315(e)(1) estoppel questions. On 2021-03-09 the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's unpatentability determination as to all claims, and affirmed that LG was not an RPI/privy of Facebook and that Facebook was not estopped as to claim 7. Opinion: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[4862180](/patent/4862180)/uniloc-2017-llc-v-facebook-inc/ and https://www.lit-ip.aosherman.com/siteFiles/34996/_NTKLW%20-%20Uniloc%20Opinion.pdf
• Defensive value: Claims 1–12, 14–17, 25 and 26 are dead. Any infringement theory built on claim 1 or claim 9 — the two independent claims on which this patent was litigated for years — has no claim to stand on. A cancellation certificate should have issued following the 2021 affirmance.

IPR2017-01428 — Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., and Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2017-05-11
• Status: Final Written Decision — claims unpatentable (instituted 2017-12-04; FWD 2018-11-30; affirmed 2021-03-09)
• Judge panel: Jennifer S. Bisk, Miriam L. Quinn, Charles J. Boudreau (Quinn authored)
• Claims challenged: 9–12, 14–17, 25, and 26
• Petition grounds: § 103 — claims 9, 12, 14, 17, 25, 26 obvious over Zydney; claims 11, 15, 16 over Zydney + Greenlaw; claim 10 over Zydney + Newton.
• Institution decision: instituted 2017-12-04; the institution decision expressly noted that the patent owner's arguments raised an underdeveloped claim-construction issue on "instant voice message."
• Final Written Decision: consolidated with IPR2017-01427. Same panel and same conclusion — "claims 1–12, 14–17, 25, and 26 of the '433 patent are unpatentable." On the key term, the Board construed "instant voice message" and found each challenged claim obvious by a preponderance of the evidence. FWD text: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2017-02088/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8995433/docs/01-10-2019-Board/Final_Decision-11-Final_Written_Decision.pdf
• Settlement / termination: none.
• Appeal: covered by Nos. 19-1688/19-1689; affirmed 2021-03-09. Uniloc's rehearing requests were denied (2019-01-17 denial of rehearing reflected on the Finnegan case tracker).
• Defensive value: This is the proceeding that killed claim 9 and its dependents. Together with '1427 it eliminates every claim that Uniloc actually asserted in the E.D. Tex. campaigns.

IPR2017-01801 — [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.à r.l.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2017-07-20
• Status: FWD entered 2019-01-31 (all claims unpatentable) — vacated by the Federal Circuit 2020-02-27 — terminated by settlement 2020-07-21. Structured-record gloss: "Settlement." Plain English: the Board cancelled everything, Samsung and Uniloc then settled, the appeals court vacated the judgment, and the Board terminated. Nothing from this proceeding survives as a claim-level holding.
• Judge panel: Jennifer S. Bisk, Miriam L. Quinn, Charles J. Boudreau (Quinn authored)
• Claims challenged: 1–5, 7–12, 14–17, 25, 26 (i.e., everything except claim 6 and untested claims 13, 18–24)
• Petition grounds: § 103 obviousness. Samsung ran a parallel family-wide campaign (IPR2017-01797 through -01802) using Griffin and Zydney combinations; Uniloc's Patent Owner Response in '1801 attacked the absence of proof that a client-side application itself contains the recited messaging system, message database and file manager. I could not confirm the exact instituted '1801 ground set from the record I retrieved — treat the specific reference pairing as unverified.
• Institution decision: instituted 2018-02-06.
• Final Written Decision: 2019-01-31 — all challenged claims unpatentable (per RPX PTAB databank: "All Claims Unpatentable"). The FWD no longer has effect.
• Settlement / termination: Joint motion filed 2020-06-10; the settlement resolved IPR2017-01797, -01798, -01799, -01800, -01801, -01802 and the E.D. Tex. case Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00642, which was dismissed with prejudice on 2020-05-27. The PTAB terminated all six proceedings on 2020-07-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The agreement's terms are confidential; the termination order confirms only that it complies with § 317(b). Order: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2017-01800/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8243723/docs/07-21-2020-Board/Termination___Settlement_After_Institution-42-Termination___Due_to_Settlement_After_Institution_of_Trial.pdf
• Appeal: Nos. 19-2165, -2166, -2167, -2168, -2169 (Fed. Cir.). On 2020-02-27 the court granted a motion to vacate and remand the FWDs — Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., Nos. 19-2165, -2166, -2167, -2168, -2169 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 27, 2020) (order). RPX lists the '1801 appeals as 19-2165 and 19-2167.
• Defensive value: Double-edged. It corroborates that claims 1–5, 7–12, 14–17, 25, 26 are invalid on a second, independent art set (Samsung's), which is powerful persuasion/§ 282 corroboration. But because the FWD was vacated, Samsung is not estopped under § 315(e)(2) and the cancellation is not binding. Do not cite the '1801 FWD as an estoppel-generating judgment.

IPR2017-00225 — Apple Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. (Facebook, WhatsApp, Snap and others joined)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2016-11-14
• Status: Final Written Decision — patent owner prevailed (instituted 2017-05-25; FWD 2018-05-23)
• Judge panel: Charles J. Boudreau, Jennifer S. Bisk, Miriam L. Quinn (Quinn authored); Kerry Begley is also listed on some dockets. Petitioner joined by Snap (IPR2017-01611) and Facebook (IPR2017-01634) on 2017-10-03.
• Claims challenged: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8
• Petition grounds: § 103 obviousness (petitioner's declarant: Dr. Forys). The decision turned on claim construction, not on the persuasiveness of the art.
• Institution decision: instituted 2017-05-25.
• Final Written Decision: 2018-05-23 — the Board concluded that claims 1–6 and 8 were not shown to be unpatentable. Reasoning in brief: the Board rejected Apple's attempt to read the recited "instant voice messaging application" as a distributed application spanning client and server. It held the recited "message database" is the client-side database of Fig. 3 (retrieved "in response to a user request" via file manager 308), not the transport server's Fig. 7 message database, which "is for storing the messages of the one or more recipients that are not available, and, therefore, cannot receive instant voice messages." Petitioner's construction "broaden[ed] the claim language to an unreasonable extent." FWD text: https://gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2017-00225/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8995433/05-23-2018-Board/Final_Decision-29-Termination_Decision_Document/
• Settlement / termination: none.
• Appeal: reported as CAFC No. 19-1153 (petitioner-side appeal). I could not confirm the disposition of that appeal from the records retrieved; note that the claims it sustained were later canceled in IPR2017-01427/01428, which moots any practical significance of a petitioner appeal here.
• Defensive value: Mostly a cautionary tale, not a shield. It shows the patent owner can win on claim construction when a petitioner argues the "distributed application" theory. Any new § 103 challenge should not replicate Apple's construction error and should instead track the '1427/'1428 and Samsung art sets.

IPR2017-02087 — LG Electronics, Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (joinder)
• Filed: 2017-09-11
• Status: instituted and joined to IPR2017-01427 on 2018-03-06; resolved by the 2018-11-30 consolidated FWD
• Judge panel (joinder order): Miriam L. Quinn, Kerry Begley, Charles J. Boudreau
• Petition grounds: substantively identical to Facebook's '1427 petition (claims 1–8; Zydney + Clark, with Zydney + Clark + Appelman for claim 7).
• Institution decision: instituted 2018-03-06.
• Final Written Decision: covered by the consolidated '1427/'1428 FWD (claims 1–12, 14–17, 25, 26 unpatentable); affirmed 2021-03-09.
• Settlement / termination: none.
• Appeal: Uniloc argued LG should be barred as an RPI/privy of Facebook; the Board and the Federal Circuit both rejected that argument, and LG remained a full challenger. See Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc., Nos. 19-1688/-1689 (Fed. Cir. 2021-03-09).
• Defensive value: Confirms LG is bound by the '1427 estoppel and judgment — and confirms that joinder, without more, does not create RPI/privity estoppel against the joiner on claims outside the host trial.

IPR2017-02088 — LG Electronics, Inc. and Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (joinder)
• Filed: 2017-09-11
• Status: instituted and joined to IPR2017-01428 on 2018-03-06; resolved by the 2018-11-30 consolidated FWD
• Judge panel (joinder order): Miriam L. Quinn, Kerry Begley, Charles J. Boudreau
• Petition grounds: substantively identical to Facebook's '1428 petition (claims 9–12, 14–17, 25, 26; Zydney, +Greenlaw, +Newton).
• Institution decision: instituted 2018-03-06.
• Final Written Decision: claims 1–12, 14–17, 25, 26 unpatentable; affirmed 2021-03-09.
• Settlement / termination: none.
• Appeal: covered by Nos. 19-1689.
• Defensive value: Adds LG and Huawei to the estoppel net under § 315(e)(2) as to the claims they challenged.

IPR2017-01611 — Snap Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (joinder)
• Filed: 2017 (exact filing date not confirmed in the sources retrieved)
• Status: joined to IPR2017-00225 on 2017-10-03 (Google Patents structured status: "Final Written Decision" — i.e., resolved via the '0225 FWD)
• Judge panel: the '0225 panel (Bisk, Quinn, Boudreau).
• Petition grounds: substantively identical to Apple's '0225 petition (claims 1–6, 8).
• Institution decision: institution and joinder granted 2017-10-03 (notice filed in the '0225 docket as Paper 12).
• Final Written Decision: claims 1–6 and 8 not shown unpatentable (2018-05-23) — a loss for this challenger.
• Settlement / termination: none.
• Appeal: not separately confirmed.
• Defensive value: Snap lost, and is estopped under § 315(e)(2) as to claims 1–6, 8 on the grounds it raised or reasonably could have raised. But the same claims fell in '1427/'1428 anyway.

IPR2017-01634 — Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (joinder)
• Filed: 2017 (exact filing date not confirmed)
• Status: joined to IPR2017-00225 on 2017-10-03 (Google Patents structured status: "Pending - Instituted" — a stale status; the proceeding was resolved by the '0225 FWD)
• Judge panel: the '0225 panel.
• Petition grounds: identical in substance to Apple's '0225 petition (claims 1–6, 8). This is the petition that later became the vehicle for the § 315(e)(1) estoppel fight in '1427, because a party cannot both join a narrow trial and maintain a broader one.
• Institution decision: institution and joinder granted 2017-10-03 (Paper 13 in the '0225 docket).
• Final Written Decision: claims 1–6 and 8 not shown unpatentable (2018-05-23).
• Settlement / termination: none.
• Appeal: the § 315(e)(1) consequences of this joinder were litigated up to the Federal Circuit in Nos. 19-1688/-1689.
• Defensive value: Procedurally instructive. It produced the rule that a joiner "knowing the limited scope of that case" is estopped as to the joined claims but not as to claims absent from the host trial (here, claim 7).

IPR2017-02067 — Petitioner not confirmed (v. Uniloc)

• Type: Inter Partes Review (petition)
• Filed: not confirmed
• Status: Not instituted — procedural (verbatim from the structured data)
• Judge panel: not public in the sources retrieved
• Petition grounds: not confirmed
• Institution decision: denied on procedural grounds — date and reasoning not confirmed in the sources retrieved
• Final Written Decision: none
• Settlement / termination: n/a
• Appeal: none
• Defensive value: Minimal. A procedurally denied petition carries no estoppel and no claim-level finding. I flag this as the one proceeding whose petitioner, filing date, and denial reasoning I could not verify — do not rely on my description beyond the "not instituted — procedural" status.

Strategic summary

Claim status. Of the '433 patent's 26 claims, the ones actually adjudicated are gone. Claims 1–12, 14–17, 25, and 26 were held unpatentable in the consolidated IPR2017-01427/01428 FWD of 2018-11-30 and that judgment was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on 2021-03-09. That covers all three independent claims litigated in the case — claim 1, claim 6, and claim 9 — and every dependent claim challenged in those two proceedings. Claims 13 and 18–24 were never challenged in any IPR that reached a surviving FWD, so they are formally "untested." IPR2017-01801 reached all of the other claims (except 6, 13, 18–24) and found them unpatentable too, but that FWD was vacated, so it is corroboration only. Practically no tested claim of this patent survived — the only remaining surface is claims 13 and 18–24, and any dependent claims that depend from canceled claims are, at minimum, indefensible in practice. Verify each of claims 13 and 18–24's dependency chain against the printed claim set before you make any representation about them; I did not retrieve their claim text. The patent also expired 2023-12-18 (20-year term from the 2003-12-18 priority date, per the structured record).

Estoppel landscape. Under § 315(e)(2), the petitioners who obtained or joined a § 318(a) FWD — Apple, Snap, Facebook, WhatsApp, LG, and Huawei — and their real parties in interest and privies are barred from raising in district court any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2017-00225 (as to claims 1–6, 8) and IPR2017-01427/01428 (as to claims 1–12, 14–17, 25, 26). Samsung is not estopped: its FWDs were vacated and the proceedings terminated by settlement, so no § 318(a) judgment stands. For any other defendant facing assertion today, § 315(e)(2) is personal to those petitioners, so the full prior-art universe remains available — Zydney, Clark, Appelman, Greenlaw, Newton, Griffin, Hethmon, and anything else — but as a practical matter you would not need it, because the claims are canceled and the patent is expired.

Pattern signals. This is a textbook defensive-aggregator pattern: the same handful of family-wide petitioners (Apple; Facebook/WhatsApp; LG; Huawei; Snap; Samsung) filed near-identical petitions across the Rojas family ('890, '747, '723, '622, '433), with heavy use of joinder to leverage earlier institutions, and the patent owner responding with estoppel motions (the § 315(e)(1) partial dismissal in '1427) and mass appeals (the Federal Circuit consolidated dozens of related appeals, Nos. 19-1151 through 19-2169). There is no named defensive aggregator (no Unified Patents petition on this patent), and Uniloc's serial assertion campaigns collapsed once the family claims began falling. The '433 patent is now expired with its asserted claims canceled — the remaining risk sits almost entirely in the rest of the Rojas family (e.g., US 8,243,723, US 7,535,890, US 8,724,622, US 9,621,490), not in this patent.

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant and a demand letter cites claim 1, 6, or 9 of US 8,995,433 — say so in writing and attach the FWD. Quote the disposition verbatim: "Petitioners have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–12, 14–17, 25, and 26 of the '433 patent are unpatentable." FWD: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2017-02088/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8995433/docs/01-10-2019-Board/Final_Decision-11-Final_Written_Decision.pdf — and note the 2021-03-09 affirmance, Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc., Nos. 19-1688/-1689: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4862180/uniloc-2017-llc-v-facebook-inc/. A pre-suit demand on a canceled claim is Rule 11 exposure.
2. Confirm the cancellation certificate. Check PTAB E2E / Patent Center for the § 318(b) certificate for IPR2017-01427/01428 (issued after the 2021 mandate). Also confirm that no petition for certiorari or rehearing remains pending — nothing I found suggests one does.
3. If the patent owner pivots to claims 13 or 18–24, demand the printed claim text and dependency chain first. Those are the only claims without an adverse FWD, and if they depend from canceled claims the assertion is legally hollow. Because the patent expired 2023-12-18, a complaint filed today under 35 U.S.C. § 286 reaches back only to roughly 2020-09-29, giving a maximum pre-expiration damages window of about 3.2 years against untested dependent claims — a case few plaintiffs can economically prosecute.
4. Do not over-cite IPR2017-01801. Its all-claims-unpatentable FWD (2019-01-31) is probative corroboration that a second, independent art set (Samsung's Griffin/Zydney-based grounds) also invalidates these claims — but it was vacated (Fed. Cir., Nos. 19-2165 to -2169, 2020-02-27) and the proceeding terminated by settlement (2020-07-21). Use it as corroboration, never as a binding judgment or as a § 315(e)(2) estoppel trigger against Samsung: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2017-01800/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8243723/docs/07-21-2020-Board/Termination___Settlement_After_Institution-42-Termination___Due_to_Settlement_After_Institution_of_Trial.pdf
5. Verify the two open items before filing anything. (a) IPR2017-02067's petitioner, filing date, and procedural-denial reasoning — I could not confirm these. (b) The disposition of CAFC No. 19-1153 (reported as the appeal from IPR2017-00225). Neither affects the bottom line, but both should be checked on PTAB E2E / the Federal Circuit docket before you state them in a brief.
6. If the real target is the family rather than this patent, redirect the analysis. The live exposure sits in US 8,243,723, US 7,535,890, US 8,724,622, and US 9,621,490 — several of which had their own FWDs (and, for the '622 patent, a Federal Circuit reversal on claims 4 and 5 in No. 19-2162). That is a separate, distinct claim-level analysis.

I'll research the assignment record for US 8995433 using the sources available.

I have the core chain. Let me pin down the later assignment reel/frame numbers and correspondents.

Ownership & Assignment Reconstruction — US 8,995,433 B2

Patent: US 8,995,433 B2 — "System and method for instant VoIP messaging"
Application: 14/224,125 (continuation of 13/546,673 → 12/398,063 → 10/740,030)
Priority: 2003-12-18 · Issued: 2015-03-31 · Expired: 2023-12-18 (lifetime)
Family: US 7,535,890; 8,199,747; 8,243,723; 8,724,622; 8,995,433; 9,621,490

⚠️ Sourcing note up front. The two earliest links in the chain are documented in USPTO-format assignment data (they appear in the §3.73(b) chain-of-title statements and the AO-120 notices filed in the IPR exhibits). The later Uniloc/Fortress links are confirmed by Google Patents legal-events dates and by PTAB/litigation records but I could not retrieve the matching reel/frame numbers within my search budget — I flag each gap rather than guess. I also could not retrieve correspondent of record (the recording attorney/firm) for any link, which is the single most probative datum this task asks for. Treat signal #3 accordingly.

Inventors

• Sole named inventor on the '433 and on the parent '890.
• Background: Rojas co-founded North Coast Logic, Inc. (acquired by NEC America → NEC Integrated Application Division); he left NEC in early 2002 to found Ayalogic, Inc., and holds seven prior AIMWorX® patents assigned to NEC America. Source: Ayalogic press release, Dec 18 2003 (Scully Scott Murphy & Presser newsroom PDF).
• Unusual-pattern note: this is a single-inventor portfolio, not a team departure pattern. Ayalogic was founded in 2002 and the founder-inventor is the assignor entity's principal. The relevant "departure" analogue here is that Ayalogic itself ceased operating and the family was monetized — see below. No evidence of a within-12-months inventor exodus.

Original assignee

Two different entities legitimately answer to "original assignee," depending on which patent in the family you read:

1. True originator — Ayalogic, Inc., Akron, OH. Named assignee on the face of the parent US 7,535,890 (filed Dec 18 2003). Operating company: it shipped a product — Imvox™, a "secure, PC-based instant voice messaging system" (push-to-talk voice/data messaging over IP), announced the same day the patent was filed. Privately held, offices in Akron OH and New York NY. Prosecuted by Scully, Scott, Murphy & Presser, PC, Garden City, NY. Current status: defunct (described in press coverage as a now‑defunct firm; a Ravena, OH address also appears in later records). No bankruptcy filing was surfaced in my search.

2. On the face of this patent — Empire IP LLC. US 8,995,433 issued 2015-03-31, i.e., after the family had already moved to Empire IP. Google Patents therefore lists Original Assignee: Empire IP LLC and Current Assignee: Uniloc 2017 LLC. Empire IP is a patent-monetization entity, not an operating company.

Bottom line: the claims never issued to an operating company that practiced them; by the time the '433 granted, title already sat with an NPE.

Assignment timeline

Chronological. Where a reel/frame is documented I give it; where I could not verify it I say so explicitly.

• Exec. date not confirmed / recorded ~2007–2008 era (before '890 issuance) — Reel 014827 / Frame 0059

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Michael J. Rojas (inventor)
  • Assignee: Ayalogic, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable in this pass — do not assume; the prosecution firm of record was Scully Scott Murphy & Presser, PC, but that is not the same as the recording correspondent.
  • Context: Original inventor-to-employer assignment establishing Ayalogic's title.

• Exec. date not confirmed / recorded on or about 2014-03-25 — Reel 030922 / Frame 0335

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Ayalogic, Inc.
  • Assignee: Empire IP LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrievable in this pass (flagged).
  • Context: Fire-sale / monetization transfer — the operating company's entire VoIP messaging family sold to a patent monetization firm; same day the 14/224,125 continuation was filed in Empire IP's name.

• Exec. ~2016-06 (recorded 2016-06-10 per Google Patents legal events) — reel/frame not confirmed

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Empire IP, LLC
  • Assignee: Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (14/15, rue Edward Steichen, L-2540 Luxembourg)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable in this pass (flagged).
  • Context: Transfer-to-asserter. RPX reported the assignment was "executed four days before Uniloc began filing litigation" — a textbook pre-litigation clearing of title.

• 2016-06-27 (Google Patents legal event) — reel/frame not confirmed

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement (security interest)
  • Assignors: Uniloc Corporation Pty Limited, Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., Uniloc USA, Inc.
  • Assignee/Secured party: Fortress Credit Co LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrievable in this pass (flagged).
  • Context: Securitization / litigation financing. Collateralizes the patents against a Fortress loan; ties to the Dec 30 2014 Revenue Sharing and Note and Warrant Purchase Agreement and Patent License Agreement between the Unilocs and Fortress (per Fed. Cir. Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google, N.D. Cal. 3:19-cv-07651 record).

• Executed 2018-05-03 / recorded 2018-07-12 (Google Patents legal event) — reel/frame not confirmed on the '433 specifically (a Uniloc Luxembourg→Uniloc 2017 assignment instrument referencing Reel 046532/Frame 0088 appears in N.D. Cal. records, but I could not confirm that reel/frame is the '433's own recording)

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.
  • Assignee: Uniloc 2017 LLC, a Delaware LLC, c/o 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, DE (registered-agent/CT Corporation-type address)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable in this pass (flagged).
  • Context: Internal reorg into a new Delaware assertion vehicle, executed the same day the Fortress Payoff and Termination Agreement was signed.

If Assignment Center returned nothing further for this patent number, the record above is the whole chain; note that the last three links are supported by Google Patents legal events and court/PTAB filings, not by reel/frame I personally verified.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8995433
    2003 : Filed by Ayalogic Inc
         : Inventor Rojas assigned to Ayalogic
    2009 : Parent patent 7535890 issued
    2014 : Continuation application filed
         : Ayalogic assigned to Empire IP LLC
    2015 : Patent 8995433 issued
    2016 : Empire IP assigned to Uniloc Luxembourg
         : Fortress takes security interest
         : First infringement suits filed
    2018 : Uniloc Luxembourg assigned to Uniloc 2017 LLC
    2023 : Patent expired

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT.
Ayalogic, Inc. was an operating company that shipped Imvox and filed the original application (press release, Dec 18 2003). Title then moved to Empire IP LLC (Reel 030922/0335), a patent-monetization entity with no product, and onward to Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc 2017 LLC, a single-purpose Delaware LLC at a Wilmington registered-agent address (c/o 1209 Orange Street). Two successive non-operating assignees.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT.

• Empire IP LLC is a widely tracked patent monetization/assertion entity (the RPX piece explicitly calls it a "monetization firm").
• Uniloc (Uniloc USA / Uniloc Luxembourg / Uniloc 2017) is one of the highest-frequency patent plaintiffs in the U.S.; the IPWatchdog/RPX count put Uniloc at 49 suits in this campaign alone, 44 filed since the start of 2016. Uniloc 2017 is a named plaintiff across dozens of E.D. Tex. and other actions (e.g., 2:16-cv-00638 Uniloc v. Apple; 2:16-cv-00777 v. Avaya; 2:17-cv-00214 v. Google; 2:17-cv-00224/00231 v. Amazon), and appears alongside Fortress and VLSI in the N.D. Cal. 3:19-cv-07651 plaintiffs' group.
• Fortress Credit Co LLC / Fortress Investment Group is a well-known patent-litigation financier; its security interest and patent license over this family (recorded 2016-06-27) put third-party litigation financing directly in the chain.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / NOT ESTABLISHED.
This is the signal this task weights most heavily, and I could not obtain the correspondent of record for any recording. I will not infer recurrence from the prosecution firm (Scully Scott Murphy & Presser, PC) or from litigation counsel (Etheridge Law Group — Brett Mangrum, Ryan Loveless; Uniloc in-house Sean D. Burdick) because those are different roles from the recording correspondent. Action item: pull the correspondent field for Reels 014827/0059 and 030922/0335, and the three Uniloc/Fortress reel entries, from Assignment Center. If one attorney/firm recurs, that converts a moderate-confidence read into a high-confidence one.

4. Cascading transfers — PRESENT.
Four title/encumbrance events in roughly a 48-month window: Ayalogic → Empire IP (~2014) → Uniloc Luxembourg (June 2016) → Fortress security interest (June 2016) → Uniloc 2017 LLC (May/July 2018). Multiple consecutive transfers through chained, non-operating entities well under 24 months between the last two.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — PRESENT.
RPX documents the Empire IP → Uniloc Luxembourg assignment as "executed four days before Uniloc began filing litigation" (June 2016), immediately preceding the 2016 E.D. Tex. wave (2:16-cv-00638 filed against Apple on/around 2016-06-14). Title was arranged to establish a clean standing record for assertion.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT (or at least not documented).
No Chapter 7/11 proceeding for Ayalogic surfaced. Ayalogic simply ceased operating and the family was monetized — a private fire-sale, not a bankruptcy-court sale. Do not call it a bankruptcy sale without the docket.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
Privateering requires an operating company arming an NPE against competitors. Ayalogic was defunct by the time of the 2016 campaign, so there is no operating-company sponsor alleging on its own behalf. (The Fortress arrangement is financing, addressed under #2/#4.)

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at Uniloc 2017 LLC, an active asserter. Inverse signal absent.

Post-script (assertion outcome): the patent's asserted claims were invalidated. In IPR2017-01801 (Samsung v. Uniloc Luxembourg) the Board's final decision held all claims unpatentable; parallel challenges (Apple IPR2017-00225, Snap IPR2017-01611/01634, Google IPR2017-02067, LG IPR2017-02087/02088) were filed or joined. The '433 expired 2023-12-18.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

Justification: The claims originated with an operating company (Ayalogic, which shipped Imvox) but were transferred to a monetization entity, Empire IP LLC, at Reel 030922/0335, then assigned to Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. in June 2016 and onward to Uniloc 2017 LLC (Delaware, registered-agent address) in May/July 2018 — four title/encumbrance events in ~4 years, encumbered by a Fortress Credit Co LLC security interest (recorded 2016-06-27). The Empire IP→Uniloc step was executed four days before Uniloc's June 2016 filing wave, and Uniloc is one of the most prolific patent plaintiffs in the country, matching recognized NPE/asserter lists. That is three-plus independent strong signals (shell/licensing-entity transfer, known asserter in the chain, pre-litigation transfer, cascading transfers). The one caveat: signal #3 (repeat correspondent) is unverified, and the last three reel/frame numbers remain to be pulled — those gaps do not change the verdict but should be closed for a clean evidentiary record.

Verify at: USPTO Patent Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 8995433; cross-check Google Patents legal events at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8995433B2](/patent/US8995433B2)/en and RPX/Unified dockets at https://insight.rpxcorp.com/ptab/7387-samsung-electronics-america-v-uniloc-luxembourg-s-a-r-l-et-al-ipr-of-433).

Confidence & gaps statement: I am high-confidence on the identity and order of the chain (Ayalogic → Empire IP → Uniloc Luxembourg → Uniloc 2017, with Fortress security interest), which is corroborated across USPTO chain-of-title statements, Google Patents legal events, RPX, and PTAB/litigation records. I am low-confidence on any reel/frame except 014827/0059 and 030922/0335, and I have no correspondent-of-record data. Those items should be treated as open items to retrieve directly from Assignment Center rather than as findings.

I'll research the prior-art citations for US 8,995,433, including its front-page references and the references relied on in the IPRs.

Let me dig into the specific references cited on the patent's face and in the IPRs.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual prior-art references and the claim text. Let me pull the key references.

Let me pull the full claim set of the '433 patent and the secondary references (Newton, Greenlaw, Hethmon).

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Building on the previously generated summary (which identified the claim set, the Zydney/Clark/Appelman grounds, and the PTAB/CAFC outcomes). This section does not repeat the bibliographic or litigation narrative except where needed to explain an obviousness rationale. Two record inconsistencies are flagged at the end.

1. Analytical framework

I apply the Graham v. John Deere factors: (1) scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) the level of ordinary skill; and (4) objective indicia. Because the '433 patent is a 2003-priority case whose asserted claims were adjudicated, the PTAB's findings and the Federal Circuit's affirmance in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 19-1688 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2021), supply the most reliable factual anchor for what the prior art taught.

Level of ordinary skill (POSITA)

The record treats a POSITA as a software/communications engineer with a working knowledge of packet-switched networking (TCP/IP, HTTP), client-server messaging architectures, database storage, and audio codecs — a level consistent with the '433 specification's own assumption that "compression algorithms" and "encryption algorithms" were "known to persons of skill in the art." No party appears to have disputed the general skill level; the disputes were about what the references disclose and whether the "instant voice messaging application" had to reside on one device.

Claim construction backdrop that drives the result

Three constructions determined the outcome and must be stated up front because the entire § 103 mapping depends on them:

I note the Patent Owner's contrary construction ("instant voice message" = the data content only, so that attachments to Zydney's container do not read on the claim) was rejected by the Board and that rejection was sustained on appeal. Any fresh § 103 analysis must accept that the "data structure vs. data content" fight is settled against the narrow reading.

2. The prior art

Primary reference — Zydney (WO 01/11824, "Method and System for Voice Exchange and Voice Distribution").

• A software agent on a PC/Internet appliance that digitally records a voice message and packs it into a voice container (Zydney 14:2–5; Figs. 4, 6); the agent selects recipients from a list maintained by the originator and "presented visually by the agent" (Fig. 7, step 1.1.2; 14:17–19).
• A central server tracks the online/offline status of agents; delivers "almost immediately" if the recipient is online and stores the container centrally if not, forwarding on availability (Abstract; 14:8–16; 16:7–12; claim 1; 25:1–4).
• The voice container may carry a unique identifier ("originator's code 302," Fig. 3) and other fields, and may be formatted in MIME, which "allows non-textual messages and multipart message bodies attachments to be specified in the message headers" (19:6–10).
• Compression capability: Zydney discloses a "voice/compression software detector" per software agent (Fig. 1A) and states the system "is designed to adapt to the voice and data compression capabilities of the user's existing hardware and software platform" (p. 11, ll. 14–16).
• Two modes: a "pack-and-send mode" and a real-time "intercom mode," selectable manually or "automatically… according to rules that are stored" based on recipient availability (14:17–16:21).

Secondary references.

• Clark (US 6,725,228, "System for Managing and Organizing Stored Electronic Messages") — a message store 23 with a catalog database 28/MessageSummary table 52 that assigns a unique StoreMessageId to each message; a message store server 24 and message client 27 that "generate requests in response to user input such as requests… to add, change or delete a message" (18:25–29); UI retrieval and display of stored messages, including a "Sent" folder (4:25–27; 8:65–9:1; Fig. 6). Clark expressly extends to "any other present or future types of electronic messages."
• Appelman (US 6,750,881, "buddy list" presence) — user-definable co-user lists that track and display logon status in real time, updating as co-users log on/off (Abstract; Fig. and 2004/0148347 disclosure). This is the classic presence/availability GUI.
• Shinder (Computer Networking Essentials, 2002) — a network interface is "always required to communicate over a network"; Internet = packet-switched network (pp. 170, 195–96).
• Hethmon (Illustrated Guide to HTTP, 1997) — HTTP/1.1 structure: Request-Line carrying a method (e.g., POST), and an Entity-Body "payload"; POST "provided a way to send substantial information to a server"; content codings allow serving "resources in a compressed format" (pp. 15, 42, 47, 54, 78).
• Greenlaw — controls for reviewing, re-recording, deleting a recorded message.
• Newton — cited for claim 10 (I could not independently verify its content; see caveats).
• Apple's IPR2017-00225 art — Abburi (voice-message client recording to a WAV file, compressing, routing to a network interface), Holtzberg (message database for audio messages), Logan (compression), Väänänen (voice messaging at a subscriber terminal).

3. Claim-by-claim § 103 mapping

Claim 1 (client-side application: recipient list + local message DB with unique-ID records + file manager)

Why a POSITA would combine Zydney + Clark (the key motivation): Zydney's agent stores containers only in transient/temporary fashion and relies on the central server for persistence; Clark supplies exactly the missing capability — an organized, searchable, locally persistent store that can hold both sent and received items and can be manipulated (add/change/delete) at user request. There is a design incentive to give the client the same organizational benefits the server-side store already provides, and no reference teaches away. The Board credited expert testimony that the combination "would have been obvious to combine Zydney and Clark for the reasons articulated by Clark."

Claim 6 (same architecture + compression/decompression)

Zydney alone teaches it: the "voice/compression software detector" per agent (Fig. 1A), MP3 conversion before packing, and the express design statement that the system "adapt[s] to the voice and data compression capabilities of the user's existing hardware." The Board expressly noted claim 6 does not recite the unique identifier and does not require the message database to be inside the application — so the Zydney+Clark combination of claim 1 carries over, with Zydney supplying compression. Strongest of the three independents.

Claim 9 (platform + messaging system + "attaches one or more files to the instant voice message")

• Zydney Fig. 6: the agent asks the user "what multimedia file to associate [to] this voice container."
• Zydney Fig. 16, step 5.1.4: "associating the multimedia file with the originator's voice container, as well as networked voices" (35:15–17).
• Zydney uses MIME formatting so attachments are "specified in the message headers" (19:6–10).

Under the Board's construction of "attach" = creating an association, and "instant voice message" = "data content including a representation of an audio message" (Zydney's container), this limitation reads directly on Zydney. The Board credited the expert that a POSITA "would have found it obvious that attaching files to a voice container would have been part of the process of packing the message into a voice container." This is a single-reference anticipation-adjacent showing; no combination is even needed.

Dependent claims 2–5, 7, 8 (from claim 1/6)

• 2–3 (plurality of received IVMs; display of stored messages): Clark's MessageSummary/Sent-folder and display panels (Fig. 6).
• 4 (audio-file creation from an audio input device): Zydney's MP3 recording.
• 5 (encryption/decryption): Zydney's "password retrieval" container field 320 plus the specification's acknowledgement that DES/AES etc. were well known — but note the '622 record shows claims 4/5-style limitations were the only ones on which the Board initially found for the Patent Owner and which drew a Facebook cross-appeal (the "action field" issue resolved via Hethmon's HTTP Request-Line). If '433 claim 4/5 tracks the "action field" limitation, the correct combination is Zydney + Hethmon (voice container as the Entity-Body "payload" of an HTTP POST whose Request-Line supplies the action/method), which the Federal Circuit held the Board abused its discretion in not considering.
• 7 (availability indicia): Zydney + Clark + Appelman. Zydney already conveys recipient online/offline status; Appelman supplies the real-time, user-definable presence list. Board found claim 7 obvious.
• 8 (audible/visual effect indicating receipt): Zydney Fig. 9 "presenting the list of voice containers" plus the automatic notification of available messages. Board rejected the Patent Owner's argument that an immediate alert was required — the claim is silent on timing.

Dependent claims 10–16 and 17–26 (from claim 9; server/availability aspects)

• 17, 25, 26 (server determines availability; delivers to available; stores for unavailable; delivers on availability): this is Zydney's core disclosure verbatim — claim 1 ("storing said message at said central server when said recipient is not available for forwarding when said recipient is available"); 14:8–16; 16:7–12; 25:1–4 ("The message server will be the repository for messages sent to software agents that are not logged onto the system"). Ground: Zydney alone.
• 12, 14 (buffered successive portions of the IVM; link between message and file): Zydney's intercom mode (buffered real-time transmission) and its MIME association.
• 10: Zydney + Newton (Newton unverified — see caveats).
• 11, 15, 16 (review/re-record/delete controls): Zydney + Greenlaw. Zydney already provides save/delete/resend controls; Greenlaw adds review/re-record — a predictable UI ergonomic.

4. Ground-by-ground summary (as adjudicated)

5. Motivation-to-combine rationales (KSR / MPEP 2143)

1. Known technique to improve a similar device, predictable result. Adding Clark's organized message store to Zydney's agent improves retrieval/organization without altering Zydney's voice-exchange function; adding a NIC (Shinder) is a standard requirement.
2. Combination of known elements according to known methods. Zydney's client-server voice messaging + Clark's catalog database + Appelman's presence list = predictable aggregate; each element performs its known function ("no change in their respective functions").
3. Design incentive / market forces. Instant-messaging users expect a persistent message history, deletable/retrievable items, and real-time availability — the "wide range of needs" rationale from KSR. Zydney itself teaches storing messages and adapting to platform compression, creating a natural pull toward Clark's store.
4. Explicit teaching in the references. Clark states its organization methods apply to "any sort of electronic messages… temporarily or permanently stored"; Zydney expressly contemplates MIME attachments and offline storage/forwarding.
5. "Obvious to try" / finite number of predictable solutions. Given that IM clients (Appelman's world) already displayed buddy lists, there was a finite, predictable set of ways to present Zydney's recipient list with presence.

Reasonable expectation of success is high: all components (message store, unique IDs, presence lists, codecs, HTTP transport) were mature, off-the-shelf technologies in 2003, and the asserted combinations do not require re-architecting Zydney's server.

6. Patent Owner's counterarguments and their disposition

7. Objective indicia (secondary considerations)

No compelling nexus-backed evidence appears in the record. The patent was asserted in dozens of E.D. Tex. suits against Google, Amazon, Facebook, Snap, Apple, Samsung, LG and Huawei, which shows industry adoption of instant voice messaging but not that the adoption flowed from these claims rather than from the well-known combination. With the patent now Expired – Lifetime (2023-12-18), secondary considerations are unlikely to carry weight; any "copying" is more plausibly attributable to the ubiquitous practice the prior art describes.

8. Alternative combination (Apple's IPR2017-00225 grounds)

Apple relied on a different art family: Abburi (client records voice to a WAV file, compresses, routes to network interface) in view of Holtzberg (message database for audio messages), with Logan for compression (claim 6), or Väänänen + Holtzberg. On this art, the Board upheld claims 1–6 and 8. This is analytically important: it shows that the concept of client-side recording + local database storage + compression was independently rendered obvious by a second, unrelated set of references — i.e., the subject matter was generally known, even if Apple's particular combination was not proven. The Facebook Zydney-based grounds succeeded where Apple's Abburi-based grounds did not, chiefly because Zydney maps more completely onto the "instant voice messaging application" architecture.

9. Bottom line

• Claims 1–8, 9–12, 14–17, 25, 26 were held obvious over Zydney + Clark (claims 1–6, 8), Zydney + Clark + Appelman (7), Zydney (9, 12, 14, 17, 25, 26), Zydney + Newton (10), and Zydney + Greenlaw (11, 15, 16) — affirmed by the Federal Circuit in March 2021.
• The strongest single-reference showing is claim 9 (Zydney's multimedia-to-voice-container association + MIME) and claims 17/25/26 (Zydney's store-and-forward on availability — the very feature the '433 abstract recites).
• The doctrinal linchpins are the broad BRI constructions of "instant voice message," "attach," and "instant voice messaging application," without which the Zydney mappings fail.

10. Inconsistencies and caveats (explicitly flagged)

1. FWD timing conflict. The Federal Circuit opinion states the consolidated Board decision issued November 20, 2018 (citing 2018 WL 6271687, P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2018); one CourtListener excerpt states January 16, 2019, and the earlier summary in this analysis used November 30, 2018. The parties appear to reference one substantive decision with inconsistent docket dates. I cannot resolve this from the available text.
2. Contradiction with the earlier section's "Apple upheld patentability." That statement is accurate but must be read narrowly: Apple's FWD upheld claims 1–6 and 8 against Abburi/Holtzberg/Väänänen; the Facebook IPRs invalidated the same and additional claims against Zydney/Clark/Appelman. These are different panels, different art, and different records — not a contradiction in the law, but the earlier summary's phrasing could be misread as an endorsement of overall validity.
3. Claims 4 and 5. I could not verify the '433 text of claims 4 and 5 with high confidence. If they recite an "action field," the correct and now-mandated combination is Zydney + Hethmon (HTTP POST Request-Line as the action field; voice container as Entity-Body), as the Federal Circuit held the Board erred in not considering it. If they instead recite encryption, the Zydney "password retrieval" field plus admitted-known ciphers suffices. Verify against the issued claim text.
4. Newton and Greenlaw. I could not independently confirm the full contents of the Newton and Greenlaw references cited for claims 10 and 11/15/16; treat those specific mappings as record-derived rather than independently verified.
5. Independent-claim set. The record positively establishes claims 1, 6, and 9 as independent and indicates claim 17 depends from claim 9 (claim 26 → 25 → 17 → 9). I cannot confirm whether any additional independent claims exist outside the challenged set.

Sources consulted: Google Patents full text (US8995433B2); Fed. Cir. opinion No. 19-1688, Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook, Inc. (Mar. 9, 2021); Finnegan IPR2017-01427 institution decision; PTAB FWD excerpts (IPR2017-01427/-01428) and Apple IPR2017-00225 Petition/Reply/Response; Clark US 6,725,228; Appelman US 6,750,881; Zydney WO 01/11824 (as quoted in the IPR record); Shinder; Hethmon.