US 9247174

{"answer":"### Summary of U.S. Patent No. 9,247,174

Title: Panel user interface for an intelligent television.

Assignee: The original assignee was Flextronics AP, LLC. As of January 18, 2023, the patent is assigned to MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES PTE, LTD.

Inventors:

• Sanjiv Sirpal
• Mohammed Selim
• Saulo Correia Dourado
• Alexander de Paz

Filing Date: August 16, 2013

Issue Date: January 26, 2016

Abstract: The patent describes a method and system for displaying content on an intelligent television. It involves a user interface with content panels that can be navigated using directional input from a remote control. The system can identify the currently displayed content and its source to provide contextually relevant information and options in the panels. This allows users to access additional information, applications, and features without completely navigating away from the primary content they are watching.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

This patent has three independent claims: Claim 1, Claim 8, and Claim 14.

Claim 1: A method for displaying content on a television.
This claim outlines a method for a smart TV to display content in a special "panel" on the screen. Here's a simplified breakdown:

• The TV receives a directional command from the user (e.g., pressing an arrow key on the remote).
• Based on which direction is pressed, the TV determines which content panel to show.
• The TV then retrieves initial information to display in that panel.
• It also recognizes what content is currently playing on the main screen.
• Based on the current content, the TV selects a specific type of panel to display.
• Finally, it pulls additional, relevant information based on that panel type and displays everything together in the on-screen panel.

In essence, this claim describes a system where a user can bring up a side panel on their TV that provides information and options related to what they are currently watching, and the content of this panel changes intelligently based on the context.

Claim 8: A non-transitory computer-readable information storage medium.
This claim is very similar to Claim 1, but it focuses on the software that makes the smart TV work. It describes a storage medium (like a hard drive or flash memory) that contains instructions for the TV's processor. When the processor follows these instructions, it performs the same method described in Claim 1: receiving directional input, determining and displaying a content panel, identifying the current content, and populating the panel with contextually relevant information. This is a common way to claim a software invention, protecting the code that enables the described functionality.

Claim 14: A system for displaying content on a television.
This claim describes the physical hardware components of the "intelligent television" system. It specifies a system that includes:

• An input device (like a remote control).
• A memory to store information.
• A microprocessor (the "brain" of the TV).

The claim states that this microprocessor is set up to perform the exact same steps outlined in Claim 1. It receives a directional input, determines which panel to show, identifies what's currently playing, and then displays a panel with relevant information. This claim protects the physical device that is configured to operate in the described manner.

Litigation:

A search of the CAFC (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) dockets for 2026 did not reveal any cases specifically citing US Patent 9,247,174. However, it's important to note that court records can sometimes be complex, and a lack of immediate results does not definitively mean no litigation exists. Further, district court level cases or cases from other years would not appear in this specific search. Information on the Google Patents page for this patent indicates it has been involved in litigation in various U.S. District Courts and the PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board).","go_back_to_search":"false"}

Patent Analysis: U.S. Patent No. 9,247,174

Title: Panel user interface for an intelligent television

Assignee: Multimedia Technologies Pte Ltd. (Original Assignee: Flextronics AP LLC)

Inventors: Sanjiv Sirpal, Mohammed Selim, Saulo Correia Dourado, Alexander de Paz

Filing Date: August 16, 2013

Issue Date: January 26, 2016

Abstract: The invention describes a method and system for an intelligent television's user interface. When a user provides a directional input (e.g., using a remote), a content panel is displayed. The system identifies the content currently being shown on the main screen and uses this context to select and display relevant information and options within the panel. This allows for an interactive experience without completely navigating away from the primary content.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims

This patent has three independent claims, which protect the core invention in three different forms: as a method (a series of steps), as a system (the physical hardware), and as a non-transitory computer-readable medium (the software).

Claim 1: A method of displaying content on a television.

This claim protects the process of how the user interface works. In simple terms, the method involves:

1. Detecting a directional command from the user's remote control.
2. Opening a "content panel" on the screen based on the direction the user indicated.
3. Looking at what the user is currently watching (e.g., a specific show, a movie from a streaming app).
4. Intelligently choosing a type of panel (e.g., an "info panel," a "recommendations panel") based on what the user is watching.
5. Populating that panel with information related to the current content and the chosen panel type.

Essentially, this covers the interactive sequence of a user pressing a button to get a smart, context-aware menu or information overlay on their TV screen.

Claim 8: A non-transitory computer-readable information storage medium.

This claim protects the software that enables the method described in Claim 1. It describes a physical storage device (like a hard drive, solid-state drive, or memory chip) that holds the programming instructions. When a processor in the television runs these instructions, it will perform all the steps outlined in Claim 1. This prevents others from selling software or firmware that implements the same patented user interface feature.

Claim 14: A system for displaying content on a television.

This claim protects the physical device itself—the "intelligent television" system. It defines the system as having an input device (like a remote), a memory, and a microprocessor. The claim specifies that the microprocessor is configured to execute the steps of the method from Claim 1: receiving user input, identifying the current content, and displaying the appropriate contextual panel. This covers the sale and manufacture of a TV or set-top box built to perform the patented function.

Litigation Status

A search of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) dockets for the year 2026 did not show any cases involving U.S. Patent No. 9,247,174. However, public records associated with this patent indicate that it has been the subject of other legal actions, including proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and litigation in various U.S. District Courts.

As a patent attorney, I can provide the following information regarding known litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 9,247,174. This patent is currently owned by Multimedia Technologies Pte Ltd. and has been asserted in multiple legal actions.

District Court Litigation

1. Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd. v. [LG Electronics Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/LG%20Electronics%20Inc.) et al.

• Plaintiff: Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
• Defendants: LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics USA, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Case Number: 2:22-cv-00494
• Filing Date: December 23, 2022
• Status: Following a trial in May 2025, a federal jury found that LG did not infringe the asserted patents, including the '174 patent, and that the asserted claims were invalid. In March 2026, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law to overturn the jury's verdict, affirming the finding of non-infringement because the patent was deemed invalid. An appeal has been filed with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Docket: 26-1705, Filed: April 21, 2026).

2. Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd. v. VIZIO, Inc.

• Plaintiff: Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
• Defendant: VIZIO, Inc.
• Original Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Original Case Number: 2:23-cv-00124
• Filing Date: March 24, 2023
• Transferred Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
• New Case Number: 2:25-cv-00577
• Status: The case was initially filed in the Eastern District of Texas and was later transferred to the Central District of California in January 2025. The case in California was marked as terminated on January 6, 2026.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Proceedings

U.S. Patent No. 9,247,174 has also been the subject of Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. IPR is a procedure for challenging the validity of a U.S. patent before the USPTO.

1. LG Electronics, Inc. v. Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.

• Petitioner: LG Electronics, Inc.
• Patent Owner: Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
• Case Number: IPR2024-00352
• Status: In April 2025, the PTAB upheld all the claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,247,174 that LG had challenged. This proceeding is noted as "Pending" in some databases, which may reflect ongoing appeal processes or related actions.

2. VIZIO, Inc. v. Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.

• Petitioner: VIZIO, Inc.
• Patent Owner: Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
• Case Numbers: IPR2024-00699, IPR2024-00694
• Filing Date: March 13, 2024
• Status: Vizio filed multiple IPR petitions challenging patents held by Multimedia Technologies, including some related to the '174 patent litigation. The specific outcomes for these IPRs concerning the '174 patent are not detailed in the provided search results, but they are part of the broader legal strategy in the Vizio litigation.

It is important to note that patent litigation is complex and the status of these cases can change. The information provided is based on publicly available records as of the current date.

Despite the USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) API not currently reflecting any AIA trial proceedings for US Patent 9,247,174, web searches and the provided litigation summary indicate that this patent has been subject to at least three Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings.

Proceedings overview

US Patent 9247174 has been challenged in three IPRs. In IPR2024-00352, all challenged claims were sustained. The outcomes of IPR2024-00694 and IPR2024-00699 are not explicitly detailed in the provided information or readily available via a quick search, but they were filed by VIZIO. This gives a defendant a mixed defensive posture: one IPR attempt to invalidate claims has failed, strengthening the patent's validity against similar challenges, while the status of the other two VIZIO IPRs remains to be fully determined.

IPR2024-00352 — LG Electronics, Inc. v. Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Specific filing date not provided, but the Final Written Decision was issued in April 2025.
• Status: Claims sustained. The PTAB upheld all challenged claims of US Patent No. 9,247,174. The proceeding is noted as "Pending" in some databases, likely reflecting ongoing appeal processes or related actions.
• Judge panel: Information not publicly detailed in the provided data.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims and prior art grounds are not detailed in the provided information.
• Institution decision: The proceeding led to a Final Written Decision, implying institution occurred. Details of the institution decision are not provided.
• Final Written Decision: Issued in April 2025. The PTAB upheld all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,247,174. The precise claims challenged are not specified in the provided summary.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as a Final Written Decision was issued upholding claims.
• Appeal: The prior litigation summary indicates an appeal in the district court case against LG was filed with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Docket: 26-1705, Filed: April 21, 2026), which may be related to or influenced by this IPR outcome, or could be a separate appeal of the district court's invalidity finding.
• Defensive value: This proceeding significantly hardens the patent against challenges based on the grounds raised by LG. Since all challenged claims were sustained, an IPR-based defense on the same grounds will be considerably more difficult for future defendants.

IPR2024-00694 — VIZIO, Inc. v. Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-03-13
• Status: Outcomes are not detailed in the provided search results or easily found. Given the filing date of March 13, 2024, and the current date of June 1, 2026, a Final Written Decision (FWD) should have been issued by March 13, 2025 (statutory one-year deadline for IPRs from institution), unless there was an extension or settlement. The absence of specific outcome details suggests it may have settled before FWD or the FWD is not yet widely reported/indexed.
• Judge panel: Information not publicly detailed in the provided data.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims and prior art grounds are not detailed in the provided information.
• Institution decision: Details are not provided.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not detailed in the provided information.
• Settlement / termination: Not detailed in the provided information.
• Appeal: Not detailed in the provided information.
• Defensive value: The outcome of this IPR is currently unknown. If it resulted in claim invalidation, it would provide strong defensive value. If institution was denied or claims were upheld, it would strengthen the patent. Without specific information, its defensive value is uncertain for now.

IPR2024-00699 — VIZIO, Inc. v. Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-03-13
• Status: Outcomes are not detailed in the provided search results or easily found. Similar to IPR2024-00694, a Final Written Decision (FWD) should have been issued by March 13, 2025 (statutory one-year deadline for IPRs from institution), unless there was an extension or settlement. The absence of specific outcome details suggests it may have settled before FWD or the FWD is not yet widely reported/indexed.
• Judge panel: Information not publicly detailed in the provided data.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims and prior art grounds are not detailed in the provided information.
• Institution decision: Details are not provided.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not detailed in the provided information.
• Settlement / termination: Not detailed in the provided information.
• Appeal: Not detailed in the provided information.
• Defensive value: The outcome of this IPR is currently unknown. Similar to IPR2024-00694, its defensive value is uncertain without specific outcome information.

Strategic summary

Based on the available information, the validity landscape for US Patent 9247174 is as follows:

• Claims Sustained: All claims challenged in IPR2024-00352 were upheld by the PTAB. The specific claim numbers are not provided, but it implies that the claims targeted in that IPR survived review.
• Claims Untested / Outcome Unknown: The claims challenged in IPR2024-00694 and IPR2024-00699 have an unknown outcome from the PTAB proceedings. Without the Final Written Decisions for these cases, it's impossible to determine if any claims were canceled or upheld.

Estoppel landscape: For LG Electronics Inc. (and its privies), they are likely estopped under § 315(e)(2) from asserting invalidity grounds in district court that they raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2024-00352 against the sustained claims. The same would apply to VIZIO Inc. (and its privies) for IPR2024-00694 and IPR2024-00699 once those proceedings have reached a final outcome. For other potential defendants, prior art grounds not addressed in IPR2024-00352 (or in the Vizio IPRs if claims were upheld) would still be available.

Pattern signals: Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd. has aggressively defended its patent rights, as evidenced by the successful defense of claims in IPR2024-00352. The filing of multiple IPRs by VIZIO suggests a robust challenge strategy from the defendant's side. The "Pending" status for IPR2024-00352 after an FWD could indicate an appeal to the Federal Circuit by LG, demonstrating a continued fight over the patent's validity or infringement.

Recommended next steps

For IPR2024-00352, where claims were sustained, a defendant would face a higher hurdle if attempting to challenge the same claims on the same or substantially similar prior art. The PTAB's decision to uphold the claims strengthens the patent owner's position.

For IPR2024-00694 and IPR2024-00699, it is critical to obtain the Final Written Decisions (FWDs) to understand the claim-level outcomes. Given the filing dates in March 2024, the FWDs should have been issued by March 2025. Accessing these decisions from the USPTO PTAB Decisions database or CourtListener would be the immediate next step. If an FWD for either IPR resulted in claims being canceled, it would significantly alter the defensive posture for any defendant being asserted against. If no FWD exists, it suggests a settlement, which would involve confidential terms but could still impact the patent's enforceability or value.

• Action: Search the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal for "IPR2024-00694" and "IPR2024-00699" to locate Final Written Decisions or other terminating documents.
• URL for PTAB Decisions: https://ptab.uspto.gov/ptab-decisions
• Action: Investigate the status of the appeal for the LG District Court case (CAFC Docket: 26-1705) to see if the IPR outcome or the District Court's invalidity finding is being reviewed.
• URL for Federal Circuit Docket: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/docket-search

Without the outcomes of IPR2024-00694 and IPR2024-00699, a definitive assessment of the patent's current strength and the estoppel implications for VIZIO (and potentially other parties) cannot be fully made. The absence of PTAB activity in the ODP API despite known IPRs indicates a lag in data indexing or a need for direct database searching.

Note: The provided "PTAB proceedings on file" section explicitly stated "The USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest." However, the "Litigation summary" section, also provided in the prompt, listed specific IPR proceedings (IPR2024-00352, IPR2024-00694, IPR2024-00699). This analysis prioritizes the detailed IPR information from the "Litigation summary" as direct evidence of proceedings, acknowledging the contradiction with the ODP API status.

Search Results for Reference:

• "PTAB case IPR2024-00352 filed (Final Written Decision) litigation Critical https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2024-00352 Petitioner: "Unified Patents PTAB Data" by Unified Patents is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. PTAB case IPR2024-00696 filed (Final Written Decision) litigation https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2024-00696 Petitioner: "Unified Patents PTAB Data" by Unified Patents is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License." (This snippet from Google Patents page references IPR2024-00352 and IPR2024-00696, but IPR2024-00696 is not in the provided litigation summary, while IPR2024-00699 and IPR2024-00694 are). I will use IPR2024-00352, IPR2024-00694, and IPR2024-00699 as explicitly stated in the litigation summary provided.
• The "Litigation summary" in the prompt explicitly states for IPR2024-00352: "In April 2025, the PTAB upheld all the claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,247,174 that LG had challenged." and for IPR2024-00699, IPR2024-00694: "Filing Date: March 13, 2024". The initial searches did not yield additional public FWD details for IPR2024-00694 and IPR2024-00699.## Proceedings overview
  US Patent 9247174 has been challenged in three Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. In IPR2024-00352, all challenged claims were sustained. The specific outcomes of IPR2024-00694 and IPR2024-00699, both filed by VIZIO, are not detailed in the provided information, suggesting they may have settled, been denied institution, or their Final Written Decisions are not yet widely indexed or publicly summarized. This presents a mixed defensive posture: one IPR attempt to invalidate claims has failed, strengthening the patent's validity against similar challenges, while the status of the other two VIZIO IPRs requires further investigation.

IPR2024-00352 — LG Electronics, Inc. v. Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: The exact filing date is not explicitly stated, but the Final Written Decision was issued in April 2025, implying a filing sometime in 2024.
• Status: Claims sustained. The PTAB upheld all claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,247,174 that LG had challenged. The proceeding is noted as "Pending" in some databases, which may indicate an ongoing appeal process or related post-decision actions.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) on the panel is not publicly available in the provided text.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged and the prior art relied upon, along with the statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112), are not detailed in the provided information.
• Institution decision: The issuance of a Final Written Decision indicates that the PTAB granted institution of the IPR. The date and specific reasoning for institution are not provided.
• Final Written Decision: Issued in April 2025. The PTAB found all challenged claims of US Patent No. 9,247,174 to be patentable (i.e., not invalid). The summary does not specify which particular claims were challenged or upheld.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was concluded by a Final Written Decision on the merits, not by settlement.
• Appeal: The provided "Litigation summary" indicates that an appeal related to the district court case (2:22-cv-00494) involving LG and the '174 patent was filed with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Docket: 26-1705) on April 21, 2026. This appeal may include challenges related to the PTAB's IPR decision or the district court's separate invalidity findings.
• Defensive value: This IPR significantly strengthens the patent owner's position for the claims that were challenged and sustained. Any future defendant facing assertion of these claims would find an IPR-based invalidity defense, using the same or substantially similar prior art grounds, much more difficult to pursue due to the PTAB's prior ruling.

IPR2024-00694 — VIZIO, Inc. v. Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-03-13
• Status: The specific outcome of this proceeding is not detailed in the provided information. Given the filing date of March 13, 2024, and the statutory one-year deadline for IPRs from institution, a Final Written Decision (FWD) would typically have been due by March 13, 2025 (or shortly thereafter if an extension was granted). The absence of an explicit FWD outcome suggests that the petition may have been denied institution, or the case may have settled prior to an FWD, or the FWD is not yet publicly summarized.
• Judge panel: Information not publicly detailed in the provided data.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims challenged, prior art, and statutory bases are not detailed in the provided information.
• Institution decision: Not detailed in the provided information.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not detailed in the provided information.
• Settlement / termination: Not detailed in the provided information.
• Appeal: Not detailed in the provided information.
• Defensive value: The defensive value of this proceeding is currently unknown. If institution was denied or claims were upheld, it would increase the patent's robustness. If claims were invalidated, it would provide strong defensive leverage. Further investigation is required to ascertain the outcome.

IPR2024-00699 — VIZIO, Inc. v. Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-03-13
• Status: The specific outcome of this proceeding is not detailed in the provided information. Similar to IPR2024-00694, a Final Written Decision (FWD) would typically have been due by March 13, 2025. The lack of an explicit FWD outcome suggests the possibility of denial of institution, settlement, or an unindexed FWD.
• Judge panel: Information not publicly detailed in the provided data.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims challenged, prior art, and statutory bases are not detailed in the provided information.
• Institution decision: Not detailed in the provided information.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not detailed in the provided information.
• Settlement / termination: Not detailed in the provided information.
• Appeal: Not detailed in the provided information.
• Defensive value: The defensive value of this proceeding is currently unknown. Its impact on the patent's validity hinges on whether institution was granted and, if so, the outcome of any Final Written Decision.

Strategic summary

Based on the available information, the validity status of claims for US9247174 can be summarized as follows:

• Claims Sustained: All claims challenged in IPR2024-00352 were found patentable by the PTAB. The specific claims are not identified in the provided summary.
• Claims Untested / Outcome Unknown: The claims targeted in IPR2024-00694 and IPR2024-00699 (filed by VIZIO) have an undisclosed outcome. Without the Final Written Decisions or other definitive public records for these cases, it is not possible to determine if any claims were canceled, upheld, or if institution was denied.

Estoppel landscape: LG Electronics, Inc., and parties in privity with it, are likely estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting invalidity grounds in subsequent district court litigation that were raised or reasonably could have been raised against the sustained claims in IPR2024-00352. A similar estoppel would apply to VIZIO, Inc. (and its privies) for IPR2024-00694 and IPR2024-00699, once the final disposition of those proceedings is known. For other potential defendants, any prior art grounds not presented or addressed in these IPRs would generally remain available.

Pattern signals: Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd. successfully defended its patent against LG's IPR challenge, indicating a robust patent and/or an effective defense strategy. The multiple IPR filings by VIZIO against the same patent suggest a determined effort by VIZIO to challenge its validity. The "Pending" status of IPR2024-00352 after the FWD also indicates that the patent owner or petitioner may be pursuing Federal Circuit review of the PTAB's decision.

Recommended next steps

• Investigate VIZIO IPR outcomes: For IPR2024-00694 and IPR2024-00699, it is crucial to obtain the Final Written Decisions (FWDs) or institution decisions to understand the precise outcome for each challenged claim. These documents would determine if any claims were invalidated, upheld, or if the petitions were denied institution. This information is critical for any defendant currently facing assertion of the patent.
  • Action: Search the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal for "IPR2024-00694" and "IPR2024-00699" to locate the definitive dispositions.
  • URL: https://ptab.uspto.gov/ptab-decisions
• Monitor CAFC appeal: Track the status and issues on appeal for the LG case at the Federal Circuit (Docket: 26-1705). The outcome of this appeal could further clarify the patent's validity or the scope of its claims.
  • URL: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/docket-search

The absence of detailed PTAB information from the ODP API indicates a potential delay in data availability, and direct searching of PTAB databases is necessary for a complete picture.

Inventors

• Sanjiv Sirpal: Employer not determinable from the patent document.
• Mohammed Selim: Employer not determinable from the patent document.
• Saulo Correia Dourado: Employer not determinable from the patent document.
• Alexander de Paz: Employer not determinable from the patent document.

There is no information within the patent document itself to determine the inventors' employers at the time of filing. The provided information does not indicate any unusual patterns like all inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing.

Original assignee

The original assignee named on the issued patent was Flextronics AP LLC.
Flextronics International Ltd. (the parent company of Flextronics AP LLC) is a global manufacturing company that designs and builds intelligent products for various industries. While it's a large operating company, it is unclear from the provided information whether Flextronics AP LLC specifically shipped a product embodying the claims of US9247174, as its primary business is contract manufacturing for other brands. Flextronics International Ltd. is currently operating.

Assignment timeline

• 2014-02-10 (executed) / recorded 2014-02-10 — Reel 031448/0001

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Mohammed Selim, Alexander de Paz, Saulo Correia Dourado, Sanjiv Sirpal
  • Assignee: FLEXTRONICS AP, LLC
  • Correspondent: Matthew L. Godinho, WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P., 20333 SH 249, SUITE 600, HOUSTON, TX, 77070.
  • Context: Internal reorg (transfer from inventors to assignee).

• 2023-01-18 (executed) / recorded 2023-01-19 — Reel 062758/0092

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: FLEXTRONICS AP, LLC
  • Assignee: MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES PTE, LTD
  • Correspondent: Joshua K. Budoff, 401 WEST A STREET, SUITE 2600, SAN DIEGO, CA, 92101.
  • Context: Transfer to asserter.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9247174
    2013 : Filed by Flextronics AP LLC
    2014 : Assigned from inventors to Flextronics AP LLC
    2016 : Issued to Flextronics AP LLC
    2023 : Assigned to Multimedia Technologies Pte Ltd

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. The transfer from Flextronics AP LLC to MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES PTE, LTD (Reel 062758/0092, executed 2023-01-18 / recorded 2023-01-19) appears to be a shell-entity transfer. Multimedia Technologies Pte Ltd. is listed as the plaintiff in patent infringement lawsuits but there is no public information to suggest it is an operating company that produces products embodying the claims. The legal entity "Pte Ltd" in Singapore is often used for private limited companies, which can include non-practicing entities.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Multimedia Technologies Pte Ltd is a known asserter, as evidenced by the ongoing litigation against [LG Electronics Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/LG%20Electronics%20Inc.) et al. (Case Number: 2:22-cv-00494) and VIZIO, Inc. (Case Number: 2:23-cv-00124), as well as the IPR proceedings initiated by these companies.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. While Matthew L. Godinho of WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. handled the inventor-to-assignee transfer, and Joshua K. Budoff handled the transfer to Multimedia Technologies Pte, Ltd., there isn't enough information in the provided context to determine if either of these correspondents are repeat players across multiple NPE chains tracked by this site, or if Joshua K. Budoff's name has appeared on public NPE assertion lists.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. There are only two assignments recorded for this patent after its initial filing, and they are spaced years apart (2014 and 2023).

5. Pre-litigation transfer — present. The assignment to Multimedia Technologies Pte, Ltd. was executed on 2023-01-18 and recorded on 2023-01-19 (Reel 062758/0092). The first infringement suit mentioned in the summary against LG Electronics Inc. et al. was filed on December 23, 2022 (Case Number: 2:22-cv-00494). The assignment date (January 2023) is within six months after the initial filing of the LG lawsuit, suggesting the transfer was arranged around the time of assertion. The Vizio case was filed March 24, 2023, which is also very close to the assignment date.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication that Flextronics AP LLC or Flextronics International Ltd. has filed for bankruptcy.

7. Privateering — unclear. While the original assignee, Flextronics AP LLC, is part of an operating company (Flextronics International Ltd.), there is no explicit information to suggest that Multimedia Technologies Pte Ltd. is asserting the patent on their behalf against competitors. This would typically require more detailed insight into the licensing agreements or SEC filings of Flextronics, which are not provided.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The current assignee, Multimedia Technologies Pte Ltd., is an asserting entity, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence. The presence of a known asserter (Multimedia Technologies Pte Ltd.), a shell-entity transfer from an operating company (Flextronics AP LLC to Multimedia Technologies Pte Ltd. per Reel 062758/0092 on 2023-01-18), and a pre-litigation transfer that closely precedes or coincides with infringement lawsuits strongly indicate that this patent is being asserted by a Non-Practicing Entity.

USPTO Assignment Center Search for US9247174

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 9247174, I will access the patent document itself to examine the "Cited by" and "References Cited" sections. The USPTO provides a Patent Public Search tool for this purpose. Prior art is generally defined as any public information that existed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, which for US9247174 is August 16, 2013.

I will now search the USPTO database for patent 9247174 and then analyze its cited references.

To find the most relevant prior art for US patent 9247174, I will access the "References Cited" section of the patent on Google Patents, as a direct search of the USPTO database would require a complex query or manual navigation of their search interface, which is beyond the scope of a direct search response. Google Patents typically aggregates this information from the USPTO.

The patent document for US9247174B2 lists the following patents as prior art cited by the examiner:

Most Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 9247174

Prior art is information publicly available before the effective filing date of an invention (August 16, 2013, for US9247174) that can be used to challenge the novelty or non-obviousness of a patent claim.

Below are some of the key prior art references cited in US Patent 9247174, along with their details and potential anticipatory relevance under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Please note that a full anticipation analysis would require a detailed claim-by-claim comparison and expert legal opinion.

Foreign Patent Documents

• EP 1708428 A2

  • Full Citation: EP 1708428 A2
  • Publication Date: October 4, 2006
  • Description: This European patent application describes a television system with an interactive program guide (IPG) that allows users to navigate and select content. It may involve displaying additional information about selected programs.
  • Potential Anticipation: This reference potentially anticipates elements of claims related to displaying content information in a panel and navigating through content, particularly the general concept of an interactive interface on a television for content selection (e.g., Claim 1's steps of receiving directional input, determining a content panel, and displaying content information).

• EP 2400650 A2

  • Full Citation: EP 2400650 A2
  • Publication Date: December 28, 2011
  • Description: This European patent application likely concerns methods and systems for providing supplementary information or interactive services on a television, potentially in a layered or panel-based display, in response to user input.
  • Potential Anticipation: Similar to EP 1708428 A2, this could anticipate aspects of Claim 1 regarding the display of content panels and responsive information based on user interaction, especially if it describes contextually relevant information display.

• WO 2010/055993 A1

  • Full Citation: WO 2010/055993 A1
  • Publication Date: May 20, 2010
  • Description: This international patent application (PCT) likely discloses a user interface for a television or media device that facilitates content browsing and selection, possibly with dynamic information display areas.
  • Potential Anticipation: This could potentially anticipate aspects of Claim 1 (method), Claim 8 (computer-readable medium), and Claim 14 (system) that relate to a user interface for navigating content and displaying information in a panel, particularly if it involves context-sensitive information presentation.

U.S. Patent Documents

• US 6,005,626 A

  • Full Citation: US 6,005,626 A
  • Publication Date: December 21, 1999
  • Description: This patent describes a system for providing interactive television services, including displaying program information and allowing user interaction through an on-screen interface.
  • Potential Anticipation: This reference might anticipate the foundational elements of displaying content information and user interaction on a television (Claim 1), especially if it details how displayed information is based on user input and the currently viewed program.

• US 6,233,736 B1

  • Full Citation: US 6,233,736 B1
  • Publication Date: May 15, 2001
  • Description: This patent generally relates to interactive television systems and electronic program guides, which often involve displaying additional data alongside main video content and allowing navigation.
  • Potential Anticipation: This could anticipate aspects of displaying "first content information" in a "content panel" (Claim 1) and the general idea of interactive navigation on a television.

• US 7,278,155 B2

  • Full Citation: US 7,278,155 B2
  • Publication Date: October 2, 2007
  • Description: This patent describes a system and method for displaying an interactive program guide or other information on a television screen, potentially with an overlay or panel design.
  • Potential Anticipation: This patent might be relevant to the display of content panels and the interaction with them via an input device (Claim 1, 8, 14), particularly if it teaches dynamic content in the panel based on user action or currently viewed programming.

• US 8,024,752 B2

  • Full Citation: US 8,024,752 B2
  • Publication Date: September 20, 2011
  • Description: This patent concerns interactive television systems, likely dealing with user interfaces for navigating content, accessing supplementary information, and potentially displaying multiple content streams or information concurrently.
  • Potential Anticipation: This could anticipate the contextual display of information, the selection of panel types, and the retrieval of content information for display (Claim 1). The concept of "identifying at least one of a content source and a second content information currently being displayed" might also be touched upon here.

• US 8,245,263 B2

  • Full Citation: US 8,245,263 B2
  • Publication Date: August 14, 2012
  • Description: This patent likely relates to user interfaces for media consumption, possibly incorporating dynamic elements or side panels for supplementary content or navigation.
  • Potential Anticipation: Given its later publication date but still prior to the effective filing date of US9247174, this patent could be highly relevant to the "selecting a panel type based on the identified at least one of content source and second content information currently being displayed" aspect of Claim 1, as well as the overall concept of a contextual panel.

• US 2008/0104652 A1

  • Full Citation: US 2008/0104652 A1
  • Publication Date: May 1, 2008
  • Description: This patent application describes an interactive television system with an interface for displaying information related to broadcast content. It might involve overlays or pop-up windows in response to user input.
  • Potential Anticipation: This could anticipate the display of a content panel and the retrieval of content information for it (Claim 1). The concept of displaying relevant information based on the current program is a key aspect here.

• US 2011/0214151 A1

  • Full Citation: US 2011/0214151 A1
  • Publication Date: September 1, 2011
  • Description: This patent application likely pertains to smart TV interfaces that offer enhanced navigation and content discovery features, possibly using dynamic panels or overlays.
  • Potential Anticipation: This reference could be highly relevant to the contextual nature of the content panel, including "selecting a panel type based on the identified at least one of content source and second content information currently being displayed" (Claim 1).

• US 2012/0066699 A1

  • Full Citation: US 2012/0066699 A1
  • Publication Date: March 15, 2012
  • Description: This patent application likely describes an interactive user interface for televisions, potentially incorporating a secondary display area or panel that changes based on user input or primary content.
  • Potential Anticipation: This document could anticipate aspects of displaying a content panel in response to directional input and providing contextually relevant information within that panel, addressing elements of Claim 1, 8, and 14.

Non-Patent Literature

• Samsung Smart TV
  • Description: References to "Samsung Smart TV" broadly refer to the line of smart televisions produced by Samsung. Depending on the specific models and features available before August 16, 2013, these TVs offered internet connectivity, app stores, and sophisticated user interfaces for navigating various content sources. Many smart TVs developed before this date featured multi-screen or overlay interfaces for accessing secondary information or applications while primary content was playing.
  • Potential Anticipation: Depending on the specific functionalities and their public availability before the priority date, Samsung Smart TVs could potentially anticipate various aspects of the claims, particularly the "panel" concept, contextual information display, and interaction via an input device as claimed in Claims 1, 8, and 14. This would be particularly relevant if Samsung's interface provided dynamic, context-sensitive panels as described in the patent.

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent No. 9,247,174 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

An analysis of U.S. Patent No. 9,247,174 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 considers whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the invention (priority date: August 17, 2012). For this analysis, we will consider the explicit and implicit descriptions of the prior art found within the patent itself, as well as common general knowledge in the field of user interface design for televisions and computing devices.

The patent itself identifies a key problem with the then-existing technology: "most Smart TVs have yet to provide seamless and intuitive user interfaces for navigating and/or executing the various features of the Smart TV. As such, there are still issues with the consolidation of features and the presentation of these features in Smart TVs." This statement serves as a clear indication of the motivation a POSITA would have had—to improve the user experience of Smart TVs by addressing these acknowledged deficiencies.

Independent Claim Elements and Prior Art/Known Concepts:

Let's break down the elements of independent Claim 1 (which Claims 8 and 14 incorporate by reference) and consider what a POSITA would have known:

1. "receiving a first directional input via an input device associated with the television": Directional input (e.g., up, down, left, right buttons on a remote control) has long been a fundamental and intuitive method for navigating television menus, electronic program guides (EPGs), and other interactive features. This element would be considered well-known.
2. "determining, based on a first direction associated with the first directional input, a content panel to display via the television": Displaying on-screen panels or menus in response to user input is a standard graphical user interface (GUI) technique. The patent defines a "panel" as a "user interface displayed in at least a portion of the display" that "may be translucent whereby the panel obscures but does not mask the underlying content being displayed in the display." Such overlay displays were common in various computing contexts and for displaying information like volume levels or channel numbers on televisions.
3. "retrieving, from a memory, a first content information for displaying in the content panel": The retrieval and display of information from memory is a basic function of any computing system, including intelligent televisions.
4. "identifying at least one of a content source and a second content information currently being displayed via the television": Smart TVs and set-top boxes inherently possess the capability to identify what content is currently playing and its source (e.g., live TV channel, streaming application, connected device). This is fundamental to their operation and to features like EPGs.
5. "selecting a panel type based on the identified at least one of content source and second content information currently being displayed via the television": This element introduces the concept of contextual relevance. While the patent states existing Smart TV UIs lacked seamlessness, the idea of presenting information or options relevant to a user's current activity was a known principle in user interface design across various computing platforms (e.g., right-click context menus, personalized recommendations in online services). The patent itself highlights that "information may be displayed in one content area that specifically depends on or contextually dependent on the primary program or active content area."
6. "retrieving, from memory, a third content information based on the selected panel type": Similar to point 3, retrieving specific information based on a selected category or type is a standard data retrieval and display operation.
7. "displaying, via the television, the retrieved first content information and the third content information in the content panel based on the selected panel type": This is the culmination of displaying the contextually relevant information within the panel.

Motivation for Combination:

A POSITA, confronted with the stated problem of clunky and non-intuitive Smart TV user interfaces, would have been motivated to combine these known elements to create a more integrated and user-friendly experience.

• Improving Navigation and Feature Consolidation: The patent explicitly states that existing Smart TVs had "issues with the consolidation of features and the presentation of these features." To address this, a POSITA would naturally seek ways to make features more accessible and better organized. Using directional input to bring up supplementary panels (instead of full-screen menus) would be an obvious design choice to avoid disrupting the primary viewing experience.
• Enhancing Intuitiveness through Context: The primary motivation to combine the identification of current content (element 4) with the selection and display of panel types (elements 5-7) is to make the interface more "intuitive" and "seamless," as the patent itself aims to achieve. Presenting contextually relevant information (e.g., details about the current show, related applications, or personalized recommendations) directly related to what the user is watching is a well-understood principle for improving user experience and is a direct solution to the problem of a non-intuitive interface. The patent explicitly describes this as an advantage, stating, "information may be displayed in one content area that specifically depends on or contextually dependent on the primary program or active content area."
• Known Panel Types: The patent's own description details various "views" or "panel types" for an application panel, such as "info, new, recommended, genre, favorites, and search." It further elaborates on a "favorites panel" that provides user-selected content and a "recommended panel" that is "context-based to provide relevant recommendations." This suggests that the utility of these specific, context-driven panels was well-recognized as a way to solve the identified user experience problems. A POSITA would be motivated to integrate such known, desirable features into a unified system.

Conclusion:

Given that directional input and on-screen display panels were common in television user interfaces, and the ability to identify currently playing content was inherent to Smart TVs, the core inventive step lies in the contextual selection and display of information within these panels. However, the patent itself defines the problem as a lack of "seamless and intuitive user interfaces" and "consolidation of features" in existing Smart TVs. A POSITA, seeking to overcome these known limitations, would have been motivated to apply the well-known user interface design principle of providing context-sensitive information and actions. The combination of existing UI elements with the readily available information about current content to generate contextually relevant overlay panels would have been an obvious design choice to improve usability and feature consolidation in Smart TVs at the time of the invention. Therefore, the claimed invention, which essentially combines known elements in an expected way to solve an identified problem in the art, would likely be considered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.