US 9247299

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 9247299, based on the provided authoritative patent text and a search for CAFC dockets:

US Patent 9247299

• Title: Method and system for television channel group
• Current Assignee: Innobrilliance LLC
• Inventors: Chi Fai Ho, Shin Cheung Simon Chiu
• Filing Date: November 4, 2014 (Application No. US14/533,088)
• Issue Date: January 26, 2016
• Abstract: The patent describes a method and system for displaying video from multiple video streams on a television display. It involves an input interface receiving video data and a frame controller displaying this data in separate, non-overlapping frames (pictures) on the screen. The frame controller also displays a "channel group" on the television display, which is a list of channels that share at least one common attribute.

Independent Claims Overview:

• Claim 1 (Television System): This claim describes a television system. It includes an input interface for receiving video streams and a frame controller. The frame controller is configured to display video data from multiple streams as separate "pictures" on a display, ensuring each picture occupies its own distinct area. The system receives a first user selection to display a "video group" (comprising at least two video streams) that is related to a specific attribute (e.g., sports, news, age-appropriateness). It then receives and displays these video streams in different pictures. Crucially, it also receives a second user selection to change one of the currently displayed pictures to a different video stream from the same video group, where this new stream was not previously on display, and then displays that new stream.
• Claim 13 (Method for Displaying Video Data): This claim outlines a method performed by a frame controller within a television system. The method involves receiving video data from multiple video streams and displaying them as separate, non-overlapping pictures on a connected display. The method includes receiving a user's initial selection to display a video group (containing at least two video streams) linked by a common attribute. It then receives and displays these initial video streams in separate pictures. Subsequently, it receives a second user selection to swap a video stream in a currently displayed picture with another video stream from the same video group, where the newly selected stream was not previously displayed, and then displays that new stream in the designated picture.

Litigation Information:
The patent family is currently involved in litigation, with cases filed in various US District Courts, including the Eastern District of Texas, Western District of Texas, District of Delaware, Northern District of Georgia, Southern District of New York, and Eastern District of Pennsylvania. These filings span from 2021 to 2025.

As of the current date (April 26, 2026), a specific search for "CAFC dockets US9247299 2026" did not yield direct results for dockets opened or concluded within 2026 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. However, given the ongoing district court litigation, appeals to the CAFC could potentially arise in the future.Here's a concise summary of US Patent 9247299, based on the provided authoritative patent text and a search for CAFC dockets:

US Patent 9247299

• Title: Method and system for television channel group
• Current Assignee: Innobrilliance LLC
• Inventors: Chi Fai Ho, Shin Cheung Simon Chiu
• Filing Date: November 4, 2014 (Application No. US14/533,088)
• Issue Date: January 26, 2016
• Abstract: The patent describes a method and system for displaying video from multiple video streams on a television display. It includes an input interface for receiving video data and a frame controller that causes this video data to be displayed in separate, non-overlapping frames (pictures) on the screen. The frame controller further displays a "channel group" on the television display, which comprises a list of channels sharing at least one common attribute.

Independent Claims Overview:

• Claim 1 (Television System): This claim describes a television system comprising an input interface for receiving video data from multiple video streams and a frame controller. The frame controller causes the video data to be displayed as distinct "pictures" on a display, with each picture occupying a separate area. The system receives a first user selection to display a "video group" (consisting of at least a first and second video stream) that is associated with a specific attribute (e.g., sports, news, age group). It then receives and displays these first and second video streams in corresponding first and second pictures. Furthermore, the frame controller receives a second user selection to change the display in a given picture to a different video stream from the same video group, where this given video stream was not previously displayed, and then proceeds to display it in that picture.
• Claim 13 (Method for Displaying Video Data): This claim details a method for displaying video data from multiple video streams on a display, performed by a television system's frame controller. The method involves receiving video data and displaying it in a plurality of separate, non-overlapping pictures on the display. This displaying process includes receiving a first user selection to show a "video group" (containing at least a first and second video stream) linked by a common attribute. The first and second video streams of this group are then received and displayed in corresponding first and second pictures. The method further involves receiving a second user selection to change the content of a specific displayed picture to a "given video stream" from the same video group, where this given video stream was not already visible on the display, and then displaying it in the specified picture.

Litigation Information:
The patent family is currently involved in litigation, with multiple US cases filed in various District Courts, including the Eastern District of Texas, Western District of Texas, District of Delaware, Northern District of Georgia, Southern District of New York, and Eastern District of Pennsylvania. These filings range from 2021 to 2025. As of April 26, 2026, a specific search for "CAFC dockets US9247299 2026" did not yield any direct dockets or scheduled cases related to US9247299 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for the year 2026.

Known litigation involving US Patent 9247299, as of April 26, 2026, is detailed below. The patent family is currently involved in numerous cases in various U.S. District Courts.

District Court Litigation:

The patent has been involved in several cases across different District Courts, with filings ranging from 2021 to 2025. The exact outcomes or current statuses for all cases are not fully detailed in the provided information, but the general status is "litigation." The current assignee is Innobrilliance LLC.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

  • Case Numbers:
    • 2:22-cv-00145
    • 2:22-cv-00235
    • 2:25-cv-00405
    • 2:24-cv-00496
    • 2:24-cv-00495
    • 2:24-cv-00492
    • 2:22-cv-00288
    • 2:24-cv-00491
    • 2:24-cv-00481
    • 2:24-cv-00483
    • 2:24-cv-00485
    • 2:24-cv-00486
    • 2:24-cv-00488

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

  • Case Numbers:
    • 6:21-cv-00227
    • 6:21-cv-00094

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case Numbers:
    • 1:24-cv-01326
    • 1:24-cv-01329
    • 1:24-cv-01330

• Jurisdiction: Georgia Northern District Court

  • Case Numbers:
    • 1:24-cv-03102
    • 1:24-cv-05982

• Jurisdiction: New York Southern District Court

  • Case Numbers:
    • 1:22-cv-06068
    • 1:24-cv-10000

• Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania Eastern District Court

  • Case Number:
    • 2:24-cv-06538

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Litigation:

As of April 26, 2026, a specific search for "CAFC dockets US9247299 2026" did not yield any direct dockets or scheduled cases related to US9247299 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for the year 2026. However, given the ongoing district court litigation, appeals to the CAFC could potentially arise in the future. PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) can be used to search for federal court case and docket information, including appellate court cases. Accessing detailed PACER information typically requires an account and may involve fees.

Proceedings overview

No AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review) for US Patent 9247299 were found on file with the USPTO Open Data Portal as of the most recent ingest. A comprehensive web search for PTAB proceedings related to US9247299 also did not yield any results. Therefore, there is no PTAB activity on this patent.

Strategic summary

As of the current date, US Patent 9247299 has not been subjected to any AIA trial proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This means all claims (claims 1-24) of the patent remain untested and are currently sustained as granted by the USPTO.

The absence of PTAB challenges for this patent implies that no estoppel has been triggered under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). Therefore, a defendant facing assertion of this patent would theoretically have all prior-art grounds available for challenging validity, either in district court litigation or through a newly filed AIA trial proceeding at the PTAB, provided they meet all statutory and regulatory requirements, including time-bars.

The lack of PTAB activity could be interpreted in several ways: the patent may not have been asserted widely enough to attract challenges, or potential petitioners may have evaluated the claims and found IPR/PGR challenges less viable for strategic or technical reasons. However, well-asserted patents often do eventually attract IPRs, especially given the ongoing litigation detailed previously.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US9247299, the recommended next steps for a defendant facing assertion of this patent are as follows:

• Evaluate potential PTAB challenges: Conduct a thorough prior art search and claim analysis to determine the viability of filing an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against US9247299. Given the patent's issue date of January 26, 2016, and the priority date of April 2, 2007, an IPR would be the appropriate type of AIA trial, as Post-Grant Review (PGR) is typically only available for patents with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, and only for nine months after grant or reissue.
• Consider grounds for challenge: Focus on grounds of patentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (novelty) and 103 (obviousness) based on patents or printed publications.
• Assess time-bar: Ensure that any potential petitioner is not time-barred from filing an IPR, typically one year from the date of service of a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.
• Coordinate with litigation strategy: Integrate any potential PTAB filing into the broader litigation strategy, considering how an IPR could impact district court proceedings (e.g., potential for a stay).

Inventors

• Chi Fai Ho: Founder of TP Lab Inc. in 2004. It is highly probable he was working for or was a principal of TP Lab Inc. at the time of the patent's filing in 2014.
• Shin Cheung Simon Chiu: Co-inventor on patents assigned to TP Lab Inc.. It is highly probable he was also associated with TP Lab Inc. at the time of the patent's filing.

An unusual pattern observed is that Chi Fai Ho, one of the inventors, founded the original assignee, TP Lab Inc., with a stated mission to "realize intellectual properties as a sound business" and "focus on invention with licensing to monetize the Lab's ideas". This indicates that the original assignee was primarily an intellectual property holding and licensing entity, rather than a traditional product-shipping company.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent as the original assignee is TP Lab Inc.

TP Lab Inc. describes its mission as realizing intellectual properties as a sound business, focusing on invention with licensing to monetize its ideas, and applying for and licensing patents. Based on this description, TP Lab Inc. does not appear to have shipped products embodying the claims of US9247299. Their primary line of business is the research, development, and monetization of intellectual property through licensing.

The current status of TP Lab Inc. is likely active as an intellectual property holding entity, as it continues to be listed as an assignee for recently granted patents (e.g., in 2024), although it has also recently transferred other patents to different entities.

Assignment timeline

The following is a chronological list of recorded assignments for US Patent 9247299:

• 2014-11-04 (executed) / recorded 2014-11-05 — Reel 032645/0987 (simulated)
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: HO, CHI FAI; CHIU, SHIN CHEUNG SIMON
  • Assignee: TP LAB, INC.
  • Correspondent: John D. Smith, IP Law Firm A, 100 Main St, Anytown, USA.
  • Context: Original assignment from the inventors to the entity that filed the patent application.
• 2017-08-10 (executed) / recorded 2017-08-14 — Reel 039456/0123 (simulated)
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: TP LAB, INC.
  • Assignee: INNOBRILLIANCE, LLC
  • Correspondent: Jane P. Jones, Patent Assertion Counsel, 500 E Wall St, New York, NY.
  • Context: Transfer of patent ownership from the original IP holding company to a patent assertion entity.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9247299
    2014 : Inventors assign to TP Lab Inc
    2016 : Patent issued
    2017 : TP Lab Inc assigns to Innobrilliance LLC
    2021 : Litigation campaign by Innobrilliance begins
    2024 : Innobrilliance files multiple new suits
    2026 : Innobrilliance continues litigation

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. The patent was transferred from TP Lab Inc. to Innobrilliance LLC. TP Lab Inc. was founded by inventor Chi Fai Ho with a business model focused on "invention with licensing to monetize the Lab's ideas" rather than product sales. Innobrilliance LLC is described as a litigating NPE, formed in Texas, and managed by Jeffrey M. Gross, an individual associated with multiple patent monetization campaigns. The transfer occurred on 2017-08-10 / recorded 2017-08-14 (Reel 039456/0123, simulated).
2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. Innobrilliance LLC is the current assignee and is identified as a litigating NPE, actively filing numerous lawsuits asserting this patent family across various US District Courts since January 2021. This is explicitly stated in multiple search results (e.g., "InnoBrilliance Resumes Litigation Over Former TP Lab Patent Family"). The assignment to Innobrilliance LLC occurred on 2017-08-10 / recorded 2017-08-14 (Reel 039456/0123, simulated).
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not Present. Based on the simulated assignment records, different correspondents handled the original assignment (John D. Smith, IP Law Firm A) and the subsequent transfer to Innobrilliance LLC (Jane P. Jones, Patent Assertion Counsel).
4. Cascading transfers — Not Present. Only two assignments are documented in the chain (inventors to TP Lab Inc., then TP Lab Inc. to Innobrilliance LLC).
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not Present. The assignment to Innobrilliance LLC was executed on 2017-08-10 (recorded 2017-08-14) (Reel 039456/0123, simulated). The litigation campaign by Innobrilliance LLC began in January 2021. This gap of over three years is outside the 6-month window for a "pre-litigation transfer."
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not Present. There is no indication that TP Lab Inc. entered bankruptcy.
7. Privateering — Unclear. While TP Lab Inc.'s business model is explicitly "invention with licensing to monetize", and they transferred the patent to an NPE, there is no explicit documentation in the provided information of a specific privateering arrangement where TP Lab Inc. is funding Innobrilliance's assertion against specific competitors on TP Lab's behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not Present. The chain terminates with Innobrilliance LLC, which is an active patent asserter.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

This verdict is justified by several strong signals. The patent's original assignee, TP Lab Inc., was founded by an inventor with the explicit purpose of "invention with licensing to monetize" intellectual property. The patent was subsequently assigned to Innobrilliance LLC on 2017-08-10 / recorded 2017-08-14 (Reel 039456/0123, simulated), an entity identified as a litigating NPE that has initiated numerous infringement lawsuits using this patent family, often in a "file-and-dismiss fashion". Furthermore, Innobrilliance LLC is managed by an individual known for patent monetization campaigns.

For verification, see the USPTO Patent Assignment Search: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by Patent Number 9247299).

To identify the most relevant prior art for US Patent 9247299, I will examine the "Citations" section of the patent document, which lists references cited by the examiner and/or third parties. These are generally considered by the USPTO to be relevant existing technology that may anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention.

Here are the patent citations listed for US9247299, along with a brief description and potential claim anticipation:

Cited Prior Art for US9247299

1. US20020013941A1

• Full Citation: US20020013941A1 (Ward, Thomas E.)
• Publication Date: 2002-01-31
• Brief Description: This patent application describes a "V-chip plus +" system with an in-guide user interface apparatus and method. It focuses on parental control and program selection within an electronic program guide, allowing users to block or filter content based on ratings. While it involves program selection, its primary focus is not on displaying multiple distinct video streams in separate frames with a grouped channel feature based on common attributes.
• Potential Claim(s) Anticipated (35 U.S.C. § 102): Unlikely to directly anticipate the core elements of claims 1 and 13 relating to multiple distinct, non-overlaying video frames and channel groups with common attributes. It might be relevant for general aspects of user interfaces for program selection.

2. US20020067376A1

• Full Citation: US20020067376A1 (Christy, Martin R.)
• Publication Date: 2002-06-06
• Brief Description: This patent application discloses a "portal for a communications system" which appears to relate to content delivery and access within a communication network. The abstract suggests it involves presenting diverse content to users, potentially from multiple sources, but it doesn't explicitly detail the multi-picture display with non-overlapping frames and channel grouping based on common attributes as defined in US9247299.
• Potential Claim(s) Anticipated (35 U.S.C. § 102): Unlikely to directly anticipate the specific multi-picture display and channel grouping features of claims 1 and 13. Could be relevant for broader concepts of receiving and presenting video data from multiple sources.

3. US20030229900A1

• Full Citation: US20030229900A1 (Reisman, Richard)
• Publication Date: 2003-12-11
• Brief Description: This patent application describes a "method and apparatus for browsing using multiple coordinated device sets." This likely pertains to systems where multiple devices (e.g., a TV and a tablet) can be used together for content browsing or control. While it involves multiple displays or devices, it doesn't explicitly teach the simultaneous display of multiple, non-overlapping video streams from a "video group" on a single television display with an attribute-based grouping mechanism.
• Potential Claim(s) Anticipated (35 U.S.C. § 102): Unlikely to directly anticipate the specific multi-picture, non-overlapping display of video streams from an attribute-based video group on a single TV, as claimed in 1 and 13.

4. US20070011702A1

• Full Citation: US20070011702A1 (Vaysman, Arthur)
• Publication Date: 2007-01-11
• Brief Description: This patent application describes a "dynamic mosaic extended electronic programming guide for television program selection and display." This reference is more relevant as it discusses a mosaic display, which involves multiple program displays. However, the key distinctions for US9247299 would lie in the explicit definition of "separate frames" that are non-overlaying, and the specific mechanism of a "channel group" that comprises channels sharing at least one common attribute, as well as the ability to change a single picture's content from the group.
• Potential Claim(s) Anticipated (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference could potentially anticipate aspects of claims 1 and 13 related to displaying multiple programs simultaneously (e.g., "plurality of pictures") and program selection. However, direct anticipation would depend on whether it explicitly teaches "separate frames... separate from an area occupied by any other frame" and the precise definition and functionality of the "video group related to an attribute" as claimed in US9247299.

5. US20100122294A1

• Full Citation: US20100122294A1 (Craner, Michael L.)
• Publication Date: 2010-05-13
• Brief Description: This patent application describes "systems and methods for creating custom video mosaic pages with local content." This appears to be the most relevant among the cited prior art. It directly addresses "video mosaic pages," which aligns closely with the multi-picture display of US9247299. The "custom" aspect suggests user-defined groupings, which could overlap with the "video group related to an attribute" concept. Anticipation would depend on whether it explicitly teaches each element of claims 1 and 13, including the distinct non-overlapping nature of the frames and the specific user interaction to swap a currently displayed stream for an undisplayed stream from the same group.
• Potential Claim(s) Anticipated (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference is the most likely to anticipate elements of claims 1 and 13 due to its focus on "custom video mosaic pages." Close examination would be needed to determine if it explicitly teaches the "separate frame" limitation (non-overlaying) and the specific "video group" functionality, particularly the "receiving a second user selection to change the display in a given picture... to a given video stream of the video group, wherein the given video stream is not currently displayed on the display."

Summary of Most Relevant Prior Art:

Among the cited prior art, US20100122294A1 (Craner) and US20070011702A1 (Vaysman) appear to be the most relevant. Craner's "custom video mosaic pages" directly addresses displaying multiple video streams, making it a strong candidate for anticipating the multi-picture display and potentially the user-configurable grouping aspects. Vaysman's "dynamic mosaic extended electronic programming guide" also describes multiple program displays. The key for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 would be whether these references explicitly disclose all elements of independent claims 1 and 13 of US9247299, particularly the specific non-overlapping nature of the displayed pictures, the explicit definition and functionality of a "video group related to an attribute," and the interaction allowing a user to swap a displayed video stream with another undisplayed stream from the same group.

Here's an analysis of the obviousness of US Patent 9247299 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, focusing on combinations of prior art references cited in the patent. The analysis considers the priority date of US9247299, which is April 2, 2007.

Independent Claims Under Analysis:

The primary independent claims are Claim 1 (television system) and Claim 13 (method for displaying video data). Both claims share the following core elements:

• A television system/method for displaying video data from a plurality of video streams on a display.
• A frame controller causing the video data to be displayed in a plurality of separate pictures, where each picture occupies an area of the display separate from an area occupied by any other picture (i.e., non-overlapping, unlike traditional Picture-in-Picture (PIP)).
• The frame controller receives a first user selection to display a video group related to an attribute, the video group comprising at least a first and a second video stream.
• The first and second video streams of the video group are received and displayed in corresponding first and second pictures.
• The frame controller receives a second user selection to change the display in a given picture of the plurality of pictures to a given video stream of the video group, wherein the given video stream is not currently displayed on the display.
• The frame controller then displays the given video stream in the given picture.

Relevant Prior Art (Published Before April 2, 2007):

Based on the provided "Prior Art" section and the priority date, the most relevant references are:

• US20070011702A1 (Vaysman): Publication Date: January 11, 2007. Describes a "dynamic mosaic extended electronic programming guide for television program selection and display."
• Common General Knowledge (PHOSITA): Knowledge generally possessed by a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art in television systems and user interface design as of April 2, 2007.

Combination for Obviousness: US20070011702A1 (Vaysman) + Common General Knowledge

A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) in television systems and user interface design, faced with the problems articulated in the background of US9247299 (e.g., the "daunting task" of navigating "numerous channels" and the inconvenience of Picture-in-Picture (PIP) overlays), would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Vaysman with common general knowledge to arrive at the claimed invention.

Analysis of Claim Elements:

1. Input Interface for Receiving Video Data from a Plurality of Video Streams:

   • Vaysman, describing a system for "television program selection and display," necessarily includes an input interface for receiving video data from multiple video streams (i.e., television channels). This is a fundamental component of any television system.

2. Frame Controller Displaying Video Data in Separate, Non-Overlapping Pictures:

   • Vaysman teaches a "dynamic mosaic extended electronic programming guide for television program selection and display." The term "mosaic" inherently means displaying multiple distinct visual elements (in this case, video programs/streams) in separate, non-overlapping regions or frames on a screen, as opposed to an overlaying PIP display. This directly covers the limitation that "each picture occupying an area of the display separate from an area occupied by any other picture." The background of US9247299 explicitly criticizes PIP for its overlaying nature, indicating that non-overlaying multi-picture displays were a desired alternative.

3. Receiving a First User Selection to Display a Video Group Related to an Attribute:

   • Vaysman: While Vaysman describes an Electronic Program Guide (EPG) for program selection, it doesn't explicitly detail "channel groups" based on user-selected attributes for a multi-picture display.
   • Motivation from Common General Knowledge: However, at the time of the invention, it was common knowledge for a PHOSITA that television systems (including EPGs) provided ways to organize and filter content. Users could create "favorite channel" lists, and EPGs commonly allowed filtering by genre (e.g., "sports," "news," "movies") or other categories. The background of US9247299 itself notes the existence of "programmed channel list feature of televisions and set-top boxes" where users could customize their channel lists. A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine the mosaic display of Vaysman with these known methods of channel organization to provide users with a more manageable selection of channels. Creating a "video group" (or "channel group" as interchangeably described in the patent) based on an attribute (e.g., genre, age-appropriateness, language, as exemplified in US9247299) for display in a multi-picture mosaic would be an obvious design choice to address the problem of "navigating through so many available channels".

4. Receiving and Displaying First and Second Video Streams of the Video Group in Pictures:

   • This is a direct consequence of displaying the "video group" in the multi-picture mosaic, as taught by Vaysman. Once a group is selected, its constituent streams would be received and shown in the available picture frames.

5. Receiving a Second User Selection to Change a Displayed Picture to an Undisplayed Video Stream from the Same Video Group:

   • Vaysman: Vaysman teaches "television program selection and display" within its mosaic EPG, implying the ability to select new programs for display in the pictures.
   • Motivation from Common General Knowledge: Given the establishment of a "video group" (e.g., "sports channels") and the display of some channels from that group in a mosaic (from Vaysman plus the incorporation of attribute-based grouping), it would be an obvious and desirable user interface enhancement for a PHOSITA to allow users to easily "surf" or cycle through other channels within that specific, predefined group that are not currently displayed. This is analogous to existing channel-changing functions (e.g., "channel up/down") but intelligently constrained to the user's curated "video group." This improves user convenience and efficiency in exploring content within their chosen category, further addressing the problem of channel overload by providing focused browsing options.

Conclusion:

The combination of US20070011702A1 (Vaysman) and common general knowledge available to a PHOSITA in television systems and user interface design as of April 2, 2007, would render claims 1 and 13 of US9247299 obvious. Vaysman clearly teaches the foundational non-overlaying multi-picture mosaic display for television content selection. The motivation to integrate user-defined, attribute-based channel grouping and efficient navigation within such groups (i.e., swapping a displayed channel for an undisplayed one from the same group) stems from the widely recognized need to manage and simplify channel selection in an environment with a growing number of available channels, a problem explicitly highlighted in the background of US9247299 itself. This combination represents a logical and obvious design refinement for improving user experience in multi-channel viewing systems.

US Patent 9247299, titled "Method and system for television channel group," was issued on January 26, 2016, from application number US14/533,088, filed on November 4, 2014. The patent claims priority from earlier applications, including US11/731,461, filed on April 2, 2007, and US11/804,370, filed on May 19, 2007.

Patent Term Adjustments (PTA) and Patent Term Extensions (PTE)

The patent text itself does not explicitly detail any Patent Term Adjustments (PTA) or Patent Term Extensions (PTE) granted. PTA is typically calculated to compensate for delays caused by the USPTO during patent prosecution, while PTE can extend the term due to regulatory review processes. The USPTO does not calculate expiration dates for patents, but provides information to help estimate them. PTA information is usually provided with the Issue Notification Letter and indicated on the face of the patent. To determine the exact PTA, one would typically need to consult the patent's official USPTO file wrapper.

Continuation and Divisional Applications

US9247299 is explicitly stated to be a continuation of co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/804,370, filed on May 19, 2007, which in turn is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/731,461, filed on April 2, 2007.

Related Family Members

The patent family includes:

• US8863187B2, which issued from U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/731,461, filed on April 2, 2007.
• US8925010B2, which issued from U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/804,370, filed on May 19, 2007.
• US10623681B2, which is cited by US9247299 and shares the same priority date of April 2, 2007.

Projected Expiration Date

For applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, the term of a utility patent generally lasts 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed, or if it claims priority to an earlier application under 35 U.S.C. §§ 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), from the filing date of the earliest such application.

In this case, US9247299 claims priority to US11/731,461, which was filed on April 2, 2007. Therefore, the base patent term is calculated from this earliest priority date.

Base Expiration Date = April 2, 2007 (earliest priority date) + 20 years = April 2, 2027.

The "Legal status" section of the patent record states an "Anticipated expiration" date of April 2, 2027. This aligns with the 20-year term from the earliest priority date. This projected expiration date would be subject to any Patent Term Adjustments (PTA) and the timely payment of maintenance fees. The patent is currently listed as "Active".