US 9092075

I'll search for this specific patent number and any related CAFC 2026 docket activity.

The first search returned an unrelated patent (9,210,254) and the second returned no results. Let me refine the searches for this exact patent and any litigation.

I found the authoritative patent PDF and a 2026 district-court case asserting this patent. Let me check specifically for any CAFC (Federal Circuit) 2026 docket activity involving this patent.

I have enough verified information from the authoritative patent PDF (patentimages.storage.googleapis.com), Google Patents, and a 2026 district-court docket. Note: I found no CAFC (Federal Circuit) docket activity for this patent — the only litigation I located is a pending district-court case, described below. I'll flag that uncertainty explicitly.

US Patent 9,092,075 B2 (US9092075B2) — Summary

Priority chain (as shown on the patent front page): Continuation of U.S. Application 14/174,483 (filed Feb. 6, 2014), which is a continuation of U.S. Application 11/754,071 (filed May 25, 2007; now US 8,648,805), which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Application 11/266,498 (filed Nov. 3, 2005; abandoned), which claims priority to Provisional Application 60/625,254 (filed Nov. 5, 2004). Family members also include US 9,261,983 B2 and US 10,963,070 B2.

Abstract (verbatim): "The subject matter of this specification can be embodied in, among other things, a system that includes a tracking device to generate movement information for use in moving a user interface object on a graphical user interface. The tracking device is configured to receive at least a portion of a user's finger. The system also includes a base device configured to receive the tracking device. The base device is configured to translate movement of the base device relative to an adjacent surface for use in moving the user interface object."

Independent Claim 1 — Plain-Language Overview

Claim 1 is directed to a wireless, finger-worn motion tracking device (a "ring-style" fingertip mouse) having these elements:

1. Housing worn on the finger — a housing with a passage through it; the passage axis aligns generally coaxially with the user's finger. The housing has an internal finger-contact surface (facing radially inward) that contacts the finger, but the passage is configured so the fingertip can extend all the way through so the finger's end portion is not touching the internal surface in the worn position.
2. External surface and inner space — an external outside surface (facing radially outward, not contacting the finger) and an inner space between the internal and external surfaces that houses all electronics for the device.
3. Wireless communication components in the inner space, operable to communicate wirelessly with a separate computing system.
4. Motion tracking mechanism in the inner space, generating tracked movement information for controlling the separate computing system — the tracking mechanism comprises an accelerometer.
5. Selection mechanism coupled to the housing, generating selection information in response to activation.
6. Display device on the housing, configured to output information.

Dependent claims 2–10 add, in plain terms: (2) the tracked movement information is used by the computing system to control a display device; (3) the selection mechanism is accessible on the external surface and operable by a second finger; (4) a second accelerometer implements the selection mechanism (e.g., tap detection); (5) combination with a base for electrical charging; (6) the housing encloses the finger in the worn position; (7) display components output user-viewable information; (8) the displayed information represents device/system status; (9) the device can receive communication from the computing system; and (10) the device can perform a scrolling function in response to input.

Litigation / CAFC 2026 Docket Check

• CAFC 2026 docket: No Federal Circuit docket entries for this patent were found in my searches. Searches for "9092075 CAFC," "Fingertip Mouse v. Samsung Federal Circuit appeal," and related queries returned no appellate docket. I could not confirm any CAFC appeal involving US 9,092,075 as of this date — treat that as unconfirmed rather than definitive.
• District court (found): A complaint was filed by Fingertip Mouse Corporation dba FTM Computer Products v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00760 (E.D. Tex.), asserting US Patent No. 9,092,075 (Exhibit A) together with US 9,261,983 and US 10,963,070, including a claim chart for the '075 patent (docketed per PacerMonitor; complaint and AO 120 Patent/Trademark Form filed). This is a trial-court case, not a CAFC matter.

Uncertainty notes: (1) I found no CAFC docket for the '075 patent — absence of a search hit is not proof that no appeal exists; a PACER/CAFC docket query would be needed to confirm. (2) The E.D. Tex. case appears in PacerMonitor with a "2:26-cv-00760" number indicating a 2026 filing, but the exact filing date in the snippet shows only "08/26"; verify on PACER if a precise date is needed. (3) Patent status ("Expired - Lifetime") is per Google Patents' legal-status assumption, not a legal conclusion.

Sources: USPTO patent PDF via patentimages.storage.googleapis.com (US009092075B2); Google Patents record for US9092075B2; PacerMonitor docket for Fingertip Mouse Corporation dba FTM Computer Products v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00760 (E.D. Tex.).

Litigation involving US Patent 9,092,075 (as of the search results)

I searched PACERMonitor, Unified Patents' portal (and related coverage), Google Patents, and general web sources for the exact number 9,092,075 (US 9,092,075 B2, "Fingertip mouse and base," FTM Computer Products). I did not auto-correct or substitute similar numbers; results for '075 patents in other fields (e.g., 9,420,075, 9,956,075) were excluded.

Known litigation — 1 case found

Fingertip Mouse Corporation dba FTM Computer Products v. [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.)

• Plaintiff: Fingertip Mouse Corporation dba FTM Computer Products
• Defendant: Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall or Tyler division per E.D. Tex. filing receipt prefix ATXEDC)
• Case No.: 2:26-cv-00760
• Filing date: Docket entry shows the complaint was filed on 08/26 (PacerMonitor timestamp "08/26 7:41"); the "26" in the case number indicates calendar year 2026. Exact month/day/year should be confirmed on PACER — the snippet does not display the year explicitly, and there is a conflict between the task's stated date (April 26, 2026) and a filing timestamp that would fall in August 2026.
• Patents asserted: US Patent No. 9,092,075 (Exhibit A to the complaint), plus related family members US 9,261,983 and US 10,963,070 (claim charts at Exhibits E and F). A dedicated Claim Chart for USP 9,092,075 was filed as Exhibit D.
• Outcome/current status: Pending, early stage. Docket reflects only initial filings: (1) Complaint (filing fee $405); (2) AO 120 Patent/Trademark Form (noticed to the USPTO Director); and (3) Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(1) Disclosure Statement by plaintiff (attorney: Cortney Alexander). No answer, motions, or substantive rulings appear in the available docket snippet.

Other litigation checks (negative results)

• No CAFC (Federal Circuit) appeal involving US 9,092,075 was found in any search.
• No other district-court cases asserting this patent were found (only the Samsung case above).
• No PTAB/IPR or reexamination proceedings specific to this patent surfaced in the sources searched (Unified Patents coverage returned challenges on unrelated patents only).

Flags and caveats

1. Date discrepancy: The system environment date is 2026-08-27, but the task states "Current Date: April 26, 2026." The docket's "08/26" filing entry and the "2:26" case number are most consistent with a filing on August 26, 2026, which would be the day before the environment date. This is the best available reading, but verify the exact filing date on PACER before relying on it.
2. Patent status tension: Google Patents lists the '075 patent as "Expired – Lifetime" with anticipated expiration of November 3, 2025 (20 years from the earliest non-provisional filing, Nov. 3, 2005). The 2026 lawsuit therefore asserts a patent that had expired by its face before suit was filed — a fact that may bear on the scope of recoverable damages (e.g., only pre-expiration infringement within the limitations period, if provable). This is a legal-status assumption from the records, not a legal conclusion.
3. Negative results caveat: Absence of hits in these searches is not proof that no other case exists; a full PACER/Unified Patents portal query by patent number would be needed for a definitive, comprehensive docket search.

Bottom line: The only identified litigation involving US 9,092,075 is Fingertip Mouse Corporation dba FTM Computer Products v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00760 (E.D. Tex.), filed August 26, 2026 (per docket), asserting the '075 patent (with the two related family patents), currently pending in its earliest stage.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0 — no Inter Partes Reviews, Post-Grant Reviews, or Covered Business Method reviews have ever been filed against US 9,092,075, meaning there are no active proceedings, no claims invalidated, no claims sustained, no settlements, and no institution denials to report. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest, and targeted web searches for "9,092,075," "9092075," the family patents (8,648,805; 9,261,983; 10,963,070), and the patent owner (FTM Computer Products) surfaced no PTAB petition of any kind. Bottom-line defensive posture: the patent has never been tested at the PTAB — all 10 claims remain fully in force, untested and un-narrowed by any AIA proceeding; a defendant facing assertion today cannot point to any FWD canceling claims, and the PTAB docket provides no prior-art ammunition.

Proceedings

There are no proceedings to report. The structured PTAB data block ("USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest") is consistent with every web search performed. Nothing was invented; no proceeding numbers exist to list.

Strategic summary

Claims CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. No claim of US 9,092,075 has ever been canceled or even challenged in an AIA trial. All 10 claims (independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2–10) are UNTESTED at the PTAB. The patent is a 2015 grant with a priority date back to 2004–2005, which makes this absence notable: the specification's own cited art (e.g., finger-mounted pointers from the 1990s and 2000s such as US 5,351,148, US 5,581,484, US 6,587,090, US 6,590,563, US 2003/0174124) has sat in the public record for two decades, and no petitioner has yet tried to run an obviousness combination at the Board.

Estoppel landscape (§ 315(e)). Because no IPR/PGR has ever been instituted or decided, there is no estoppel barring any petitioner from raising any prior-art ground — including every ground that "reasonably could have been raised." A new petitioner has a completely clean slate. The only procedural clock to watch is § 315(b): the one-year bar from service of a complaint. The patent owner (Fingertip Mouse Corporation dba FTM Computer Products) filed suit against [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) in the Eastern District of Texas on 2026-08-26 (No. 2:26-cv-00760, asserting the '075 patent with family members 9,261,983 and 10,963,070, with a claim chart for the '075 at Exhibit D). Samsung's IPR window therefore runs one year from service of that complaint; any other defendant served later has its own one-year clock. Also relevant: the patent's anticipated expiration date is 2025-11-03 (per Google Patents; status "Expired – Lifetime"), so the asserted patent had expired on its face before the 2026 complaint was filed — damages, if any, would be limited to provable pre-expiration infringement within the limitations period, and IPR practice on expired patents (still permitted, but with different estoppel/damages dynamics) should be modeled accordingly.

Pattern signals. There is no petitioner-repeat pattern, no defensive-aggregator involvement (no Unified Patents or similar entity in the chain), and no patent-owner PTAB appellate behavior to study — because there is no PTAB history at all. The only enforcement signal is the single, early-stage E.D. Tex. action against Samsung (complaint, AO 120 form, and Rule 7.1 disclosure filed; no answer, no substantive rulings as of the last docket pull). The absence of PTAB activity despite the patent's age and the crowded finger-mounted-input prior art field is itself a signal: this patent has flown under the radar, and its first serious assertion (Samsung, 2026) is likely to be what finally attracts an IPR petition — if one is filed within the § 315(b) window.

Recommended next steps

• No FWD exists to cite. Do not represent to any court or opposing counsel that the PTAB has "narrowed" or "validated" any claim of the '075 patent — there is no such decision. Conversely, patent-owner counsel should not tout any "IPR survival" narrative; the patent has never been through a trial.
• If you are the defendant (or a party newly served): treat the § 315(b) one-year deadline as the critical date and run a prior-art search now. The most promising attack surface is the independent claim's accelerometer-as-motion-tracker limitation combined with the passage-through housing and display-on-housing elements — grounds that were never before the Board are all still available, including § 102/§ 103 combinations of the finger-worn pointers cited on the face of the '075 patent and its parent '805 patent. Given the pending parallel E.D. Tex. litigation, also model Fintiv/discretionary-denial risk under the current Director's guidance, and note that institution rates in 2025–2026 have dropped sharply (roughly 30–37% overall per USPTO data) — the petition must be exceptionally well-developed.
• If you are the patent owner: expect a petition. Preserve evidence of commercial success/secondary considerations early, and be ready to argue discretionary denial given the co-pending Samsung case, but recognize the Board's recent narrowing of Fintiv-based denials cuts both ways.
• Verify on USPTO PTAB E2E / Patent Center (search by patent number 9,092,075) before relying on this "zero proceedings" conclusion in a filing; the ODP ingest is authoritative as of its date, and a petition could in principle have been filed since the last ingest. As of today's searches, however, no AIA proceeding exists on this patent.

Caveats: (1) Absence of search hits is not proof that no petition exists — a live PTAB E2E query is the definitive check. (2) The E.D. Tex. case's exact filing date shows "08/26" in the docket and a "2:26-cv-00760" number; I read this as 2026-08-26, but confirm on PACER. (3) Patent expiration status is per Google Patents' legal-status assumption, not a legal conclusion.

Inventors

• Michael P. Bailen — sole named inventor, listed as of Mason, WI (US) on the '075 patent front page. He was the original applicant on the provisional (No. 60/625,254, filed Nov. 5, 2004) and the non-provisional applications, and the assignor on the patent family's recorded assignment (reel 034680/0177) to FTM Computer Products. Employer at time of filing: not separately identified in the record; the applications were filed in his own name and later assigned to FTM Computer Products (Duluth, MN). Sole-inventor family, so no "mass departure" pattern is assessable.

Original assignee

• FTM Computer Products (Duluth, MN, US) — the assignee named on the issued patent (field 73). Line of business: computer peripherals, specifically a finger-worn "fingertip mouse" and its base (the subject of the family).
• Product status: unclear. No evidence surfaced in these searches that FTM Computer Products shipped a commercial product embodying the claims; the family reads as a product concept that was patented but whose commercial launch I could not verify.
• Current status: Operating as an asserting entity. The 2026 E.D. Tex. plaintiff is "Fingertip Mouse Corporation dba FTM Computer Products" (No. 2:26-cv-00760, filed 2026-08-26), indicating the company has incorporated and still trades under the FTM Computer Products name. Unified Patents' portal for family member US 9,261,983 likewise lists "Current Assignee: Ftm Computer Products." The patent's own maintenance-fee events (4th-year paid 2019, 8th-year paid 2023, micro→small entity status in 2024) show the patent was kept in force by this owner until natural expiration (Google Patents lists anticipated expiration 2025-11-03; status "Expired – Lifetime").

Assignment timeline

Only one recorded assignment is identifiable from the patent's own legal-events record (Google Patents mirrors the USPTO assignment data). A direct, definitive query of the USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) could not be executed in this environment, but the patent's recorded legal events are consistent across the family:

• 2007-07-18 (executed) / 2015-01-12 (recorded) — Reel 034680/0177
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: Michael P. Bailen
  • Assignee: FTM Computer Products (owner name shown at recording as "FTM COMPUTER PRODUCTS, MINNESOTA")
  • Correspondent: not shown in the available legal-event snippet. The attorney/agent of record on the patent itself is Fish & Richardson P.C., so the recording was likely filed by that firm — flagged as unconfirmed, not verified. No recurrence pattern can be assessed from a single entry.
  • Context: Inventor-to-company assignment, executed in 2007 (during prosecution of parent application 11/754,071) but recorded only in January 2015 — immediately before the '075 continuation issued (July 28, 2015). This is a late-recorded original assignment, not a transfer of ownership.

No other recorded assignments were found. In particular, no recorded assignment or change-of-name document transferring the patent to "Fingertip Mouse Corporation" surfaced in any search. The "dba FTM Computer Products" phrasing in the 2026 complaint suggests a corporate reorganization or name change of the original assignee, but no reel/frame for such a document exists in the records I could verify — do not represent one as existing without a live Assignment Center query.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9092075
    2004 : Provisional filed by Bailen
    2005 : Nonprovisional filed
    2007 : Assignment executed to FTM Computer Products
    2014 : Parent patent 8648805 issued
    2015 : Assignment recorded reel 034680-0177
         : US 9092075 issued
    2026 : Suit filed vs Samsung in Texas

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present (based on available records). The only transfer is inventor (Bailen) → operating-named company (FTM Computer Products), reel 034680/0177. No "IP / Licensing / Holdings" LLC appears anywhere in the chain, and no registered-agent-service address is identifiable. The plaintiff's "Fingertip Mouse Corporation dba FTM Computer Products" name reads as the same company incorporated, not a shell acquisition.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither FTM Computer Products nor Fingertip Mouse Corporation appears on the enumerated NPE lists (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, DGC, Spangenberg entities), nor did Unified Patents/RPX searches surface it as a high-frequency plaintiff. It is a single-family plaintiff — a behavior pattern, not a listed-entity match.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / not assessable. Only one recording exists (reel 034680/0177), so recurrence cannot be evaluated. Fish & Richardson P.C. is the attorney of record on the patent, which is ordinary prosecution representation for an inventor/operating company — a single appearance is explicitly not a finding under the task's rules.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. One assignment, period; no chained LLCs, no rapid-fire transfers.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The recorded assignment (recorded 2015-01-12) predates the first suit (2026-08-26) by more than a decade, so no transfer was arranged within 6 months of the Samsung complaint. Open item: the "dba" entity name in the complaint implies a possible name change with no recorded document found — flag for live-database verification.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No bankruptcy filings or section-363 patent sales appear for FTM Computer Products.
7. Privateering — not present. No evidence an operating company transferred the patent to an NPE to assert against competitors; the asserting entity is (per its own dba) the original assignee itself.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain terminates at FTM Computer Products, which is affirmatively asserting — the inverse of a defensive outcome.

Verdict

Insufficient data — the assignment record contains only the single original inventor-to-company assignment (reel 034680/0177, executed 2007-07-18, recorded 2015-01-12), and the available sources show FTM Computer Products (now doing business via Fingertip Mouse Corporation) as both original and current assignee. None of the eight NPE signals is affirmatively established: there is no shell LLC, no known-listed asserter, no cascading chain, no pre-suit transfer, and no defensive aggregation — but there is equally no evidence the company ever shipped a product, and a single-family, post-expiration assertion against Samsung in E.D. Tex. is behaviorally consistent with monetization. Because the task's rules bar NPE conclusions without recorded-document evidence, and the decisive documents (any name change to Fingertip Mouse Corporation, any product-sales evidence) were not verifiable in this environment, the honest call is insufficient data rather than either confidence level.

Verification: USPTO Patent Assignment Search — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 9,092,075; confirm whether any post-2015 name-change or transfer to "Fingertip Mouse Corporation" exists beyond the single 034680/0177 recording shown in the patent's legal events).