US 9261983

I'll search for this patent across the USPTO and court dockets. Let me run several searches in parallel.

The patent data is confirmed. The CAFC docket searches came back empty, so let me try a couple more targeted queries to see if there's any 2026 Federal Circuit activity.

Based on the authoritative patent text supplied and the live search results (Google Patents, Justia, Unified Patents), here is the requested summary for US patent 9,261,983 (B2). Note that I searched the CAFC docket via web search and found no 2026 Federal Circuit or litigation docket entries for this patent; that should be treated as "no results found," not a definitive negative (see uncertainty note below).

US 9,261,983 B2 — "Fingertip mouse and base"

Bibliographic data

Abstract (verbatim)

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

Claims overview

The granted patent has 12 claims: one independent claim (claim 1) and eleven dependent claims (claims 2–12).

Claim 1 (independent) — An apparatus (a finger-worn motion-tracking device) comprising:

• A housing that lets the device be worn on part of a user's finger such that the fingertip extends beyond the housing. The housing has an internal finger-contact surface and an external outside surface, defining an inner space between them that contains all electronics for operating the device as a wireless finger-worn motion tracker.
• Wireless communication components inside the inner space, operable to communicate wirelessly with a separate computing system.
• A display device on the housing, operable to output information.
• A motion tracking mechanism inside the inner space that generates movement information based on movement of the housing for controlling the separate computing system — the tracking mechanism comprises an accelerometer.

Plain-language summary of claim 1: A self-contained, finger-worn wireless mouse/pointer. All of its electronics live in the space between the inside and outside surfaces of the housing. It wirelessly talks to a computer, has a small screen for outputting info (e.g., status), and uses an accelerometer to sense finger/hand motion for cursor control — i.e., it can track movement without sliding across a desk surface.

Dependent claims 2–12 (brief):

• Claim 2: The separate computing system controls a display, and the movement info is used to generate display-control data.
• Claim 3: Adds a selection mechanism.
• Claim 4: The selection mechanism is on the outside surface and is activated by a second finger (e.g., thumb) while worn.
• Claim 5: A second accelerometer serves as the selection mechanism (sensing motion to generate selection information).
• Claim 6: The selection mechanism comprises the (same) accelerometer.
• Claim 7: Combination with a charging system for electrically charging the device.
• Claim 8: The housing encloses the user's finger when worn.
• Claim 9: Communicates wirelessly via Bluetooth.
• Claim 10: Performs a scrolling function in response to input received by the motion tracking device.
• Claim 11: The display device is an LED or LCD screen.
• Claim 12: The accelerometer enables generating movement information without moving the housing across a surface.

(Note: the as-published application US 2014/0292656 A1 contained broader "computer peripheral system" claims directed to the tracking device plus base; the granted patent's claims were amended to the single finger-worn apparatus form above.)

Technology in brief

The specification describes a small tracking device worn on a finger (finger includes thumb) that wirelessly controls a cursor, optionally docked in a base shaped like a conventional mouse. The base can use the tracking device's own sensor (via an opening in the base bottom), can charge the device's battery through contacts, and can store a USB key/dongle. Selection may be via a tip switch pressed against a surface, buttons, or an accelerometer detecting taps (single/double-click). Alternative tracking includes optical sensors, trackballs, and rollerballs; scrolling can be via scroll wheels, rocker switches, or multi-direction trackballs.

CAFC 2026 docket check

I searched for "9261983" CAFC appeal docket, "US9261983" patent litigation Federal Circuit 2026, and "FTM Computer Products" patent litigation appeal — all returned no results. I therefore have no evidence of any CAFC appeal or litigation involving this patent in 2026.

Uncertainty / caveats

• No CAFC/litigation record found — this is a "not found in these searches" result, not a verified clearance; I could not confirm absence of a pending docket from an authoritative court source.
• Minor discrepancies exist between sources on exact dates: Google Patents shows filing Feb. 6, 2014 / issue Feb. 16, 2016 and priority Nov. 5, 2004; Unified Patents lists application date Feb. 5, 2014, grant Feb. 15, 2016, and priority Nov. 4, 2004. I have used the Google Patents/Justia dates (which match the patent text itself).
• The patent has expired (lifetime), so any 2026 litigation would concern past damages or related family members (e.g., US 8,648,805, US 9,092,075, US 10,963,070), not current enforceability of the '983 patent itself.

I'll search across multiple litigation databases and docket sources for cases involving US patent 9,261,983.

The third search surfaced a live litigation docket. Let me dig into that case and check for any others involving this patent.

I've reached the search step limit, but I have sufficient verified information from live docket sources to answer. Here is the litigation status for US Patent 9,261,983 B2 ("Fingertip mouse and base").

Litigation involving US 9,261,983

One active case found (live docket sources)

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

• Case number: 2:26-cv-00760
• Court / Jurisdiction: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Texas Eastern District Court)
• Filing date: August 26, 2026 (docket entry 1, complaint filed 08/26; PACER Monitor time-stamp "08/26 7:41"; ExParte docket lists "Filed 08/26/26")
• Plaintiff: Fingertip Mouse Corporation dba FTM Computer Products (the corporate successor/affiliate of the named assignee, FTM Computer Products)
• Defendant: Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Cause of action: Patent infringement (Nature of Suit 830 – Patent; Cause of Action: Patent Infringement)
• Patents asserted: Three patents in the same family — US 9,092,075 (Exhibit A), US 9,261,983 (Exhibit B), and US 10,963,070 (Exhibit C), each with a claim chart (Exhibits D–F respectively)
• Plaintiff's counsel: Cortney Alexander (who signed the Complaint and the Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement)
• Current status: Open / pending — docket shows the Complaint (entry 1), Rule 7.1 disclosure statement (entry 3), and the AO 120 patent/trademark notice (entry 2) filed; no substantive rulings, answer, or dispositive orders were reflected in the docket snippet retrieved. Judge assignment was still pending at the time of the docket snapshot.

Sources: PACER Monitor case page (cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66471915/...) and ExParte docket listing (ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:26-cv-00760/...), both identifying the complaint as asserting US 9,261,983 as Exhibit B.

Important caveats and notes

1. Date discrepancy to flag: The task prompt states "Current Date: April 26, 2026," but the system context date is 2026-08-27, and the live docket search results show this complaint was filed 08/26 with case number year-designator "26" (i.e., 2026). Per the operating rule that live search results control over conflicting information, I'm treating the filing date as August 26, 2026, which is the day before the current system date. If your actual review date is April 2026, this case would not yet exist in your timeline — please verify before relying on it.

2. No other cases found for this specific patent number: My searches of Unified Patents (portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-9261983-B2 — patent page shows no litigation tab entry), Google Patents, general web, and an earlier CAFC docket check returned no other litigation involving US 9,261,983. The patent page on Unified Patents lists the patent data (priority 2004-11-04, grant 2016-02-15, expiration 2025-11-02) but no associated case list in the retrieved content.

3. This is a "no results found" clearance, not a verified negative: I could not exhaustively search PACER/CAFC directly (search step limit), so there may be additional cases (e.g., filed under the parent family patents, or older district-court actions) not captured by these queries. The one case I did find asserts the '983 patent together with the '075 and '070 family patents.

4. Enforceability context: US 9,261,983 expired as of ~November 2025 (per its 20-year term from the 2004 priority date). Any 2026 infringement suit can therefore only seek damages for infringing acts occurring before expiration (and must satisfy the 6-year damages limitation), not ongoing injunctive relief. The Samsung action filed August 2026 would necessarily be limited to pre-expiration conduct.

5. No CAFC activity: A prior search of Federal Circuit appeal dockets found no appeal involving this patent as of the search date.

Summary table

No other litigation involving US 9,261,983 was identified in the searches performed.

The structured PTAB block reports no AIA trials on file, but I found a live 2026 assertion (FTM v. Samsung, E.D. Tex.). Let me verify whether any PTAB proceeding exists through other channels and pull the litigation details.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 9,261,983 B2: 0. There are no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings — none filed, none instituted, none settled, none denied. The USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) ingest for this patent returns no AIA trials, and targeted web searches for "IPR 9261983," "IPR 9,261,983," "Fingertip mouse PTAB," and Unified Patents challenge listings confirm the same. No PTAB proceeding numbers exist to report, and I am not going to invent any.

Bottom-line defensive posture: The patent is completely untested at the PTAB — every claim (1–12) remains exactly as granted. For a defendant, this is a double-edged sword: there is no FWD to lean on, but there is also no estoppel burden, and the claim scope has never been narrowed or construed in an AIA trial. Notably, the '983 patent expired around 2025-11-02/03 and is nonetheless being asserted in live litigation filed 2026-08-26 (Fingertip Mouse Corp. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00760, E.D. Tex.) alongside its family members US 9,092,075 and US 10,963,070 — meaning any recovery is necessarily limited to pre-expiration damages.

Proceedings detail

There are no proceedings to detail. For completeness, I note the searches that came back empty:

• USPTO ODP AIA trial API ingest for the '983 patent: no proceedings.
• Web search "9261983" IPR petition / "US9261983" PTAB trial / "9,261,983" IPR "FTM Computer Products": no results.
• Unified Patents portal page for US-9261983-B2 (which normally surfaces PTAB challenges and PTE/PTAB-related data): no PTAB challenge listed — only patent metrics, family members, cited art, and "Referenced By" data.

I will not fabricate judge panels, institution decisions, FWDs, settlements, or Federal Circuit appeals, because none exist in the record.

Strategic summary

Claim status: all untested. Claims 1–12 of the '983 patent have never been challenged in an AIA trial. The independent claim (claim 1) covers a self-contained finger-worn wireless tracking device with (i) a housing worn so the fingertip extends beyond it, (ii) all operating electronics in an inner space between internal and external surfaces, (iii) wireless communication components, (iv) a display device (LED/LCD per claim 11), and (v) an accelerometer-based motion tracker (capable, per claim 12, of generating movement information without moving across a surface). None of those limitations has been tested against prior art by a PTAB panel.

Estoppel landscape — a blank slate. Because no IPR/PGR/CBM has been filed, there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel anywhere. No petitioner has been barred, and no ground has been "raised or reasonably could have been raised" against this patent in an AIA trial. For a defendant facing the Samsung-style assertion, every prior-art ground — § 102/§ 103 combinations against claim 1 and its dependents — remains fully available. The practical caveat is § 315(b): any new IPR petition must be filed within one year of service of a complaint alleging infringement of the '983 patent. Given the E.D. Tex. complaint was filed 2026-08-26, that clock is running now for served defendants.

Pattern signals. No petitioner has filed multiple IPRs; there is no defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) in the chain — in fact, Unified Patents' own portal page for this patent shows no challenge, which is itself a signal that the patent has flown under the PTAB radar for its entire lifetime. The patent owner (FTM Computer Products / Fingertip Mouse Corporation) has not been through a single PTAB appeal, so there is no record of how it litigates at the Board. The more relevant pattern is in district court: FTM is now asserting the entire family (9,092,075 / 9,261,983 / 10,963,070) in one case, so PTAB strategy should treat the family as a unit — the claims across the family share a common specification, and art applied to the '983 claim 1 (finger-worn housing, all electronics in the housing, accelerometer, display) will likely map onto parallel claims in the other two patents.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant served in the E.D. Tex. case (2:26-cv-00760): Do not expect a PTAB FWD — there is none. Your PTAB option is a new IPR petition within the § 315(b) one-year window from service. Prioritize prior art on claim 1's distinguishing features: the "all electronics in the inner space" housing limitation, the display device on the housing, and the accelerometer-based tracking without surface movement. The patent's 2004 priority date (Provisional 60/625,254) means the art pool is deep: pre-2005 finger-worn input devices (e.g., US 4,954,817 Levine; US 5,359,148 "Fingerpoint mouse"; US 5,481, 22 HPC "Hand worn remote computer mouse"; US 6,587,090 Jarra "Finger securable computer input device"; US 2003/0214482 "Finger-operated isometric mouse") plus accelerometer-based pointing art.
• On remedy scope: The '983 patent expired ~2025-11-02/03 (Google Patents lists anticipated expiration 2025-11-03; Unified Patents 2025-11-02). Any damages claim is confined to pre-expiration conduct; there is no injunctive relief. A § 101/Alice motion on the display-plus-accelerometer claim set may also be worth evaluating before investing in an IPR.
• Verify the litigation docket directly at PACER for 2:26-cv-00760 (Fingertip Mouse Corporation dba FTM Computer Products v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., E.D. Tex.) to confirm the exact service date — it fixes your § 315(b) deadline. The complaint (filed 2026-08-26) asserts all three family patents with claim charts for each, so anticipate that any IPR strategy must account for the parallel claims in US 9,092,075 and US 10,963,070.
• If no PTAB activity is your situation: Say so plainly — as I have. The absence of IPRs over a 9-year patent lifetime, followed by a first enforcement action in 2026 against Samsung, reads like a newly monetized, previously dormant family. That increases, not decreases, the value of a well-prepared IPR: the claims have never been construed by the Board, and the petitioner who files first defines the prior-art battlefield.

Sources: USPTO ODP AIA trial ingest (no proceedings); patent text at Google Patents (US9261983B2); Unified Patents portal (US-9261983-B2, no PTAB challenge listed); PacerMonitor / Ex Parte case records for 2:26-cv-00760 (E.D. Tex., filed 2026-08-26, asserting US 9,092,075 / 9,261,983 / 10,963,070). No USPTO PTAB E2E or CourtListener links are provided because no PTAB decisions or CAFC appeals exist for this patent.