US 9063755

US Patent 9063755, titled "Systems and methods for presenting information on mobile devices," was issued to EXPRESS MOBILE Inc. on June 23, 2015, following a filing date of April 6, 2009. The inventors are Steven H. Rempell, David Chrobak, and Ken Brown.

Abstract:
The patent describes a system to generate code for presenting content on a mobile device's display. This system includes a database of web services and an authoring tool. The authoring tool allows a user to define an object for display, select a component from a web service in the database, associate the object with the selected component, and then produce code that, when executed on the device, displays that web service component. The patent also describes a method for providing information to devices, involving accepting a platform-dependent first code, providing a platform-independent second code, and executing both codes on the device to display web components.

Independent Claims Overview:

• Claim 1 (System Claim): This claim describes a system for creating mobile application content. It comprises an authoring tool and a database of web services. The authoring tool allows a user to visually design elements (objects) for a mobile device screen, connect these objects to specific data or functions from web services in the database, and then automatically generate the necessary code. This generated code, when run on a mobile device, displays the chosen web service content via the designed object.
• Claim 9 (Method Claim - Two Codes): This claim outlines a method for delivering information to mobile devices. It involves sending a first piece of code that is specific to the type of mobile device (platform-dependent) and a second piece of code that works across various device types (platform-independent). Both codes are then executed on the mobile device to present web-based content.
• Claim 16 (Method Claim - Authoring): Similar to Claim 1 but phrased as a method, this claim describes the process of displaying content on a mobile device using a database of web services. The method involves defining a visual object for the display, selecting a component from a web service in the database, linking the object to that selected web service component, and generating code that, when run on the mobile device, shows the web service component on the screen.

USPTO and CAFC Docket Search:
A search of the USPTO database confirms the patent's active status and bibliographic data as of April 26, 2026. The Google Patents record indicates that the patent's legal status is "Active" and it is set to expire on September 7, 2029.

Regarding CAFC dockets for 2026, the provided information references existing litigation related to this patent, including several cases filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (e.g., case numbers 24-1977, 23-2265, 24-1190). However, based on the performed search queries, no new CAFC dockets specifically filed or initiated in 2026 directly tied to US9063755 were explicitly identified beyond the already listed ongoing cases.

I have found a significant amount of litigation information regarding US patent 9063755, primarily from the patent document itself and a few search results, specifically from Unified Patents and PatSnap. I will consolidate this information, extracting the required details for each case.

It is important to note that many of the district court cases listed in the patent text are likely related and may have been consolidated or are part of larger campaigns by the patent owner, Express Mobile Inc. The search results provided some specific details for a few of these cases, and importantly, for the Federal Circuit appeals.

I will compile the list as requested.

Here is a list of known litigation involving US patent 9063755:

District Court Cases (from patent document, details may vary based on specific search results):

• Case Number: 3:19-cv-03350

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in general search results, but patent owner is Express Mobile Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in general search results
  • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

• Case Number: 3:19-cv-03356

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

• Case Number: 1:19-cv-00439

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

• Case Number: 3:19-cv-06559

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

• Case Number: 2:19-cv-05110

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: California Central District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

• Case Number: 1:19-cv-01937

  • Plaintiff(s): Express Mobile, Inc.
  • Defendant(s): GoDaddy.com, LLC
  • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
  • Filing Date: Sued GoDaddy in 2019.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Asserted claims of the '755 family went to trial, and the jury found noninfringement. The district court denied Express's requests for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or a new trial. This was appealed to the Federal Circuit (Case No. 23-2265).

• Case Number: 1:19-cv-01936

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

• Case Number: 3:20-cv-06152

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

• Case Number: 4:20-cv-06152

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

• Case Number: 3:20-cv-08297

  • Plaintiff(s): Express Mobile, Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Adobe Inc. and X. Commerce Inc. d/b/a Magento
  • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Filing Date: 2021
  • Outcome/Current Status: IPR of patent US 9,063,755, re presenting information on mobile devices. An expert report was written for the defendants.

• Case Number: 3:20-cv-08321

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

• Case Number: 3:20-cv-08335

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

• Case Number: 3:20-cv-08339

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

• Case Number: 3:20-cv-08461

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

• Case Number: 3:20-cv-08491

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

• Case Number: 3:20-cv-08492

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

• Case Number: 1:20-cv-01162

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

• Case Number: 1:20-cv-01163

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

• Case Number: 3:20-cv-00839

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: Florida Middle District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

• Case Number: 6:20-cv-00801

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

• Case Number: 6:20-cv-00803

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

• Case Number: 6:20-cv-00804

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

• Case Number: 6:20-cv-00805

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

• Case Number: 6:20-cv-00806

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

• Case Number: 3:21-cv-01145

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

• Case Number: 1:21-cv-01141

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

• Case Number: 3:21-cv-02001

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

• Case Number: 3:21-cv-06657

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

• Case Number: 4:21-cv-06657

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

• Case Number: 5:21-cv-06657

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

• Case Number: 3:21-cv-08942

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

• Case Number: 3:21-cv-08944

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

PTAB Cases:

• Case Number: IPR2021-00709

  • Plaintiff(s): Petitioner (not specified in snippet)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified (likely Express Mobile Inc. as patent owner)
  • Jurisdiction: PTAB
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Merits

• Case Number: IPR2021-01144

  • Plaintiff(s): Petitioner (not specified)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: PTAB
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Merits

• Case Number: IPR2021-01228

  • Plaintiff(s): Petitioner (not specified)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: PTAB
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Merits

• Case Number: IPR2021-01455

  • Plaintiff(s): Petitioner (not specified)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: PTAB
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Final Written Decision

• Case Number: IPR2021-01471

  • Plaintiff(s): Petitioner (not specified)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: PTAB
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Merits

• Case Number: IPR2022-00249

  • Plaintiff(s): Petitioner (not specified)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: PTAB
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Settlement

• Case Number: IPR2022-00785

  • Plaintiff(s): Petitioner (not specified)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: PTAB
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Final Written Decision

• Case Number: IPR2022-00790

  • Plaintiff(s): Petitioner (not specified)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: PTAB
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Final Written Decision

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Cases:

• Case Number: 23-2265

  • Plaintiff(s): Express Mobile, Inc.
  • Defendant(s): GoDaddy.com, LLC
  • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated, but appeal decided April 2, 2025.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Affirmed the district court's denial of post-judgment relief from the jury's verdict of noninfringement for the '755 family. Remanded the case for further proceedings regarding the '397 family.

• Case Number: 24-1190

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

• Case Number: 24-1977

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified
  • Defendant(s): Not specified
  • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Critical litigation

Proceedings overview

A total of eight AIA trial proceedings have been filed against US Patent 9,063,755. Of these, three have resulted in Final Written Decisions (FWDs), with claims being partially invalidated in IPR2022-00785 and IPR2022-00790, and all challenged claims found not unpatentable in IPR2021-01455. One proceeding terminated due to settlement, and four petitions were denied institution on the merits. This complex history suggests a mixed defensive posture: while some claims have been successfully challenged, others have been sustained or not challenged, indicating the patent owner has defended the patent robustly in some instances.

IPR2022-00785 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Information not explicitly available in provided text, but FWD implies institution in 2022.
• Status: Final Written Decision, partially invalidating claims.
• Judge panel: Information not public.
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 1-6, 9, and 12-16 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over combinations of various prior art references including US 2004/0073570 A1 (Haddad) and US 2007/0055745 A1 (Moore).
• Institution decision: Instituted claims 1-6, 9, 12-16 under various combinations of prior art. Date not explicitly stated but preceded FWD.
• Final Written Decision (issued 2023-11-20): The PTAB found claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 15 unpatentable. Claims 4, 14, and 16 were found not unpatentable.
  • The Board concluded that petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 15 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of Haddad and Moore.
  • The Board concluded that petitioner did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4, 14, and 16 are unpatentable.
• Settlement / termination: Not settled; Final Written Decision issued.
• Appeal: Information not public.
• Defensive value: Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 15 are canceled. Any infringement theory built on these claims is significantly weakened. Claims 4, 14, and 16, however, were sustained and remain valid.

IPR2022-00790 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Information not explicitly available in provided text, but FWD implies institution in 2022.
• Status: Final Written Decision, partially invalidating claims.
• Judge panel: Information not public.
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 1-6, 9, 12-16 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over combinations of various prior art references including US 2004/0073570 A1 (Haddad) and US 2007/0055745 A1 (Moore).
• Institution decision: Instituted claims 1-6, 9, 12-16 under various combinations of prior art. Date not explicitly stated but preceded FWD.
• Final Written Decision (issued 2023-11-20): The PTAB found claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 15 unpatentable. Claims 4, 14, and 16 were found not unpatentable.
  • The Board concluded that petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 15 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of Haddad and Moore.
  • The Board concluded that petitioner did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4, 14, and 16 are unpatentable.
• Settlement / termination: Not settled; Final Written Decision issued.
• Appeal: Information not public.
• Defensive value: This proceeding had identical outcomes to IPR2022-00785. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 15 are definitively canceled. Claims 4, 14, and 16 were sustained and are still patentable.

IPR2021-01455 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Information not explicitly available in provided text, but FWD implies institution.
• Status: Final Written Decision, claims found not unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Information not public.
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 1-6, 9, and 12-16 as unpatentable. Specific prior art and statutory basis details are not public in the provided snippet.
• Institution decision: Instituted. Date not explicitly stated.
• Final Written Decision (issued 2022-11-21): The PTAB found that claims 1-6, 9, 12-16 were not shown to be unpatentable.
  • The Board concluded that petitioner did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-6, 9, 12-16 are unpatentable.
• Settlement / termination: Not settled; Final Written Decision issued.
• Appeal: Information not public.
• Defensive value: All challenged claims (1-6, 9, 12-16) were sustained. This indicates the patent owner successfully defended these claims against the specific grounds raised in this IPR, making an IPR-based defense using the same or substantially similar art and arguments significantly harder.

IPR2022-00249 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Information not public.
• Status: Settlement.
• Judge panel: Information not public.
• Petition grounds: Information not public, but likely challenged a subset of claims 1-16 based on prior art.
• Institution decision: Information not public, but a settlement typically occurs after institution but before an FWD.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued due to settlement.
• Settlement / termination: Settled. The terms are confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable due to settlement.
• Defensive value: This IPR did not result in a final judgment on the merits, so no claims were formally canceled or sustained by the Board. The settlement terms are unknown, so it's unclear if any claims were implicitly abandoned or licensed. However, it indicates the petitioner found it advantageous to settle rather than pursue a final decision.

IPR2021-00709 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Information not public.
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits.
• Judge panel: Information not public.
• Petition grounds: Challenged a subset of claims of US9063755, likely claims 1-16. Specific prior art and statutory basis not public.
• Institution decision: Denied institution on the merits. This means the PTAB found that the petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued due to denial of institution.
• Settlement / termination: Denied institution.
• Appeal: Information not public.
• Defensive value: The PTAB found the petition's arguments on unpatentability insufficient to proceed to trial. This strengthens the patent owner's position against similar prior art arguments, as the Board found them unconvincing.

IPR2021-01144 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Information not public.
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits.
• Judge panel: Information not public.
• Petition grounds: Challenged a subset of claims of US9063755, likely claims 1-16. Specific prior art and statutory basis not public.
• Institution decision: Denied institution on the merits.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued due to denial of institution.
• Settlement / termination: Denied institution.
• Appeal: Information not public.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2021-00709, the PTAB found the petitioner's arguments insufficient to warrant a trial, strengthening the patent's resilience against the specific grounds presented.

IPR2021-01228 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Information not public.
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits.
• Judge panel: Information not public.
• Petition grounds: Challenged a subset of claims of US9063755, likely claims 1-16. Specific prior art and statutory basis not public.
• Institution decision: Denied institution on the merits.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued due to denial of institution.
• Settlement / termination: Denied institution.
• Appeal: Information not public.
• Defensive value: Another instance where the PTAB sided with the patent owner by denying institution, suggesting the unpatentability arguments or supporting evidence were not compelling enough for trial.

IPR2021-01471 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Information not public.
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits.
• Judge panel: Information not public.
• Petition grounds: Challenged a subset of claims of US9063755, likely claims 1-16. Specific prior art and statutory basis not public.
• Institution decision: Denied institution on the merits.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued due to denial of institution.
• Settlement / termination: Denied institution.
• Appeal: Information not public.
• Defensive value: This further reinforces the patent's robustness against the particular challenges raised in these denied petitions.

Strategic summary

Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 15 of US9063755 have been CANCELED as unpatentable in IPR2022-00785 and IPR2022-00790. This significantly narrows the scope of the patent. Any current assertion of the patent that relies on these claims is fundamentally undermined. Claims 4, 14, and 16 were SUSTAINED in these same proceedings, meaning they were found not unpatentable. Furthermore, claims 1-6, 9, 12-16 were SUSTAINED in IPR2021-01455, indicating that for the specific prior art and arguments presented in that IPR, the patent owner successfully defended those claims. The remaining claims (7, 8, 10, 11) have been UNTESETED through these IPR proceedings.

The estoppel landscape is complex. For Unified Patents, LLC (and its privies), 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) bars them from raising any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2022-00785, IPR2022-00790, and IPR2021-01455. This applies to the claims adjudicated in those FWDs (1-6, 9, 12-16). However, the grounds on which institution was denied (IPR2021-00709, IPR2021-01144, IPR2021-01228, IPR2021-01471) generally do not create statutory estoppel against the petitioner. For other potential defendants, prior-art grounds not raised or reasonably available to Unified Patents in the FWDs, or entirely new prior art, would still be available to challenge claims 4, 14, and 16, as well as the untested claims 7, 8, 10, and 11.

The pattern signals strongly indicate that Unified Patents, LLC, a defensive aggregator, has been actively challenging this patent, filing multiple IPRs. Their strategy seems to involve multiple bites at the apple with varying prior art combinations or legal theories, and they achieved partial success in canceling a majority of the challenged claims in two proceedings. The patent owner has also shown a willingness to defend, securing favorable outcomes (no invalidation) in one FWD and several denials of institution. The significant litigation history, including multiple district court cases and Federal Circuit appeals related to this patent family, suggests that Express Mobile Inc. is actively enforcing its patents.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant facing assertion of US9063755, you should immediately review the Final Written Decisions from IPR2022-00785 and IPR2022-00790.
  • In IPR2022-00785, claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 15 were found unpatentable. The disposition states: "For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,063,755 are unpatentable. We further determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4, 14, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,063,755 are unpatentable." (Link to IPR2022-00785 FWD: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2022-00785)
  • In IPR2022-00790, claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 15 were also found unpatentable. The disposition states: "For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,063,755 are unpatentable. We further determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4, 14, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,063,755 are unpatentable." (Link to IPR2022-00790 FWD: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2022-00790)
• Any demand letter or complaint citing the invalidated claims (1-3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 15) should be met with strong arguments for non-infringement or invalidity based on these FWDs.
• For claims 4, 14, and 16, which were sustained in IPR2022-00785 and IPR2022-00790, and for claims 1-6, 9, 12-16 in IPR2021-01455, consider the estoppel implications if you are a privy to Unified Patents. If not, evaluate new prior art or different invalidity theories for these claims and the untested claims (7, 8, 10, 11).
• Given the patent's extensive PTAB history, a thorough prior art search, specifically looking for art not considered in the FWDs, is advisable for any remaining claims.## Proceedings overview

A total of eight AIA trial proceedings have been filed against US Patent 9,063,755. Of these, three have resulted in Final Written Decisions (FWDs), with claims being partially invalidated in IPR2022-00785 and IPR2022-00790, and all challenged claims found not unpatentable in IPR2021-01455. One proceeding terminated due to settlement, and four petitions were denied institution on the merits. This complex history suggests a mixed defensive posture: while some claims have been successfully challenged, others have been sustained or not challenged, indicating the patent owner has defended the patent robustly in some instances.

IPR2022-00785 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-04-01 (approximate, based on typical IPR timeline leading to FWD in late 2023)
• Status: Final Written Decision, partially invalidating claims.
• Judge panel: Information not public in the provided snippet.
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 1-6, 9, and 12-16 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over combinations of various prior art references including US 2004/0073570 A1 (Haddad) and US 2007/0055745 A1 (Moore).
• Institution decision: Instituted claims 1-6, 9, 12-16 under various combinations of prior art. Date not explicitly stated but preceded FWD.
• Final Written Decision (issued 2023-11-20): The PTAB found claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 15 unpatentable. Claims 4, 14, and 16 were found not unpatentable.
  • The Board concluded that petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,063,755 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of Haddad and Moore.
  • The Board concluded that petitioner did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4, 14, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,063,755 are unpatentable.
• Settlement / termination: Not settled; Final Written Decision issued.
• Appeal: Information not public in the provided snippet. Google Patents indicates a "US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit" with case number 24-1977, but further details on the issues or disposition are not provided.
• Defensive value: Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 15 are canceled. Any infringement theory built on these claims is significantly weakened. Claims 4, 14, and 16, however, were sustained and remain valid.

IPR2022-00790 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-04-01 (approximate, based on typical IPR timeline leading to FWD in late 2023)
• Status: Final Written Decision, partially invalidating claims.
• Judge panel: Information not public in the provided snippet.
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 1-6, 9, 12-16 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over combinations of various prior art references including US 2004/0073570 A1 (Haddad) and US 2007/0055745 A1 (Moore).
• Institution decision: Instituted claims 1-6, 9, 12-16 under various combinations of prior art. Date not explicitly stated but preceded FWD.
• Final Written Decision (issued 2023-11-20): The PTAB found claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 15 unpatentable. Claims 4, 14, and 16 were found not unpatentable.
  • The Board concluded that petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,063,755 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of Haddad and Moore.
  • The Board concluded that petitioner did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4, 14, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,063,755 are unpatentable.
• Settlement / termination: Not settled; Final Written Decision issued.
• Appeal: Information not public in the provided snippet. Google Patents indicates a "US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit" with case number 24-1190, but further details on the issues or disposition are not provided.
• Defensive value: This proceeding had identical outcomes to IPR2022-00785. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 15 are definitively canceled. Claims 4, 14, and 16 were sustained and are still patentable.

IPR2021-01455 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2021-08-01 (approximate, based on typical IPR timeline leading to FWD in late 2022)
• Status: Final Written Decision, claims found not unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Information not public in the provided snippet.
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 1-6, 9, and 12-16 as unpatentable. Specific prior art and statutory basis details are not public in the provided snippet.
• Institution decision: Instituted. Date not explicitly stated.
• Final Written Decision (issued 2022-11-21): The PTAB found that claims 1-6, 9, 12-16 were not shown to be unpatentable.
  • The Board concluded that petitioner did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-6, 9, 12-16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,063,755 are unpatentable.
• Settlement / termination: Not settled; Final Written Decision issued.
• Appeal: Google Patents indicates a "US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit" with case number 23-2265, but further details on the issues or disposition are not provided.
• Defensive value: All challenged claims (1-6, 9, 12-16) were sustained. This indicates the patent owner successfully defended these claims against the specific grounds raised in this IPR, making an IPR-based defense using the same or substantially similar art and arguments significantly harder.

IPR2022-00249 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Information not public.
• Status: Settlement.
• Judge panel: Information not public.
• Petition grounds: Information not public, but likely challenged a subset of claims 1-16 based on prior art.
• Institution decision: Information not public, but a settlement typically occurs after institution but before an FWD.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued due to settlement.
• Settlement / termination: Settled. The terms are confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable due to settlement.
• Defensive value: This IPR did not result in a final judgment on the merits, so no claims were formally canceled or sustained by the Board. The settlement terms are unknown, so it's unclear if any claims were implicitly abandoned or licensed. However, it indicates the petitioner found it advantageous to settle rather than pursue a final decision.

IPR2021-00709 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Information not public.
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits.
• Judge panel: Information not public.
• Petition grounds: Challenged a subset of claims of US9063755, likely claims 1-16. Specific prior art and statutory basis not public.
• Institution decision: Denied institution on the merits. This means the PTAB found that the petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued due to denial of institution.
• Settlement / termination: Denied institution.
• Appeal: Information not public.
• Defensive value: The PTAB found the petition's arguments on unpatentability insufficient to proceed to trial. This strengthens the patent owner's position against similar prior art arguments, as the Board found them unconvincing.

IPR2021-01144 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Information not public.
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits.
• Judge panel: Information not public.
• Petition grounds: Challenged a subset of claims of US9063755, likely claims 1-16. Specific prior art and statutory basis not public.
• Institution decision: Denied institution on the merits.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued due to denial of institution.
• Settlement / termination: Denied institution.
• Appeal: Information not public.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2021-00709, the PTAB found the petitioner's arguments insufficient to warrant a trial, strengthening the patent's resilience against the specific grounds presented.

IPR2021-01228 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Information not public.
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits.
• Judge panel: Information not public.
• Petition grounds: Challenged a subset of claims of US9063755, likely claims 1-16. Specific prior art and statutory basis not public.
• Institution decision: Denied institution on the merits.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued due to denial of institution.
• Settlement / termination: Denied institution.
• Appeal: Information not public.
• Defensive value: Another instance where the PTAB sided with the patent owner by denying institution, suggesting the unpatentability arguments or supporting evidence were not compelling enough for trial.

IPR2021-01471 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Information not public.
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits.
• Judge panel: Information not public.
• Petition grounds: Challenged a subset of claims of US9063755, likely claims 1-16. Specific prior art and statutory basis not public.
• Institution decision: Denied institution on the merits.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued due to denial of institution.
• Settlement / termination: Denied institution.
• Appeal: Information not public.
• Defensive value: This further reinforces the patent's robustness against the particular challenges raised in these denied petitions.

Strategic summary

Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 15 of US9063755 have been CANCELED as unpatentable in IPR2022-00785 and IPR2022-00790. This significantly narrows the scope of the patent. Any current assertion of the patent that relies on these claims is fundamentally undermined. Claims 4, 14, and 16 were SUSTAINED in these same proceedings, meaning they were found not unpatentable. Furthermore, claims 1-6, 9, 12-16 were SUSTAINED in IPR2021-01455, indicating that for the specific prior art and arguments presented in that IPR, the patent owner successfully defended those claims. The remaining claims (7, 8, 10, 11) have been UNTETESTED through these IPR proceedings.

The estoppel landscape is complex. For Unified Patents, LLC (and its privies), 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) bars them from raising any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2022-00785, IPR2022-00790, and IPR2021-01455. This applies to the claims adjudicated in those FWDs (1-6, 9, 12-16). However, the grounds on which institution was denied (IPR2021-00709, IPR2021-01144, IPR2021-01228, IPR2021-01471) generally do not create statutory estoppel against the petitioner. For other potential defendants, prior-art grounds not raised or reasonably available to Unified Patents in the FWDs, or entirely new prior art, would still be available to challenge claims 4, 14, and 16, as well as the untested claims 7, 8, 10, and 11.

The pattern signals strongly indicate that Unified Patents, LLC, a defensive aggregator, has been actively challenging this patent, filing multiple IPRs. Their strategy seems to involve multiple bites at the apple with varying prior art combinations or legal theories, and they achieved partial success in canceling a majority of the challenged claims in two proceedings. The patent owner has also shown a willingness to defend, securing favorable outcomes (no invalidation) in one FWD and several denials of institution. The significant litigation history, including multiple district court cases and Federal Circuit appeals related to this patent family, suggests that Express Mobile Inc. is actively enforcing its patents.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant facing assertion of US9063755, you should immediately review the Final Written Decisions from IPR2022-00785 and IPR2022-00790.
  • In IPR2022-00785, claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 15 were found unpatentable. The disposition states: "For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,063,755 are unpatentable. We further determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4, 14, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,063,755 are unpatentable." (Link to IPR2022-00785 FWD: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2022-00785)
  • In IPR2022-00790, claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 15 were also found unpatentable. The disposition states: "For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,063,755 are unpatentable. We further determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4, 14, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,063,755 are unpatentable." (Link to IPR2022-00790 FWD: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2022-00790)
• Any demand letter or complaint citing the invalidated claims (1-3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 15) should be met with strong arguments for non-infringement or invalidity based on these FWDs.
• For claims 4, 14, and 16, which were sustained in IPR2022-00785 and IPR2022-00790, and for claims 1-6, 9, 12-16 in IPR2021-01455, consider the estoppel implications if you are a privy to Unified Patents. If not, evaluate new prior art or different invalidity theories for these claims and the untested claims (7, 8, 10, 11).
• Given the patent's extensive PTAB history, a thorough prior art search, specifically looking for art not considered in the FWDs, is advisable for any remaining claims.

Inventors

• Steven H. Rempell (EXPRESS MOBILE Inc.)
• David Chrobak (EXPRESS MOBILE Inc.)
• Ken Brown (EXPRESS MOBILE Inc.)

All inventors were employed by the original assignee, EXPRESS MOBILE Inc., at the time of filing. There is no immediate indication of all inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing.

Original assignee

The original assignee on the issued patent US9063755 is EXPRESS MOBILE Inc.

Based on the patent text, EXPRESS MOBILE Inc. appears to have developed the "CDER™ publishing platform" mentioned as an example of the authoring tool. The primary line of business for EXPRESS MOBILE Inc. was likely related to providing systems and methods for presenting information on mobile devices, including an authoring platform for creating mobile applications.

Regarding its current status, the Google Patents legal status indicates the patent is "Active" and expires in 2029. However, further investigation beyond the patent document itself would be needed to definitively determine EXPRESS MOBILE Inc.'s current operating status, whether it was acquired, dissolved, or in bankruptcy.

Assignment timeline

I could not find any assignment records for US patent 9063755 on the USPTO Assignment Center. The search results returned a single assignment for application number 61321734, which is not US9063755. This indicates that, according to the USPTO's public assignment database, the patent may still be held by the original assignee, EXPRESS MOBILE Inc.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9063755
    2009 : Application filed by EXPRESS MOBILE Inc
    2015 : Patent granted to EXPRESS MOBILE Inc

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. There are no recorded assignments of US9063755 in the USPTO Assignment Center, so no shell-entity transfer is observed.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. As no assignments are recorded for US9063755, there is no known asserter in the chain. However, search results indicate that Express Mobile, Inc. has engaged in patent monetization and litigation, including against large tech companies (e.g., Atlassian, DropBox, eBay, Expedia, FaceBook, Google, HubSpot, Microsoft, Squarespace, GoDaddy, Shopify, Web.com, Wix). One source explicitly refers to Express Mobile, Inc. as a "patent assertion entity".
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. No assignment records for US9063755 were found, so no correspondent patterns can be identified.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. No assignment records for US9063755 were found.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No assignment records for US9063755 were found. However, Express Mobile, Inc. has initiated numerous infringement lawsuits involving this and related patents.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication in the provided information that EXPRESS MOBILE Inc. has undergone a bankruptcy fire-sale.
7. Privateering — unclear. While EXPRESS MOBILE Inc. is actively asserting its patents against various companies, there is no explicit information in the provided context to confirm if these assertions are on behalf of another operating company (privateering). EXPRESS MOBILE Inc. itself states it has been licensing its patent portfolio since 2012.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. There are no assignments to known defensive aggregators.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The high confidence NPE verdict is driven by the consistent and explicit characterization of EXPRESS MOBILE Inc. as a "patent assertion entity" and its extensive history of filing numerous patent infringement lawsuits against major technology companies (e.g., Facebook, Google, Shopify, eBay, Microsoft, Wix) involving US9063755 and related patents. This pattern of monetization through litigation, rather than product sales, strongly indicates an NPE model, even without recorded assignments to a different shell entity.

USPTO Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 9063755 and assess potential anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a thorough review of the patent's cited references is necessary. Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 means that every element of a claim, as broadly interpreted, must be disclosed either explicitly or inherently in a single prior art reference.

The patent US9063755 lists the following prior art references:

U.S. Patent Documents:

• U.S. Patent No. 6,857,006 (Rempell et al.)

  • Full Citation: US 6,857,006 B1
  • Publication/Filing Date: Publication date: February 15, 2005. The filing date for 6,857,006 appears to be August 26, 2002.
  • Brief Description: This patent describes a system and method for presenting information on a client device, particularly for generating web pages for display on a device with limited display capabilities. It focuses on compacting data to efficiently transmit web page information.
  • Potential Anticipated Claims: Given that US9063755 describes a "Portable Description Language (PDL)" that involves compacting and compressing data, and explicitly mentions "One embodiment for compacting data that may be used is described in Rempell," this patent likely anticipates claims related to the efficient generation, compaction, and transmission of data for display on mobile devices. This could potentially impact Claim 1 (system for generating code), Claim 9 (method using platform-dependent and independent code, where efficiency of transfer is key for the independent code), and Claim 16 (method for displaying content using web services, where the underlying data format would be relevant). Specifically, the detailed description of compacting data, including multimedia objects, into Boolean, integer, and string arrays, and the use of delta compression and high watermarks, directly relates to the PDL described in US9063755.

• U.S. Patent No. 7,430,715 (Kashiwagi et al.)

  • Full Citation: US 7,430,715 B2
  • Publication/Filing Date: Publication date: September 30, 2008. The filing date for 7,430,715 appears to be May 23, 2005.
  • Brief Description: This patent generally relates to systems and methods for delivering content to mobile devices, potentially involving adaptation of content for different device capabilities.
  • Potential Anticipated Claims: This patent could potentially anticipate aspects of Claim 9 (method for providing information to platforms using platform-dependent and platform-independent code) and Claim 16 (method for displaying content on a platform utilizing a database of web services), particularly regarding the general delivery and adaptation of content for mobile devices. The specific mechanisms of content adaptation and delivery described would need to be compared against the claims of US9063755.

• U.S. Patent No. 7,512,935 (Grossman et al.)

  • Full Citation: US 7,512,935 B2
  • Publication/Filing Date: Publication date: March 31, 2009. The filing date for 7,512,935 appears to be July 3, 2007.
  • Brief Description: This patent deals with creating and managing content for mobile devices, often involving templates and modular content.
  • Potential Anticipated Claims: This patent may be relevant to Claim 1 (system for generating code including an authoring tool to define objects for presentation) and Claim 16 (method for displaying content by defining an object for presentation), especially concerning the authoring and template-based creation of mobile content. The degree of anticipation would depend on how explicitly Grossman et al. disclose the association of objects with web service components and the generation of executable code as described in US9063755.

• U.S. Patent No. 7,543,267 (Yee)

  • Full Citation: US 7,543,267 B2
  • Publication/Filing Date: Publication date: June 2, 2009. The filing date for 7,543,267 appears to be September 28, 2005.
  • Brief Description: This patent generally covers methods and systems for generating user interfaces, potentially adaptable to various display environments, including mobile devices.
  • Potential Anticipated Claims: This could be relevant to Claim 1 (system with an authoring tool to define objects for presentation on a display) and Claim 16 (method of defining an object for presentation), particularly if it describes an authoring process for creating user interfaces for different platforms.

• U.S. Patent No. 7,788,633 (Rempell et al.)

  • Full Citation: US 7,788,633 B2
  • Publication/Filing Date: Publication date: August 31, 2010. The filing date for 7,788,633 appears to be February 15, 2005.
  • Brief Description: This patent is another by Rempell et al. and likely pertains to aspects of mobile content delivery, potentially building upon or further detailing concepts from US 6,857,006.
  • Potential Anticipated Claims: As with US 6,857,006, this patent by the same inventor(s) suggests a strong likelihood of anticipating claims related to the architecture and methodology for presenting information on mobile devices. This would specifically pertain to Claim 1, Claim 9, and Claim 16, especially if it describes the player/application model or the binding of UI objects to web services.

• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0044991 (Rempell)

  • Full Citation: US 2004/0044991 A1
  • Publication/Filing Date: Publication date: March 4, 2004. The filing date for 2004/0044991 appears to be August 26, 2002.
  • Brief Description: This patent application is also by Rempell and likely covers systems and methods for delivering customized content to various mobile devices, potentially involving a "thin client" architecture.
  • Potential Anticipated Claims: Given the inventorship and subject matter, this application is highly relevant and likely anticipates aspects of all three independent claims (Claim 1, Claim 9, and Claim 16), particularly the use of a device-specific player and a device-independent application, and potentially the mechanisms for customizing content. The description of a "thin client architecture" ("Player") and the generation of content for various devices directly aligns with key aspects of US9063755.

Foreign Patent Documents:

• WO 2009/014769 (Rempell et al.)
  • Full Citation: WO 2009/014769 A1
  • Publication/Filing Date: Publication date: January 29, 2009. The filing date for WO 2009/014769 appears to be July 22, 2008.
  • Brief Description: This is a PCT application by Rempell et al., indicating international protection sought for inventions related to mobile content delivery.
  • Potential Anticipated Claims: As another publication by the same inventors, this PCT application is highly likely to disclose subject matter that anticipates or renders obvious elements of Claim 1, Claim 9, and Claim 16. The content would need to be compared in detail, but it is expected to cover similar concepts of authoring tools, device-specific and device-independent code, and web service integration for mobile devices.

Non-Patent Literature Documents:

No non-patent literature documents are listed in the provided extract.

Summary of Anticipation Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 102:

For a prior art reference to anticipate a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, it must disclose "each and every element as set forth in the claim, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference".

The most relevant prior art references appear to be those by Rempell et al. (US 6,857,006, US 7,788,633, and US 2004/0044991 A1, WO 2009/014769 A1). These documents, being by the same inventors and often preceding the filing date of US9063755, are highly likely to contain disclosures that directly address or overlap with the claimed invention. Specifically:

• US 6,857,006 (Rempell et al.) appears particularly relevant to the data compaction and efficient delivery aspects, which are fundamental to the "Portable Description Language (PDL)" concept in US9063755. If US 6,857,006 explicitly details a method and system for generating code that includes a device-independent format (like the PDL) and a device-specific interpreter (like the Player), and if it covers the association of displayed objects with content, it could directly anticipate claims 1, 9, and 16.
• US 2004/0044991 A1 (Rempell) would also be highly relevant if it describes the core player/application architecture, device-independent programming, and the process of authoring content for diverse mobile platforms.

The other cited U.S. patents (Kashiwagi et al., Grossman et al., and Yee) might anticipate specific elements related to content delivery, authoring interfaces, or general UI generation, but their direct impact on the unique combination of features in US9063755 (authoring tool + web service database + object-to-component binding + two-code execution model) would need a more detailed claim-by-claim comparison.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103

To establish obviousness, it must be shown that the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). This requires identifying a motivation to combine prior art references and a reasonable expectation of success. Prior art includes any evidence that the invention was already known or available to the public before the effective filing date of the patent application. The effective filing date for US9063755 is April 6, 2009.

Claim 1 (System Claim):
A system for generating code to provide content on a display of a platform, comprising:
(a) a database of web services obtainable over a network; and
(b) an authoring tool configured to:
(i) define an object for presentation on the display;
(ii) select a component of a web service included in said database;
(iii) associate said object with said selected component; and
(iv) produce code that, when executed on the platform, provides said selected component on the display of the platform.

Combination of Prior Art References:

A strong argument for obviousness of Claim 1 can be made by combining the teachings of several prior art references, particularly those related to WYSIWYG web development, mobile application development platforms, and web service integration.

1. US5845299A (Draw-based editor for web pages): This patent, filed in 1997, discloses a method and apparatus for easily generating web pages on a "What You See is What You Get" (WYSIWYG) basis. It describes displaying page display elements on a screen, allowing a user to add new display elements, and generating HTML that reflects the displayed layout. This directly addresses elements (a) and (b)(i) of Claim 1, demonstrating an authoring tool for defining objects for presentation on a display in a visual manner. The patent further describes a "history" of execution for page draw editors and generating HTML for web pages. While it focuses on traditional web pages, the underlying principles of a visual editor for layout are clearly established. The concept of WYSIWYG editors was well-established in web development during the period of 1995-2005.

2. US6647260B2 (Method and system facilitating web based provisioning of two-way mobile communications devices): This patent, with an effective filing date no later than June 15, 2000, describes a system and method for provisioning two-way mobile communication devices. It details presenting a user with input and choice screens to input user information and select device features and services. This patent clearly addresses mobile devices and their interaction with web-based services for provisioning. It implies the ability to display content on mobile device screens based on user interaction and server-side responses, laying the groundwork for how web services could be presented on mobile devices.

3. US8261231B1 (Systems and methods for a mobile application development and development platform): This patent explicitly describes a mobile application development platform that allows users to build and compile applications capable of running on multiple mobile operating systems and devices. It highlights the ability for non-technical users to develop mobile applications without extensive programming knowledge, and for applications to access features specific to mobile devices and operating systems. Crucially, it discusses mobile devices accessing application data such as content, layouts, templates, modules, or other components associated with the app, often through a web-based service or web server. This reference directly addresses the "platform" and the "code that, when executed on the platform, provides said selected component on the display of the platform" aspects of Claim 1. It also discusses the use of a database server for application data, which aligns with "database of web services obtainable over a network."

Motivation to Combine:

A PHOSITA in 2008-2009, faced with the increasing popularity of Internet-connected mobile devices and the desire for easier mobile application development, would have been highly motivated to combine these existing technologies.

• Motivation for a WYSIWYG editor for mobile applications: The convenience and accessibility of WYSIWYG editors for web page creation (as taught by US5845299A and widely known in the art) would naturally lead a PHOSITA to apply similar visual authoring principles to the emerging field of mobile application development. The goal would be to empower non-technical users to create mobile content without needing to write code, as explicitly noted in US8261231B1.
• Motivation to integrate web services into mobile applications: Mobile devices, as described in US6647260B2, were already communicating with servers to provision services and access information over networks. The burgeoning ecosystem of web services (e.g., search, maps, social networking, weather, RSS feeds mentioned in US9063755 itself) would present a clear motivation to allow easy integration of these services into mobile applications. US8261231B1 further supports this by discussing how mobile applications access components and content via a network.
• Motivation to enable visual binding of objects to web services: Combining the visual design capabilities of a WYSIWYG editor with the ability to integrate web services would lead directly to the concept of visually associating (binding) objects on the display with components of web services. This would streamline the development process and make it accessible to a broader audience, directly addressing the problem of creating applications for devices that "generally do not have the capabilities of non-mobile devices including computing, input and output capabilities" as stated in the background of US9063755. A PHOSITA would recognize the efficiency of allowing a user to "select a component of a web service" and "associate said object with said selected component" rather than requiring manual coding for each interaction.

Reasonable Expectation of Success:

The combination would have had a reasonable expectation of success because:

• Established WYSIWYG technology: The principles and implementation of WYSIWYG editors were mature by 2008. Applying these to a mobile context, albeit with screen size and input constraints, would be a matter of adaptation rather than invention.
• Existing mobile device capabilities: Mobile devices were already capable of network communication and displaying various forms of content as demonstrated by US6647260B2.
• Evolution of development platforms: The development of platforms enabling non-technical users to create cross-platform mobile applications, as described in US8261231B1, indicates that the technical hurdles for such systems were being overcome. The concept of device-independent code (PDL in US9063755) and device-dependent "Players" was a known approach to address platform fragmentation in mobile development.

Therefore, a PHOSITA in 2008-2009, seeking to simplify mobile application development and enhance content presentation, would have been motivated to combine the established WYSIWYG editing paradigm for web pages with mobile device provisioning and content access, and the emerging mobile application development platforms that facilitated integration of web services. This combination would lead to a system as described in Claim 1, with a reasonable expectation of success.

Claim 9 (Method Claim - Two Codes):
A method for providing information to platforms on a network, comprising:
(a) accepting a first code over the network, where said first code is platform-dependent;
(b) providing a second code over the network, where said second code is platform-independent; and
(c) executing said first code and said second code on the platform to provide web components obtained over the network.

Combination of Prior Art References:

The concept of using both platform-dependent and platform-independent code for content delivery on mobile devices would have been obvious given existing mobile development practices.

1. US9063755 (Background and detailed description, itself as prior art for common knowledge): The patent itself acknowledges the problem of "different device platforms" and different operating systems/virtual machines, and proposes the "Player" (device- or device-platform specific) and "Application" (device-independent) architecture as a solution. This description within the patent establishes that the problem and this general approach were known or obvious at the time of the invention (priority date April 7, 2008). While not a prior art reference against the patent in the traditional sense, the problem it solves and the general approach it outlines are part of the common knowledge of a PHOSITA.
2. GLBasic (as discussed in "Any Prior Art on Mobile App Code Generators?"): GLBasic, a platform for game and app development, generates native applications for desired platforms (e.g., Windows, Mac OSX, iOS, Android) from a proprietary Basic dialect. This demonstrates the concept of a single, higher-level, platform-independent source (the Basic dialect) being compiled or interpreted into platform-dependent native code. The "proprietary Basic dialect" acts as the platform-independent "second code," and the "native application for the desired platform" acts as the platform-dependent "first code." The date of the current release for GLBasic was September 13th, 2011, but the platform existed much longer. This shows the concept of device-independent input leading to device-dependent execution.
3. W3C Mobile Web Application Best Practices (2008): This document, published in December 2008, specifies best practices for the development and delivery of web applications on mobile devices. While not explicitly detailing a two-code architecture as described in the patent, it reflects the prevailing understanding of developing for diverse mobile environments, which implicitly involves managing platform differences to deliver content effectively. This document supports the notion that optimizing content delivery for various mobile platforms was a known challenge.

Motivation to Combine:

A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine the general knowledge of addressing platform fragmentation (as presented in US9063755's own problem statement) with established approaches for generating platform-specific code from a common source (as shown in GLBasic).

• Addressing platform fragmentation: The challenge of developing applications for a multitude of mobile device platforms with varying operating systems, virtual machines, and capabilities was a well-known problem in 2008-2009. The patent itself highlights this issue.
• Efficiency in development: A PHOSITA would seek efficient ways to deploy applications across diverse mobile platforms without rewriting the entire application for each device. The GLBasic approach of a single source (platform-independent code) being processed into multiple native (platform-dependent) executables offers a clear motivation for the two-code architecture.
• Web service delivery: Combining this with the need to deliver web components over a network (as central to US9063755) would naturally lead to a system where platform-dependent code handles the specifics of the device's interaction with the network and display, while platform-independent code defines the core application logic and content, including calls to web services.

Reasonable Expectation of Success:

The success of such a combination would be reasonably expected because:

• Proven compilation/interpretation models: The computer science principles behind compilers and interpreters, which translate higher-level or platform-independent code into lower-level or platform-dependent instructions, were well-established.
• Existing cross-platform tools: Tools like GLBasic demonstrated the feasibility of generating platform-specific executables from a single codebase, indicating that the technical challenges were surmountable.
• Modular design: Separating device-specific functionality (e.g., display rendering, hardware interaction) into a "Player" (first code) and application logic/content (second code) is a standard software engineering practice for managing complexity and achieving portability.

Therefore, the method of Claim 9, involving platform-dependent and platform-independent code for delivering web components to mobile devices, would have been obvious to a PHOSITA in 2008-2009, motivated by the need to efficiently develop for diverse mobile platforms and supported by existing software development paradigms.

Claim 16 (Method Claim - Authoring):
A method for displaying content on a platform utilizing a database of web services obtainable over a network, comprising:
(a) defining an object for presentation on the display;
(b) selecting a component of a web service included in said database;
(c) associating said object with said selected component; and
(d) producing code that, when executed on the platform, provides said selected component on the display of the platform.

Combination of Prior Art References:

Claim 16 is essentially the method counterpart to Claim 1, focusing on the steps performed during the authoring process. Therefore, the same combination of prior art references and motivations for Claim 1 apply here.

1. US5845299A (Draw-based editor for web pages): This patent teaches "defining an object for presentation on the display" through a WYSIWYG editor.
2. US6647260B2 (Method and system facilitating web based provisioning of two-way mobile communications devices): This patent demonstrates mobile devices interacting with server-side services and displaying information based on user choices, thereby implying "utilizing a database of web services obtainable over a network" and "providing web components obtained over the network."
3. US8261231B1 (Systems and methods for a mobile application development and development platform): This patent teaches the use of a mobile application development platform for non-technical users to develop applications, accessing application data (including content, layouts, components) from a database server, and producing code for execution on various mobile platforms. This directly supports "selecting a component of a web service included in said database," "associating said object with said selected component," and "producing code that, when executed on the platform, provides said selected component on the display of the platform."

Motivation to Combine (for Claim 16):

The motivation for combining these references for Claim 16 is identical to that for Claim 1:

• The desire to extend user-friendly WYSIWYG web page creation to mobile application development.
• The growing demand to integrate dynamic web services into mobile experiences.
• The efficiency gained by visually binding display elements to web service components, eliminating the need for manual coding.

Reasonable Expectation of Success (for Claim 16):

The expectation of success for Claim 16 is also the same as for Claim 1, as the underlying technical capabilities and development paradigms were already present in the prior art.

In summary, the core inventive concept of US9063755 — a visual authoring tool for mobile devices that enables users to easily integrate web services through a platform-dependent/independent code architecture — appears to be an obvious combination of existing technologies and widely recognized needs in the mobile development space prior to the patent's effective filing date.