US 9191980

I have enough information from the supplied patent text plus the search results to answer. One note up front: my searches reached the step limit, so I could not pull a USPTO-assigned "CAFC 2026" docket specific to this patent; the CAFC/PTAB hits returned were for other matters or other Lemko patents. Details and uncertainty are flagged below.

US Patent 9,191,980 B2 — Summary

Title: System and Method to Control Wireless Communications
Patent number (literal): US9191980B2 (also cited as US 9,191,980 B2)
Inventor: ShaoWei Pan (Kildeer, IL) — single named inventor
Assignee (original): Lemko Corporation (Itasca, IL) — recorded as "Lemko Corp"
Application: US 13/235,021, filed September 16, 2011 (a continuation of Application 12/108,209, filed April 23, 2008, which is the claimed priority date)
Issue date: November 17, 2015
Status (as listed on Google Patents): "Active – Reinstated"; adjusted expiration listed as 2029-05-11
Classifications (representative): H04W76/02, H04W76/10, H04W76/12, H04L65/10, H04W88/08, H04W88/10, H04W88/16 (per Google Patents/Justia: H04W 76/02, H04W 88/10, H04W 88/16, H04L 29/06)

Abstract (as published): "A method of controlling wireless communications is provided. A call is received from a first mobile device at a base transceiver station (BTS) interface of a first distributed mobile architecture (DMA) server. The call is associated with a destination device. The first DMA server determines that a first distributed mobile architecture gateway (DMAG) supports communication with the destination device based on registration data stored at the first DMA server. Voice information associated with the call is converted to packet data. The packet data is routed to the destination device via the first DMAG."

Technology context (plain language): The patent is from Lemko's "distributed mobile architecture" (DMA) family. Instead of the conventional, expensive cellular core (MSC/BSC/HLR-VLR), a DMA server integrates base-station control and switching and can be deployed in rural/remote areas; a "DMAG" (distributed mobile architecture gateway) connects DMA servers to legacy networks (PSTN, GSM/CDMA/UMTS, GPRS, etc.) and routes calls between legacy networks and DMA-served wireless devices, typically over private IP networks. It also covers redundancy/roaming of DMA servers and devices between DMAG coverage areas.

Independent Claims (plain-language overview)

The claims I retrieved are from the published application listing on Justia (US20120002607A1, the pre-grant publication of this patent); I did not obtain an authoritative copy of the granted patent's claims sheet, so the claim set below should be treated as high-confidence but not confirmed verbatim against the issued claims. Based on that source and the patent's Detailed Description, there appear to be three independent claims:

• Claim 1 (method, DMA-server side): A method where a first DMA server receives a call from a first mobile device at a BTS interface (the call is directed to a destination device); the DMA server determines, from registration data stored at the DMA server, that a first DMAG supports communication with the destination device — with the registration data indicating the destination is not within the first DMA server's coverage area; voice information is converted to packet data; and the packet data is routed to the destination device via the first DMAG.
• Claim 10 (method, DMAG side): A method where a DMAG receives a call from a communication device via a network (call directed to a destination device); the DMAG determines, from registration data stored at the DMAG, that a first DMA server supports wireless communication with the destination device; information associated with the call is converted to packet data; and the packet data is routed to the destination device via the first DMA server.
• Claim 15 (computer-readable medium, DMAG side): A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with instructions that cause a processor to receive a call at a DMAG (directed to a destination device), determine from registration data stored at the DMAG that a first DMA server supports communication with the destination device, and convert the call's information into packet data to be routed to the destination device via the first DMA server.

Dependent-claim highlights (per the Justia listing): claims 2–9 depend from claim 1 and cover, e.g., the DMAG being coupled to legacy networks, receipt via a first wireless protocol, conversion to IP packet data, routing via a private IP network, the DMA server receiving calls while moving, and handoff to a second DMAG when the DMA server moves into a second coverage area. Claims 11–14 depend from claim 10 and cover legacy-protocol receipt, IP conversion/routing, registration data showing the destination is within the first DMA server's coverage area, and rerouting via a second DMA server when the destination device moves. Claims 16–17 depend from claim 15 (claim 16 adds routing over an IP network; claim 17 continues with DMAG receipt of second packet data from a second DMA server for a second destination device). I do not have the total claim count or confirmation that granted claims 1, 10, 15 are word-for-word identical to the published application claims.

Recorded legal events / litigation (grounded in the provided patent text and searches)

• Assignment: 2011-09-16 — ShaoWei Pan assigned to Lemko Corporation.
• Covenant not to sue: 2012-02-21 — Lemko Corporation granted Motorola Solutions, Inc. a covenant not to sue.
• Security interest: 2025-03-25 — Lemko Corporation entered a patent security agreement with Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC, as security holder.
• PTAB: IPR2023-00570 (Microsoft Corporation et al. / Affirmed Networks Inc. v. Lemko Corp.), filed 2023-02-15, challenging patent 9191980; institution denied on 2023-09-26 (Not Instituted – Merits). Sources: Unified Patents portal (IPR2023-00570) and ipverse.greyb.com case detail.
• District court: A related case is listed in the Texas Northern District Court (case 3:22-cv-00363) per the Unified Patents litigation data link on the Google Patents page.

CAFC 2026 docket search

I searched for a CAFC 2026 docket involving this patent/Lemko. No CAFC 2026 appeal docket specifically for 9,191,980 / 9191980 was found in the searches performed — the only CAFC opinion PDF returned by the search was unrelated (a nonprecedential 2024 disposition in a different technology area, appeal 23-1462). If a 2026 CAFC appeal exists, it did not surface in these results, and I cannot confirm or deny one with confidence. I also did not verify the USPTO Patent Center/assignment records directly.

Confidence notes: Bibliographic data (title, inventor, assignee, application/priority dates, issue date) is taken from the supplied Google Patents fetch and corroborated by Justia and Unified Patents, so it is high-confidence. The independent-claim overview is based on the published-application claim text and the specification's summary paragraphs; the issued patent's final claim wording and total claim count were not independently verified.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 9,191,980 ("System and Method to Control Wireless Communications")

Based on searches of Unified Patents, Docket Alarm, Justia, CourtListener, Patexia, and PTAB/IPR databases, I found two proceedings specifically involving U.S. Patent No. 9,191,980. No other district-court or PTAB cases naming this exact patent number were identified.

1. Lemko Corporation v. Microsoft Corporation and Affirmed Networks, Inc.

• Plaintiff: Lemko Corporation
• Defendants: Microsoft Corporation and Affirmed Networks, Inc.
• Jurisdiction/Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division
• Case No.: 3:22-cv-00363-L-BT
• Filing Date: February 14, 2022 (complaint docketed Feb. 14, 2022; some aggregators list Feb. 13, 2022)
• Presiding Judge: Judge Sam A. Lindsay (with a magistrate judge)
• Patents at issue: Lemko asserted eight patents, including the '980 patent (9,191,980), plus U.S. Patent Nos. 7,548,763; 7,653,414; 7,855,988; 8,107,409; 8,688,111; 9,332,478; and 9,755,931. In the pleadings, Lemko described the '980 patent as covering controlling wireless communications where a call is received at a BTS interface of a first DMA server and a first DMAG is identified as supporting the destination device based on registration data stored at the first DMA server.
• Status/Procedural history (most recent confirmed):
  • Aug. 13, 2024 (Doc. 79): The court dismissed without prejudice Lemko's direct and indirect infringement claims under Rule 12(b)(6), granting one final opportunity to amend.
  • June 4, 2025 (Doc. 94): On the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, the court dismissed contributory infringement claims with prejudice but denied the motion in all other respects (i.e., direct and induced-infringement claims survived).
  • A Lemko press release (April 2025) and an RPX/Mondaq article (May 9, 2025) describe the case as still in the pleadings phase more than three years after filing.
  • Note: Some litigation-aggregator pages mark the case "Closed," but I could not confirm a final judgment, settlement, or termination after the June 4, 2025 order. Current status as of April 26, 2026, is not confirmed by the sources I retrieved.

2. Microsoft Corporation and Affirmed Networks, Inc. v. Lemko Corporation (IPR2023-00570)

• Petitioners: Microsoft Corporation and Affirmed Networks, Inc.
• Patent Owner: Lemko Corporation
• Forum: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Case No.: IPR2023-00570 (U.S. Patent No. 9,191,980; application 13/235,021)
• Filing Date: February 15, 2023
• Outcome: Institution denied – Not Instituted (Merits) on September 26, 2023. The proceeding was terminated; no final written decision issued.
• Notes: The petition challenged the '980 patent on obviousness grounds (relying on, e.g., Waylett (U.S. 8,184,603), Bachmann (U.S. 7,969,931), and 3GPP references). The denial was not appealable. Related IPRs (IPR2023-00529, -00530, -00531) challenged different Lemko patents (7,653,414; 7,548,763; 7,855,988) and are not proceedings on the '980 patent.

Cautions / Clarifications

• Do not confuse with U.S. 9,198,020: Lemko's later Eastern District of Texas suit against AT&T (2:25-cv-00305, filed ~May 2025) asserts patent 9,198,020 (an OAMP-related Lemko patent) — a different patent number from 9,191,980. The '980 patent is not asserted in that AT&T case.
• The patent's Google Patents page flags "family has litigation" and references a Texas Northern District case and IPR2023-00570, consistent with the two matters above; Darts-ip flags a first worldwide family litigation, but I did not identify any foreign litigation specifically on the U.S. '980 patent.

Bottom line: Two known matters involve U.S. 9,191,980: the ongoing (as of mid-2025) N.D. Tex. case 3:22-cv-00363 (Lemko v. Microsoft/Affirmed Networks) and the PTAB IPR2023-00570, which was denied institution. If you need the definitive post-June-2025 disposition of the district case, PACER (Case 3:22-cv-00363-L-BT) should be checked directly, as public aggregators I retrieved do not confirm whether the case has since closed or proceeded to trial/settlement.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been identified for US 9,191,980 — IPR2023-00570 — and it was denied institution on the merits; no IPR has ever been instituted, no claims have been canceled, and the patent has never reached a Final Written Decision.

Note on the source data: the USPTO Open Data Portal block in this prompt reports no AIA trial proceedings (most recent ingest). That appears to be a lag — web search independently confirms IPR2023-00570 (filed 2023-02-15, institution denied 2023-09-26) via Unified Patents' PTAB portal and a PTAB case aggregator. Google Patents' own metadata for the '980 patent also carries the flag "PTAB case IPR2023-00570 filed (Not Instituted - Merits)." Proceeding number verified against multiple independent sources; nothing beyond that single case surfaced.

Bottom line for a defendant: the patent is not dead — it is entirely intact. The only IPR ever filed against it failed at the threshold, meaning no challenger has yet persuaded the Board there was even a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim. That is a "patent owner prevailed / hardened" posture, but with an important caveat: a § 314 institution denial is not a merits ruling on validity and creates no estoppel, so the same art can still be run in district court.

IPR2023-00570 — Microsoft Corporation & Affirmed Networks, Inc. v. Lemko Corp.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-02-15
• Status: Not Instituted — Merits (institution denied; terminated 2023-09-26). Plain-English gloss: the Board declined to open a trial; the case closed the same day the institution decision issued.
• Judge panel: Not retrievable from the public sources searched (panel names are in the institution decision on PTAB E2E; neither the portal snippet nor the aggregator page listed APJ names). Do not want to fabricate.
• Petition grounds: Claim-level grounds were not recoverable from the search snippets. The petition's exhibit list shows the art relied on: U.S. Patent 8,184,603 (Waylett), U.S. Patent 7,969,931 (Bachmann), 3GPP TS 43.069 v4.1.0 (Jan 2001), 3GPP TR 26.935 v7.2.0 (Dec 2007), an interWAVE cruise-ship GSM deployment publication, and a declaration of James Proctor (Ex. 1003). Statutory basis was presumptively § 102/§ 103 (the standard IPR petition), but I could not confirm the exact statutory framework or the precise claim chart from available material.
• Institution decision: Denied — 2023-09-26, "Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 U.S.C. § 314" (paper on file). The Unified Patents status label "Not Instituted - Merits" indicates the denial was on the substantive § 314(a) threshold (no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim) rather than a discretionary Fintiv-style denial — but I could not retrieve the decision text to quote the panel's reasoning, and I will not paraphrase it beyond what the docket label supports.
• Final Written Decision: None. No trial was instituted, so no FWD exists and no claim was canceled or sustained on the merits.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement. The case terminated 2023-09-26 by operation of the institution denial; the docket shows a routine petitioner fee-refund request (2023-12-06) approved by the Board (2023-12-08).
• Appeal: None. Institution denials under § 314 are statutorily non-appealable, and with no FWD there was nothing to take to the Federal Circuit.
• Defensive value: For Lemko (or its secured party), this is a clean win — all claims of the '980 patent remain in force and un-narrowed, and the specific Microsoft/Affirmed art set failed to clear even the institution threshold. For a defendant, do not read this as a validity endorsement: it is merely a prediction of no reasonable likelihood on that petition, it binds no one else, and it does not estop Microsoft/Affirmed from re-raising the art in the parallel district court case (3:22-cv-00363, N.D. Tex.).

Relevant links:

• PTAB case docket: https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2023-00570
• Unified Patents PTAB caselist (petitioner Affirmed Networks): https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/caselist?petitioners=Affirmed+Networks+Inc
• Parallel district court litigation: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Northern%20District%20Court/case/3%3A22-cv-00363

Strategic summary

Claim status. No claim of US 9,191,980 has ever been canceled in an AIA trial. Every claim is SUSTAINED by default — none has been tested on the merits at the PTAB, because the sole petition (IPR2023-00570) was denied before institution. The patent is a 2008-family continuation (parent application 12/108,209, filed 2008-04-23; granted 2015-11-17) in the Lemko "distributed mobile architecture" portfolio. It sits on an adjusted-expiration track running to 2029-05-11, so it has several more years of enforcement runway.

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e) estoppel running against anyone from IPR2023-00570, because estoppel attaches only after a Final Written Decision — and here the Board never even instituted. Two practical consequences: (1) Microsoft and Affirmed Networks remain free to press Waylett/Bachmann/3GPP-based invalidity in the N.D. Tex. litigation; and (2) a new defendant is not estopped from filing its own IPR on the '980 patent — but watch the § 315(b) one-year bar: any defendant served with a complaint more than one year ago (the N.D. Tex. case was filed in 2022) can no longer file an IPR and must fight validity in district court or via § 311-style reexamination instead.

Pattern signals. This was not an isolated strike: Microsoft and Affirmed Networks filed a coordinated February 2023 wave of IPRs against Lemko's DMA portfolio after the N.D. Tex. suit — the same docket shows IPR2023-00529 (US 7,653,414, reached a Final Written Decision 2024-08-30), IPR2023-00531 (US 7,855,988, FWD 2024-09-10), and IPR2023-00530 (US 7,548,763, institution denied 2023-09-25). So the same petitioners did get trials instituted on sibling Lemko patents while failing on the '980 — evidence that the '980's claim set is comparatively tougher, not that the challengers gave up. On the ownership side, note the chain: Lemko granted Motorola Solutions a covenant not to sue (2012), and on 2025-03-25 granted a patent security agreement to Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC — a monetization/credit signal that suggests an active enforcement or licensing campaign, with a funding party behind it.

Recommended next steps

• No claims are invalidated, so there is no FWD disposition to quote and no canceled-claim lever to use against a demand letter. If a demand cites the '980, the correct response is not "the PTAB killed it" — it is that the only IPR ever filed was denied institution on the merits (IPR2023-00570, decision 2023-09-26), meaning no tribunal has ever found any claim of this patent unpatentable.
• No active PTAB proceeding is pending, so there are no institution-decision deadlines, oral-hearing dates, or FWD due dates to calendar.
• If you are a defendant already sued (or served more than a year ago), the IPR door is closed by § 315(b); your validity attack belongs in the N.D. Tex. case (3:22-cv-00363), where you are free to use the same art Microsoft/Affirmed used at the PTAB because the denial created no estoppel. Pull the IPR2023-00570 petition (available on PTAB E2E via the ipverse link above) for a ready-made invalidity roadmap — its claim charts and Proctor declaration are public even though the Board declined to institute.
• If you are a newly-sued defendant (service within the last year), the window is still open to file your own IPR with stronger art than Microsoft's — the Board's denial tells you the Waylett/Bachmann/3GPP combination as presented did not clear the bar, so a fresh petition needs materially different prior art rather than a re-run.
• Verify the operative entity before settling. With Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC holding a 2025 security interest, confirm who currently controls licensing and litigation of the '980 before negotiating — the economic party may not be Lemko itself.
• Fetch the primary documents before making any court filing: the institution decision (IPR2023-00570, Paper, 2023-09-26) is the authoritative statement of why the Board declined review, and the petition itself (2023-02-15) is the definitive record of what Microsoft/Affirmed asserted. Neither's full text was retrievable through the public search snippets used here, so pull them from USPTO PTAB E2E to quote precisely.

Bottom line: One IPR, denied at the gate, zero claims canceled — the '980 is currently un-narrowed and unblemished at the PTAB, and any defendant facing it must treat invalidity as an open question to be litigated with fresh art, not as a resolved one.

I'll research the assignment record for US 9191980 from multiple sources.

I've exhausted my available research steps; the search tool returned no further results. Here is my reconstruction based on the Google Patents legal-events feed (authoritative full text supplied above), Unified Patents portal data, and press coverage. Important caveat up front: I could not directly query the USPTO Assignment Center in this session, and no reel/frame numbers surfaced in any source I could reach. I am therefore not fabricating reel/frame values; where the record is known it is cited by recorded event date and conveyance type.

Inventors

• ShaoWei Pan — sole named inventor. Employer at filing: Lemko Corporation (the same-day recorded assignment "PAN, SHAOWEI → LEMKO CORPORATION" on 2011-09-16, the continuation's filing date, is the classic inventor-to-employer assignment; press coverage of the family identifies Pan as the sole inventor of the Lemko DMA portfolio).
• Unusual pattern: none of the "all inventors depart within 12 months" variety — there is a single inventor and he assigned to his own company. No red flag here.

Original assignee

• Lemko Corporation (current assignee named on the issued patent; records show Lemko Corp as owner through at least the 2023 IPR).
• Line of business: wireless-infrastructure/telecom equipment vendor selling the DMA server / distributed mobile architecture products described in the patent (integrated BTS-controller/MSC-replacement gear aimed at rural and remote telephony).
• Product status: the '1980 claims (DMA server + DMAG call routing with voice-to-packet conversion) map directly onto Lemko's marketed DMA/DMAG architecture. Unified Patents' IPR record classifies Lemko Corp as "Operating Company" — the entity-type field it applies to product/operating firms, not NPEs.
• Current status: appears operating but litigious — it was plaintiff in Texas ND case 3:22-cv-00363 (2022) and defended the patent in IPR2023-00570 (petition filed 2023-02-15, not instituted 2023-09-26), and press coverage (Mondaq, 2022) describes Lemko running an "edge computing campaign" against AT&T on this family. Legal status per Google Patents: Active – Reinstated, adjusted expiration 2029-05-11.

Assignment timeline

Per Google Patents legal events (only three recorded post-filing events exist; no reel/frame numbers were retrievable from my sources — verify at the USPTO Assignment Center link below):

• 2011-09-16 (executed/recorded same day as filing) — Reel/frame not retrievable in this session

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor Interest
  • Assignor: ShaoWei Pan
  • Assignee: Lemko Corporation
  • Correspondent: not available from sources reached
  • Context: standard inventor-to-company assignment on the continuation filing date; no NPE significance.

• 2012-02-21 (recorded) — Reel/frame not retrievable in this session

  • Conveyance: Covenant Not To Sue
  • Assignor: Lemko Corporation
  • Assignee: Motorola Solutions, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not available
  • Context: not a transfer of title — a covenant not to sue granted to Motorola Solutions (consistent with Lemko's later 2013 trade-secret litigation against Motorola Mobility). Ownership stayed with Lemko.

• 2025-03-25 (recorded) — Reel/frame not retrievable in this session

  • Conveyance: Patent Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Lemko Corporation
  • Assignee: Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC, as security holder
  • Correspondent: not available
  • Context: patent-secured debt financing — Lemko granted a security interest (collateral for a loan) while remaining the owner/assignor; this is a securitization/lending arrangement, not a sale of title to an NPE.

No other recorded assignments (no Merger, Change of Name, Release, or further Assignment entries) appear in the Google Patents legal-events feed for this patent.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9191980
    2008 : Parent application filed
    2011 : Continuation filed
         : Pan assigns to Lemko Corp
    2012 : Covenant not to sue to Motorola
    2015 : Patent granted
    2022 : Texas ND suit filed
    2023 : IPR petition not instituted
    2025 : Security agreement to Piccadilly

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present as a title transfer. The only LLC in the record is Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC, as security holder (recorded 2025-03-25), and the conveyance is a Patent Security Agreement — a lender taking collateral, not an operating company selling the patent to a licensing shell. Lemko remains the assignor/owner. (The "Patent Funding" name alone is not evidence of an NPE transfer, per the instructions.)
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present as an NPE. The asserting entity is Lemko Corp itself, which Unified Patents lists as entity type "Operating Company" in IPR2023-00570 and which is plaintiff in Texas ND 3:22-cv-00363. Lemko is not on the Acacia/Marathon/IV/Wi-LAN-type asserter lists. It is, however, a high-frequency litigant on this family (AT&T campaign per Mondaq; prior Motorola trade-secret suit), which is an operating-company assertion pattern.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / not assessable. Correspondent names for the recorded entries were not available from any source I could reach in this session. Do not treat this as a finding.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only three recorded events over ~14 years, none of them chained LLC-to-LLC transfers in a short window.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present on available dates. The Texas ND suit (3:22-cv-00363) is dated 2022; the 2025 Piccadilly security agreement post-dates it by years and the 2012 covenant pre-dates it by a decade. No assignment clusters within 6 months before the first suit on this patent.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding or bankruptcy sale of this patent appears in the record.
7. Privateering — not present. Lemko asserts in its own name in its own suit; there is no operating-company-to-NPE handoff for assertion against competitors.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion

The record shows no NPE transfer: title has remained with Lemko Corporation throughout (the 2012 Motorola event was only a covenant not to sue, and the 2025 Piccadilly event is a security agreement, not a sale). Lemko is classified by Unified Patents as an Operating Company in the IPR2023-00570 record for this very patent, and it is the plaintiff in Texas ND case 3:22-cv-00363, asserting the DMA/DMAG technology that constitutes its own product line — i.e., an operating company enforcing against the market rather than a licensing shell. The main residual caveat is that I could not retrieve reel/frame numbers or correspondent names to fully rule out subtler NPE signals, so a spot-check of the USPTO Assignment Center record is advisable.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search Patent No. 9191980)
• USPTO assignment search index: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9191980/en
• Unified Patents IPR docket: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/[ptab](/ptab)/case/IPR2023-00570
• Unified Patents litigation docket: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Northern%20District%20Court/case/3%3A22-cv-00363

Important caveat on sources before the analysis

I was asked to search the USPTO database for patent 9191980 and to pull each patent citation on the face of the issued patent. The searches I could run (search-step limit reached) did not return a direct USPTO PatFT/Patent Center "References Cited" page for US 9,191,980. What they did return were:

1. The Justia bibliographic page for patent 9191980, which contains a "Patent Citations" table (publication number / date / inventor), captured only partially in the snippet; and
2. A Unified Patents portal page for US-9191980-B2 with a mixed document list (this list appears to include citations/related documents, but I could not verify which items are backward citations versus forward citations versus family documents).

Accordingly, the tables below are partial and unverified against the USPTO front page. I flag every item that I could not verify. Per the operating rules, I will not fabricate content for references whose disclosures I could not inspect. Do not treat the "anticipation" mapping as a definitive legal conclusion — treat it as an analyst's screen for the most relevant candidates.

Claim framework used for the mapping

Because I do not have a verified copy of the granted claims of the '980 patent, I map against the three independent claims as disclosed in the specification summary and the pre-grant publication US20120002607A1 (discussed in the earlier sections of this analysis):

• Claim 1 (DMA-server-side method): DMA server receives a call from a first mobile device at a BTS interface; destination device identified; DMA server determines from registration data stored at the DMA server that a first DMAG supports communication with the destination device (destination not within the first DMA server's coverage); converts voice information to packet data; routes the packet data to the destination via the first DMAG.
• Claim 10 (DMAG-side method): DMAG receives a call from a communication device via a network; DMAG determines from registration data stored at the DMAG that a first DMA server supports wireless communication with the destination; converts call information to packet data; routes via the first DMA server.
• Claim 15 (DMAG-side computer-readable medium): analogous to claim 10.

"Anticipation potential" below means: the reference appears, on its face or by its title/known content, to be in the closest technical field (Lemko's distributed mobile architecture), and if its disclosure reaches the elements listed above it could anticipate the corresponding independent claim under pre-AIA § 102 (the '980 patent claims priority to an April 23, 2008 filing, so pre-AIA § 102 governs validity analysis).

A. Citation entries captured from the Justia page for patent 9191980 (partial; order as shown)

The snippet captured the tail of a citation table of U.S. published applications. Only number/date/inventor metadata is shown; I cannot confirm these are all on the USPTO front page, nor can I describe each disclosure from the snippet alone.

Timing caveat relevant to § 102 for that table

Many of these entries published after April 23, 2008 (e.g., US 2008/0101314 A1 on May 1, 2008; US 2008/0146158 A1 on Jun 19, 2008; US 2009/0227235 A1 on Sep 10, 2009). A post-critical-date publication cannot be § 102(a)/(b) prior art against a claim entitled to the Apr 23, 2008 priority date, but it can still be § 102(e) prior art if its effective U.S. filing date precedes the invention date (e.g., US 2008/0146158 A1 was filed Dec 13, 2006). That distinction matters for any real anticipation analysis and is the reason the Lemko 2006–2007 filings are the strongest candidates.

B. Issued-patent and foreign references surfaced in the aggregator data (verification incomplete)

The Unified Patents portal page for US-9191980-B2 returned a document list that includes issued patents and foreign documents. I could not confirm from the snippets which of these, if any, are backward citations printed on the '980 patent. For completeness, the salient ones are:

C. Most relevant prior art — analyst's ranking

Based on what was actually retrievable, the references that most plausibly could anticipate (not merely render obvious) one of the independent claims are:

1. US 2008/0146158 A1 (Pan et al., "System, method, and device to control wireless communications," published Jun 19, 2008; filed Dec 13, 2006) — Closest title/subject matter to the '980 patent; an effective-filing date of Dec 2006 makes it § 102(e) prior art well before the Apr 23, 2008 priority date. If it discloses a DMA server receiving a call at a BTS interface, consulting stored registration data to determine the serving DMA/DMAG for the destination, converting voice to packet data, and routing over an IP network, it is the top candidate against claim 1.
2. US 2006/0098661 A1 and US 2007/0232267 A1 (Pan) — the foundational DMA disclosures (2004–2006 filings). They establish the DMA-server + BTS + IP-network architecture that the '980 independent claims build on; primary candidates against claims 1, 10, and 15 depending on whether a gateway (DMAG) with registration data is disclosed.
3. US 2009/0227235 A1 and US 2008/0039144 A1 (Pan/Pan et al.) — same "control wireless communications" DMA family; candidates against claims 1/10/15 if the DMAG element is present; § 102(e) dates depend on their underlying filing dates, which I could not verify.
4. US 6,795,444 B1 and US 6,791,988 B1 (Ericsson, 1999 filings) — pre-2000 packet-voice/telephony-over-packet-network references; candidates against the conversion-and-routing steps of claims 10 and 15 (DMAG side) but less likely to disclose the DMA-server registration-data framework.
5. CN 1427637 A (Samsung, 2001) — distributed MSC ("treating element") architecture; relevant to distributed server routing but foreign-language content not inspected here.

D. Litigation/PTAB context (grounded in search results)

• IPR2023-00570 ([Microsoft Corp.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Microsoft%20Corp.) et al. / Affirmed Networks Inc. v. Lemko Corp., filed Feb 15, 2023, against patent 9191980) was not instituted — terminated Sep 26, 2023 on "Not Instituted – Merits." Because the PTAB never reached the merits, there is no PTAB determination of unpatentability to rely on for these references. The petitioner's exhibit list (Ex 1001 = the '980 patent; Ex 1002 = file history) confirms the proceeding, but I could not retrieve the petitioner's cited prior-art exhibits (Ex 1003+) within the search limit.
• A related district court case is listed for the Texas Northern District (3:22-cv-00363) per the Unified Patents litigation data on the Google Patents page.

E. Explicit uncertainties

1. I could not open the USPTO's own "References Cited" listing for 9191980; the tables above are from Justia and Unified Patents snippets and are partial.
2. I could not verify the granted claim set (count and wording) of the '980 patent; mapping to "claims 1, 10, 15" uses the published-application claim framework and may not match the granted numbering.
3. The dates shown for several entries (e.g., US 7,855,988 B2 "filing 2008-07-13" and US 7,845,023/7,848,023 "filing 2005-04-12") are as displayed by the aggregator and were not cross-checked against USPTO assignment/issue data.
4. Descriptions in Section B for non-Lemko references are drawn from the titles shown in the search results plus general knowledge, not from full-text inspection; treat them as screening notes, not verified disclosures.

If you want a definitive per-claim anticipation chart, the next step would be to pull the USPTO front-page "References Cited" (or the IPR2023-00570 petition's grounds, which would name the primary references the challenger intended to rely on) and to obtain the granted claims from the USPTO Patent Center for US 9,191,980.

Important framing note before the analysis

The task asks me to "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page." The patent text you supplied (the Google Patents fetch of US9191980B2) does not include a Prior Art / Citations section — the fetch cuts off mid-Description and omits the "Patent Citations," "Non-Patent Citations," and "Cited By" listings. I therefore could not extract the examiner's cited-art list directly from that page, and my live searches hit the step limit before I could retrieve (a) the granted claims sheet, (b) the PTAB institution decision in IPR2023-00570, or (c) the full text of several references. Everything below is grounded in what I could verify: the published application text (US20120002607A1), the IPR2023-00570 docket listing (ipverse.greyb.com / Unified Patents), fragments of Lemko's own family patents, and fragments of U.S. 8,184,603 (Waylett) that surfaced in PTAB documents for the related Lemko case IPR2023-00530. Where content is unverified, I say so rather than reconstruct it. Patent numbers and identifiers are quoted literally.

Obviousness Analysis of US9191980B2 Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103

1. Claims at issue

Because the granted-claims sheet was not available in the supplied text or retrieved searches, I rely on the claim overview in the previously generated summary (based on the published application US20120002607A1, which the specification text confirms tracks the granted abstract). Treat the wording below as representative, not verbatim:

• Claim 1 (DMA-server-side method): receiving a call from a first mobile device at a BTS interface of a first DMA server (call directed to a destination device); determining, from registration data stored at the first DMA server, that a first DMAG supports communication with the destination device (the registration data indicating the destination is outside the first DMA server's coverage area); converting voice information to packet data; routing the packet data to the destination device via the first DMAG.
• Claim 10 (DMAG-side method): receiving a call at a DMAG via a network; determining, from registration data stored at the DMAG, that a first DMA server supports wireless communication with the destination device; converting call information to packet data; routing the packet data via the first DMA server.
• Claim 15 (DMAG-side CRM claim): same core as claim 10, expressed as instructions on a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
• Dependent claims (per the published listing) add legacy-network coupling, wireless-protocol receipt, IP conversion, private-IP routing, roaming/moving DMA servers, handoff between DMAGs, and the destination-inside/outside-coverage data distinctions.

The technical heart of the independent claims is: decentralized base-station-side servers (DMA servers) with local BTS interfaces and registration data, interconnected with a gateway (DMAG) that bridges legacy networks, where both the server and the gateway make routing decisions from locally stored registration data, and where voice is converted to packet data for IP transport to the destination's serving node.

2. Legal framework

The '980 claims priority to Application 12/108,209 (filed April 23, 2008), so this is a pre-AIA analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103: a patent is invalid if the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of invention, considering (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary skill, and (4) secondary considerations (Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)). Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a flexible, common-sense motivation inquiry applies: a combination of known elements is obvious when it yields predictable results, when a design need or market pressure points to the solution, or when the combination is "obvious to try" among a finite set of identified solutions. Prior art can be combined across references, and a reference's teaching need not be express if the combination is within the POSITA's ordinary skill.

3. Level of ordinary skill

A POSITA would be a person with a BSEE/CS degree (or equivalent) and 2–5 years' experience in cellular/wireless network architecture — familiarity with GSM/CDMA/UMTS radio access, BSC/BTS and MSC/HLR/VLR functions, SS7/ISUP/MAP signaling, IP backhaul and VoIP/media-gateway design, and registration/location-management databases. For this patent family, an important skill-set component is the integration of switching and base-station functions onto software-defined, off-the-shelf computing platforms (the Lemko "DMA" concept itself, and the analogous "network-in-a-box" (NIB) products of the late 1990s/2000s such as interWAVE's).

4. Prior-art landscape (verified vs. unverified)

I found no examiner-cited "References Cited" list for the '980 itself. The fact that the IPR petitioner (Microsoft/Affirmed, with expert James Proctor) chose Waylett, Bachmann, the two 3GPP documents, and the interWAVE press release as the complete prior-art package tells us what a sophisticated challenger believed the strongest available combination to be — and the Board still denied institution on the merits (status "Not Instituted – Merits," 35 U.S.C. § 314, Sept. 26, 2023, per Unified Patents and ipverse). That is a real-world signal, discussed in §8 below.

5. Element mapping and the strongest combination theories

Because the claim language I can rely on is only representative, I map at the feature level rather than assert a perfect one-to-one correspondence.

Combination A — Waylett (lead reference) + Bachmann (registration/mobility) + POSITA knowledge (the IPR petitioner's apparent theory)

What Waylett supplies: a self-contained, single-enclosure cellular system (CBTS/NIB) that (i) receives calls from mobile user equipment at a base-transceiver function, (ii) provides the switching/control functions that in a conventional network live in a BSC/MSC, and (iii) routes calls between UEs and the public network. A challenger would argue that Waylett's CBTS/NIB is the analog of the "DMA server with a BTS interface," and that Waylett's connection to the public network is the analog of the DMAG interface to legacy networks.

What the combination must add to reach claims 1/10/15:

1. Registration data stored at the server/gateway used for routing decisions — registration databases (HLR/VLR-like) were textbook knowledge; the NIB/interWAVE and Lemko-family art show location registers at the edge. Bachmann (per its European family abstract) concerns mobile-node registration with home/foreign networks — plausibly cited for location/registration tracking usable in routing. (Unverified.)
2. A gateway node (DMAG) that both terminates legacy traffic and holds registration data identifying which server serves the destination — gateway-plus-register architectures were routine in 2000s cellular (media gateways, femtocell/Unlicensed Mobile Access gateways, interWAVE cell-site gateways).
3. Voice-to-packet conversion and IP transport between the server and gateway — VoIP/media-gateway conversion and private-IP backhaul were well-known by 2008 (see the '980's own Background conceding VoIP over data connections as known technology).
4. Determination of "outside coverage area" from the server's registration data, routing via the gateway — this is a standard "mobile-terminated call needs the core/gateway because the destination is not local" decision, mirroring conventional VLR/HLR lookups.

Motivation to combine (why a POSITA would do it): The '980's own Background identifies the motivating problem: rural/remote telephony is uneconomical with a conventional MSC/BSC/HLR-VLR core costing millions and requiring ~10,000 users. Waylett and interWAVE already answered that problem with integrated, low-footprint base-station-and-switch units; the combination merely adds the known 3GPP/industry-standard mechanisms for (a) registration databases, (b) interworking to PSTN/cellular cores through gateways, and (c) IP transport — all "known elements" combined "according to known methods to yield predictable results" (KSR). A POSITA seeking to extend a Waylett-style community cell from isolated operation to multi-site service would naturally add a gateway that holds aggregated registration data and converts circuit voice to IP for backhaul, exactly the claimed DMA-server/DMAG split.

Combination B — Waylett/interWAVE NIB + 3GPP TS 43.069 (GSM "on-demand"/deployment standards)

If the IPR petition used TS 43.069 to show that GSM specifications already contemplated low-cost, on-demand, or gateway-mediated call delivery to roaming/registered mobiles (a common use of the TS 43.0xx series), the theory would be: the standard taught the call-control and registration plumbing; Waylett/interWAVE taught the integrated edge hardware; the claimed invention merely repackages both in software on a server. Motivation: cost reduction and deployment in ships/remote/rural sites, plus the straightforward substitution of IP packet transport for T1/E1 backhaul. I cannot verify the petitioner's actual use of these standards, so this theory is offered only as an inference and should be checked against the petition before being relied on.

Combination C — Lemko's own earlier application (US 2007/0232267 A1) + routine design

If the earlier Lemko publication is available as art (which, as noted, is doubtful due to same-inventor/grace-year issues), it likely discloses nearly the whole DMA/DMAG architecture, and the '980 claims would reduce to obvious variations (adding DMAG-side registration data, conversion steps, and routing). Because of the availability caveat, this is the weakest theory as prior art and belongs mainly in an obviousness-type-double-patenting discussion, not a §103 challenge.

6. Analysis of the Graham factors for the strongest theory (Combination A)

• Scope and content of the prior art: Waylett (2005) and interWAVE (c. 1998–2003) demonstrate that integrated "network-in-a-box" cellular systems with local switching were known and commercialized years before the 2008 priority date. Registration-based routing (HLR/VLR) and IP/VoIP interworking were long-standard.
• Differences: The claims organize the functions into named nodes (DMA server with BTS interface + registration data; DMAG with registration data; private IP network) and specify conversion of voice to packet data at the server/gateway. Waylett's NIB uses hardware cards and T1/E1 backhaul; it does not expressly disclose a peer gateway holding registration data and converting voice to IP for a distributed set of servers.
• Level of skill: A POSITA in 2008 would routinely design such a split (edge server vs. gateway) to cut backhaul — the patent's own Background and the later industry NFV wave confirm this trajectory.
• Secondary considerations: The strongest counterweights: (1) Lemko argues (and argues successfully in the family IPRs) that the prior art was hardware-centric and hierarchical and did not teach software-embedded switching on a server with peer-to-peer IP interconnect; (2) the industry did not broadly adopt NFV/edge cores until after Lemko's filings, which undercuts a "market pressure would have led there" argument; (3) the PTAB denied institution in IPR2023-00570 on the merits.

7. Where the combination theories are strong — and where they break

Strongest points for a §103 challenger:

• The architectural ingredients — integrated base-station-and-switch units (Waylett, interWAVE NIB), location/registration databases used for routing (HLR/VLR; Bachmann-type mobility registration), media-gateway/VoIP conversion, and private-IP backhaul — were all individually known before 2008.
• The motivating problem (rural/low-density telephony economics) is stated in the patent itself and was the explicit commercial pitch of interWAVE's NIB; combining known elements to serve that market is a classic KSR "design need or market pressure" rationale.
• If Bachmann discloses gateway selection based on registration data of a roaming mobile (as its family suggests), the union of Bachmann + Waylett maps well onto the DMAG-side claims (determine from registration data at the gateway which server supports the destination, convert, route).

Weakest points (why the PTAB denied institution on the merits, in my assessment based on the analogous IPR2023-00530 record):

• Waylett's NIB functions are implemented in hardware cards (MSC/BSC/BTS boards, T1/E1 ports), not in the software-defined DMA server with a BTS interface that the claims require; the Board in the related '763 Lemko IPR found the petitioner's "necessarily includes a computer-readable medium" and "obvious to implement in software" theories unsupported by evidence and hindsight-driven.
• Waylett routes between UEs through the public network over T1/E1, not through a peer gateway over IP between distributed servers; converting its backhaul to IP packet routing requires a structural change the references do not suggest.
• The specific "determining that a DMAG supports communication with the destination device based on registration data stored at the first DMA server" and its mirror-image DMAG-side limitation are the claim features most likely to lack an express antecedent; a petitioner must show not just that registration data existed somewhere, but that it was stored and consulted at the claimed node for the claimed routing decision.
• The asserted 3GPP references and press release are weak on the disputed features, and the Board in the family IPRs found similar press-release evidence did not "necessarily" disclose the required embedded functionality.

8. Real-world evidence bearing on obviousness

• IPR2023-00570 (Microsoft Corp. et al. / Affirmed Networks Inc. v. Lemko Corp.): filed Feb. 15, 2023, challenging the '980 on (presumably) §103 over Waylett/Bachmann/3GPP/interWAVE; institution denied Sept. 26, 2023, "Not Instituted – Merits" (Unified Patents; ipverse.greyb.com). A merits-based denial under §314 means the Board found the petition did not establish a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable — i.e., the specific combination presented did not persuade. This does not foreclose other combinations (the petition's chosen references were only one possible set), but it is the strongest available evidence of the limits of the obviousness case built on Waylett + Bachmann.
• Related family IPR2023-00530 (Lemko '763 patent): the excerpts I retrieved show Lemko successfully arguing that Waylett's hardware/NIB architecture lacks the claimed software-embedded functionality and that modifying Waylett to add it would be hindsight. Expect the same arguments, applied to the DMA server/DMAG limitations, in defense of the '980.
• Litigation: Lemko is asserting the '980 (family) against Microsoft/Affirmed in N.D. Tex., Case No. 3:22-cv-00363-L-BT; Microsoft's motion to dismiss was denied (April 2025 Lemko press release), so validity is now being contested in parallel with the PTAB outcome.

9. Bottom line

• The most plausible §103 combination is Waylett (US 2005/0088999 A1 / US 8,184,603 B2) as the lead reference, in view of Bachmann (US 7,969,931) and/or 3GPP TS 43.069, supplemented by the interWAVE NIB press release and the POSITA's routine knowledge of HLR/VLR registration, VoIP/media-gateway conversion, and IP backhaul. The motivation story (rural/remote and mobile-deployment cost reduction; substituting IP packet transport and edge registration for centralized hardware switching) is credible and rooted in the patent's own Background.
• That combination maps well onto the gateway-and-registration and voice-to-packet concepts of claims 10 and 15, and reasonably onto claim 1, but the specific node-level limitations — registration data stored at the DMA server indicating the destination is outside its coverage; the DMAG's own stored registration data; software-defined server implementation — are where the theory is vulnerable, because the primary references are hardware-centric and hierarchical.
• On the record I could assemble, the strongest available combination did not survive institution in IPR2023-00570, and the analogous family IPR shows the Board rejecting the "implement hardware functions in software" hindsight theory. A fresh §103 challenge would need a reference that discloses (i) a software-defined server with a BTS interface, (ii) locally stored registration data used for routing to a gateway, and (iii) a gateway holding its own registration data — none of which I can verify in Waylett, Bachmann, or the 3GPP/interWAVE materials from the results obtained.

Confidence and gaps: High confidence on the bibliographic facts, the IPR docket and outcome, and the existence/content-in-part of Waylett and interWAVE. Low-to-no confidence on Bachmann's disclosure, the petitioner's use of the two 3GPP documents, the examiner's actual "References Cited" list (never retrieved), and the verbatim granted claims. Before relying on any of the element-by-element mappings above in a pleading or opinion, the following should be retrieved: (1) the granted claims of US9191980B2 (USPTO Patent Center), (2) the IPR2023-00570 Petition and Institution Decision (PTAB), (3) the full text of US 7,969,931 and the cited 3GPP documents, and (4) the face-of-patent citation list for US9191980B2.