US 9294527

I'll verify against live sources, particularly for litigation/docket activity, since the full text is the authoritative record for the patent itself.

Let me run two more targeted checks for the specific number before summarizing.

US Patent 9,294,527 B2 — Verified Summary

Grounding: All bibliographic and claim data below is taken from the authoritative full text provided (Google Patents fetch of https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9294527](/patent/US9294527)/en, retrieved 2026-09-24). Litigation/PTAB items are from live web sources cited inline and are marked as such.

Bibliographic data

Abstract (verbatim)

"A system and process for coordinating streaming content or messages is provided. A network-connected server maintains a database containing media content-related data, such as the text of a message, accompanying media, time of airing, payment and related comments. A user can view these feeds or streams of these consciousness messages by downloading a mobile application or browsing to a website. The application can also be used to create, schedule and pay for a media content message."

Plain-language overview of the independent claim

Claim 1 — the only independent claim. As written, it covers a mobile app with two cooperating interfaces:

1. A display/streaming interface — receives media message data from a network-connected server and streams that data on the mobile device.
2. An input interface — lets the user enter media message data and upload it to the server, which stores it and transmits it to a plurality of mobile devices running the same app.

The claim then specifies that the media message data comprises a media message of text, audio, video, an image, or a combination, and closes with a functional "whereas"-style clause: the application is configured to let multiple devices stream the same message so that "a plurality of users [are] simultaneously aware of the same media message, thereby promoting collective thought and awareness."

In substance, it is a claim to a two-way (view-and-contribute) scheduled media streaming app, with the "simultaneous collective awareness" language layered on top.

All remaining claims are dependent on claim 1: content-type limitations (2–3 consciousness/religion/prayer/charity/environmental/inspirational; 16 text; 17 audio; 18 video; 19 image); scheduling data (4–9 air date/air time and their display); commerce (10 payment method; 11 donation request); category selection (12–13); UI coexistence and preview (14–15); and interface add-ons (20 advertisement, 21 donation, 22 comment, 23 "comment donation").

Litigation and post-grant activity (separate from the patent text)

• Weple IP Holdings LLC v. [Meta Platforms Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Meta%20Platforms%20Inc.), No. 2:24-cv-01316-JLR (W.D. Wash.) — Weple's first litigation (filed 2024-08-22). The asserted patents were US 11,734,730; 11,966,952; 12,112,357; 12,118,591; 12,131,356; and 12,131,357 — all sharing the '527 specification. On 2025-04-24 the court dismissed the '952, '730 and '356 claims with prejudice under § 101/Alice; on 2026-01-09 it granted judgment on the pleadings as to the remaining three and denied leave to amend, dismissing the action with prejudice (docket entry #67). Source: https://business.cch.com/ipld/WepleHldgsMetaPlatforms20260109.pdf and https://www.law360.com/cases/66c7b01d91bde50df2afd9df/articles (Jan 12, 2026 report).
• IPR2026-00080, Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Weple IP Holdings LLC — filed 2025-10-31, challenged U.S. Patent No. 12,118,591 (claims 1–30), not the '527 patent; terminated 2026-02-24 by Director discretionary denial. Source: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2026-00080/ . (One secondary source, https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2026-00080/doc/1004, labels the same proceeding "IPR2025-00080"; the number discrepancy is quoted literally, not corrected.)

Uncertainty and scope limits — read these

• No CAFC 2026 docket entry for 9,294,527 was found. My searches returned no Federal Circuit appeal naming this patent. I cannot rule out a newly filed notice of appeal from the January 9, 2026 dismissal (which concerned sibling patents, not '527) that is not yet indexed; treat "no CAFC activity" as not found, not as confirmed absent.
• 9,294,527 itself was not among the six patents invalidated in Weple v. Meta. The § 101 holdings apply to later family members sharing the same specification. Because that specification describes "generic" servers, mobile devices and mobile applications, the same reasoning is a live invalidity risk for '527, but that is my inference — no court or PTAB has ruled on the '527 claims on this record.
• Drafting observation (my analysis, not authoritative): claims 20–23 recite "the media message display interface," a term that does not appear in claim 1 (which recites "a display interface"). This antecedent-basis gap is a potential § 112(b) vulnerability. I have not found any court or PTAB construction of these claims.
• The Google Patents page flags "Family has litigation" (Darts-IP family ID 44370394) and lists 9 examiner-cited references, including US 2009/0156170 A1 (Rossano), US 2009/0198538 A1 (Yahoo!), US 2010/0215167 A1 (Burneo, telephone-interface donation), and US 2011/0213657 A1 (O'Malley). I have not independently reviewed their substance, so I make no novelty or validity representation.

I'll search litigation databases for cases involving US patent 9294527.

Let me dig deeper using litigation-specific sources and the patent's current assignee.

Let me search specifically for litigation asserting the '527 patent, and for the patent owner's full litigation history.

Litigation Search: US Patent 9,294,527

Bottom line

I found no litigation in which US Patent 9,294,527 ("the '527 patent") itself was asserted as an asserted patent. No district court complaint, ITC action, or PTAB proceeding naming the '527 patent as the patent-in-suit was located in my searches.

I want to be explicit about the confidence level and the limits of this answer: my searches covered litigation-aggregator results (Google Patents' litigation/family links, Docket Alarm, CourtListener/Justia docket pages, Law360/VitalLaw case reports, and Unified Patents' published news/portal references). I was not able to directly query the Unified Patents litigation caselist by patent number, PACER, or the CAFC docket in this session before my search budget was exhausted. So this is a "not found" result rather than an affirmative "no such case exists" certification. If you need a litigation-grade conclusion, the specific sources to run are:

• https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist?patents=9294527
• PACER / CourtListener "Nature of Suit 830" search for 9,294,527
• The Darts-IP family link that Google Patents displays on the '527 page (family=44370394), which is the origin of the "Family has litigation" flag

Why the "Family has litigation" flag on the '527 page is a red herring for this question

The Google Patents page for US 9,294,527 displays "Family has litigation" with a Darts-IP link keyed to Family ID 44370394. That is a family-level indicator. It tells you that some member of the family has been litigated — not that the '527 patent is in suit. As detailed below, the litigation that exists is on later continuation patents issued 2018–2025, not on the '527 patent (which issued 2016-03-22 from Application No. 14/512,353, filed 2014-10-10).

Litigation that exists on the family (but NOT on the '527 patent)

Related PTAB proceedings (also NOT on the '527 patent):

• Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Weple IP Holdings LLC, IPR2026-00079, IPR2026-00080, IPR2026-00081 — all filed October 31, 2025 (per Docket Alarm). The petitions cite the W.D. Wash. complaint as a related district-court action.
• Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination on February 14, 2025 against a Weple-owned patent. Per Unified's own news post, the patent is identified as U.S. Patent 11,734,739 — I am reporting that number exactly as published and note it differs from the 11,734,730 asserted in the Meta case; I did not independently verify whether this is a publication variance or a genuinely different patent.
• US 11,966,952 B1 (Weple IP Holdings), issued 2024-04-23, appears in the "Cited By" list for the '527 patent — i.e., it is a later Weple continuation, not a citation against it.

Caveats and things I could not confirm

1. No case asserting '527 found. The absence of results is meaningful but not dispositive. The '527 patent is the third member of the family (after 8,516,063 and 8,862,678) and predates Weple's monetization campaign, which was directed at the 2024-vintage continuations. That pattern is consistent with '527 having never been asserted, but I could not positively rule out an earlier, low-profile suit.
2. Assignee history (relevant to identifying any potential plaintiff): the '527 patent was originally held by individual inventor Mary Anne Fletcher and assigned to Weple IP Holdings LLC, recorded 2022-07-18, effective 2022-07-15. Any pre-2022 infringement action would have been brought by Fletcher personally, not Weple.
3. Term: Google Patents lists an anticipated expiration of 2031-02-14 for the '527 patent; the '527 remains listed as Active, with 4th-yr and 8th-yr maintenance fees paid (the 8th-yr payment on 2024-01-23 included a 7.5-yr surcharge for late payment within 6 months).
4. I did not auto-correct any patent or case identifiers above; all numbers are reproduced as published in the sources retrieved.

Recommendation: Before relying on this, run the three targeted queries listed at the top (Unified Patents caselist filtered to patents=9294527, PACER NOS 830, and the Darts-IP family record family=44370394) to confirm the negative. If your purpose is a freedom-to-operate or damages analysis, the operative risk is the later continuation patents in the family (especially the ones adjudicated in 2:24-cv-01316-JLR), not the '527 patent.

I'll start by verifying whether any AIA trial proceedings exist against US 9,294,527, since the structured ODP block reports none.

The search surfaced Weple litigation and IPRs, but against related patents (the '591, '952, '730, etc.). Let me check specifically whether any AIA trial targeted 9,294,527 itself.

The IPRs I found are against later family members (the '591, '2,357, '1,357, '1,2357 patents) — not against 9,294,527. Let me confirm nothing ever targeted this specific patent, including older CBM/IPR activity.

PTAB Proceedings — US 9,294,527 ("Mobile Device Streaming Media Application")

Bottom line up front: there is no AIA trial proceeding on US 9,294,527. The canonical structured block in this prompt ("USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent") is correct as far as I can verify. I searched for IPRs, PGRs, and CBMs naming the '527 patent and found none. What I did find is a 2025–2026 wave of Meta Platforms IPRs against later family members that share the '527 specification — those are context, not proceedings on this patent, and I have labeled them as such rather than dressing them up as '527 proceedings.

Proceedings overview

Total proceedings on US 9,294,527: 0 — zero active, zero with claims invalidated, zero with claims sustained, zero settled, zero institution denials. All 23 claims of the '527 patent remain un-cancelled and untested at the PTAB. Defensive posture for a defendant: the PTAB is a blank slate — nothing is estopped, no claim is dead, but there is also no PTAB precedent to lean on. The real leverage against this family is coming from district-court § 101 rulings on sibling patents, not from the Board.

---

No proceedings to report on US 9,294,527

There is no IPR, PGR, or CBM docket number to list, and I will not manufacture one. Verified points:

• The family data on the patent's own Google Patents page lists a "Family has litigation" flag but no PTAB trial history, and the "Cited By" / family tables show only later, separate family members (US 11,966,952; US 12,112,357; US 12,118,591; US 12,131,356; US 12,131,357; US 11,734,730; US 11,908,372, etc.) involved in disputes.
• The '527 patent is not among the six patents Weple asserted against Meta in W.D. Wash. That matters: it was never put in front of a defendant with standing and motivation to petition, which is the most likely reason no IPR exists.
• No CBM was ever filed against '527 (and the CBM transitional program sunset on 2018-09-16, so no new CBM petition is procedurally available regardless). Note that '527 carries G06Q30/02, G06Q30/0279 (fundraising management), G06Q30/0273 and G06Q30/0267 classifications, so it would have been CBM-candidate art back in the day — that window is closed.

Adjacent, family-level AIA proceedings (NOT on the '527 patent — do not cite as '527 outcomes)

These are the only Weple/ Fletcher AIA proceedings I can substantiate. I am reporting them because they tell a defendant where the family is vulnerable, and explicitly flagging that none challenge US 9,294,527:

• Grounds in IPR2026-00080 (the one with a public petition summary): claims 1–30, § 103 — Ground 1: obvious over Fosnacht (US 2009/0271283) in view of Kirkpatrick (US 8,826,145); Ground 2: claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 22, 23 further over Sharma (US 2007/0156520); Ground 3: claims 9, 19, 29 further over Clancy (US 9,767,461). I could not retrieve the Board's institution decision reasoning; it terminated as a discretionary denial, consistent with the 2025–2026 USPTO "settled expectations" / parallel-litigation denial practice being litigated up to the Supreme Court (see Unified Patents amicus brief, Google v. USPTO, No. 25-1230, at https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-1230/[412129](/patent/412129)/20260529145347123_Unified%20Amicus%20Brief%2025-1230.pdf).
• Judge panels: not public in any source I retrieved. Docket Alarm's case page lists no assigned APJ panel for IPR2026-00080/79.
• Appeals: no Federal Circuit appeal of any Weple-family FWD exists — because no FWD was ever issued in these.
• Docket links: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2026-00080/Meta_Platforms_Inc._v._Weple_IP_Holdings_LLC/ and https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2026-00079/doc/1001

---

Strategic summary

Claim status on the '527 patent. All 23 claims are UNTESTED. Nothing has been canceled, nothing sustained, nothing narrowed. Claim 1 (the "mobile device streaming media application" with the "media message data … a media message, comprising: text, audio, video, an image, or combination thereof" element and the "promoting collective thought and awareness" wherein clause) is intact and unadjudicated. If a demand letter cites claims 1–23 of the '527 patent, there is no PTAB disposition you can point to. By contrast, six sibling patents sharing this exact specification were held patent-ineligible under § 101 by Judge James L. Robart: three dismissed with prejudice on 2025-04-24 (Dkt. #47, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.[338374](/patent/338374)/gov.uscourts.wawd.338374.47.0.pdf) and the remaining three on judgment on the pleadings on 2026-01-09, with leave to amend denied as futile and the action dismissed with prejudice (https://business.cch.com/ipld/WepleHldgsMetaPlatforms20260109.pdf, Case No. 2:24-cv-01316-JLR). That is your best weapon — not the PTAB.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR reached an FWD on the '527 patent, § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not exist for anyone, including Meta (whose '527-adjacent petitions were denied institution, and Meta never petitioned on '527 at all). Every prior-art ground is available to a defendant: the Fosnacht / Kirkpatrick / Sharma / Clancy combination Meta assembled (which the Board never reached the merits on), the 2008–2010 mobile-streaming art, plus the '527-specific § 112 written-description squeeze (the spec discloses very little structure — generic "server 102," "mobile devices 106"). Two gates to watch: (1) the one-year § 315(b) bar runs from service of a complaint asserting '527; and (2) the current discretionary-denial regime (settled expectations, parallel-litigation stipulations, and the new time-to-trial practice) makes institution on a 2010-priority patent materially harder than it was in 2024 — Meta's own petitions were knocked out on discretionary grounds within four months of filing.

Pattern signals. Same petitioner (Meta) filed a coordinated multi-patent IPR wave on a single day (2025-10-31) across the family rather than serially — a standard parallel-litigation strategy that drew discretionary denials. The patent owner (Weple IP Holdings LLC, assignee since 2022-07-18 per USPTO reel 060536/0508) has no PTAB appeals — it has won in district court only by default of the IPRs being denied, not by prevailing on a FWD. I found no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) in the chain on the '527 patent; the only petitioner of record in this family is Meta.

Recommended next steps

1. Confirm the empty docket yourself before relying on it: check PTAB E2E (https://e2e.uspto.gov) and PTAB Center (https://ptacts.uspto.gov) by patent number 9,294,527, and the USPTO ODP. Given the ODP block in this prompt and my searches, I expect zero hits — but "no PTAB activity" is a factual assertion worth re-verifying at filing time.
2. Lead with § 101, not the PTAB. A defendant should run the Weple v. Meta Alice analysis — same specification, same generic-components reasoning ("wholly generic computer implementation," Alice, 573 U.S. at 223) — as a Rule 12(b)(6)/12(c) motion. The '527 claim 1 is arguably weaker than the invalidated siblings because its "promoting collective thought and awareness" clause is a mental/abstract benefit with no technical hook.
3. If you do file an IPR, file early and build the § 325(d)/discretionary-denial record. Use the Fosnacht–Kirkpatrick–Sharma–Clancy combination, but note the Board may deny institution as it did in IPR2026-00079/00080. Petition must be filed within one year of service of a '527 complaint; do not assume you will get a second chance.
4. Nothing is estopped against you, so preserve every theory — § 101, § 103, and § 112 — rather than betting on the Board.
5. Caveat on completeness: the Meta IPR wave may include more than the three dockets I identified (six patents were asserted; I confirmed three petitions). Treat the family-level table as illustrative, not exhaustive, and note that one aggregator listing showed an inconsistent patent-number mapping for IPR2026-00079 (12,112,357 vs. 12,112,357/'2,357 patent) that I could not fully disambiguate from the retrieved snippets.

I'll research the assignment record and related litigation before drafting.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 9,294,527 B2

Patent: US 9,294,527 B2 — Mobile device streaming media application
App. No. 14/512,353 · filed 2014-10-10 · issued 2016-03-22 · priority 2010-02-12 (prov. 61/304,331)
Nature of application: continuation of Ser. No. 13/967,414 (→ US 8,862,678), itself a continuation of Ser. No. 13/027,191 (→ US 8,516,063). All three descend from a 2010 provisional titled "Mobile Device Prayer Application."

Sourcing note. The authoritative patent text supplied above is used for all bibliographic facts. Assignment data below is taken from the Google Patents legal-events record for this patent (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9294527/en). I was not able to pull the USPTO Assignment Center record itself in this session (the Assignment Center UI is not retrievable by the tools available to me), so reel/frame, execution date and conveyance type are reported as they appear in the Google Patents mirror of the USPTO assignment data, and the correspondent of record is a data gap that must be verified directly. I flag that explicitly rather than guess.

---

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check: the classic flag (all inventors departing the original corporate assignee within 12 months of filing) cannot apply — there was never a corporate assignee, and there is only one inventor. The relevant pattern here is the inverse and far more benign: the inventor retained 100% of title personally for ~12.5 years (2010 filing → 2022 assignment), then conveyed to an LLC she controls. That is an inventor-side monetization vehicle, not a portfolio sold out from under departing employees.

---

Original assignee

None on the issued patent. US 9,294,527 issued to Mary Anne Fletcher, as an individual — the front-page assignee field is "Individual," and no assignment was recorded at issue (2016-03-22).

• Primary line of business: none as an entity; the underlying invention was implemented in a mobile "prayer / consciousness message" application described in the specification (mobile app + website that streams a scheduled media message to many devices simultaneously, with airtime purchase, donations, gifting, sponsorship and in-app advertising).
• Product embodying the claims: the specification describes a working mobile application and server backend, but I found no evidence in any retrieved source of a commercially shipped product by Fletcher individually or by Weple IP Holdings LLC. Treat "shipped a product" as unverified.
• Current status of the original owner: Fletcher is a living individual; she is reported as the sole owner of Weple IP Holdings LLC's parent entity, so the original owner and the current owner are economically the same person.
• Current assignee: Weple IP Holdings LLC (recorded address on the assignment event: Texas; Google Patents lists the assignee state as TX). Publicly reported as inventor-controlled.

---

Assignment timeline

The Assignment Center is not empty for this patent. Exactly one post-issuance assignment is reflected in the records I could retrieve.

• 2022-07-15 (executed) / recorded 2022-07-18 — Reel 060536 / Frame 0508
  • Conveyance: Assignment (Google Patents event code AS; "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST")
  • Assignor: FLETCHER, MARY ANNE (individual)
  • Assignee: WEPLE IP HOLDINGS LLC, Texas
  • Correspondent: ⚠️ NOT CAPTURED — data gap. The Event Description field in the source I retrieved gives the reel/frame, the nature of the instrument and the assignor/assignee, but not the recording correspondent (attorney/agent of record). This must be read off the Assignment Center record 060536/0508 directly. Per the task's own premise, the correspondent is the highest-value tell for a family like this one, and I will not invent a name for it. Verify at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 9,294,527, or reel/frame 060536/0508).
  • Context: Internal inventor-side reorganization / transfer to the inventor's own holding entity. The assignor is the sole inventor and the assignee is a company she reportedly owns outright — not a third-party acquisition, not a fire-sale, and not a securitization.
  • Timing note: executed 2022-07-15, roughly 25 months before the first infringement suit (2024-08-22). It is therefore not a last-minute pre-litigation transfer.
  • Family-scope note (inference, flagged): the same instrument likely also conveyed the sibling applications/patents in this 19-member family. Because the same document is typically recorded once and indexed across every property, sibling entries probably sit at nearby frames in reel 060536. I have not verified this and do not assert it as fact.

No other recorded assignments (no security agreements, no merger, no change-of-name, no releases, no corrections) appear for this patent in the retrieved record. There is no evidence of any intervening third-party owner between Fletcher and Weple IP Holdings LLC.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9294527
    2010 : Provisional filed by Mary Anne Fletcher
    2011 : First non provisional filed
    2014 : Continuation application filed
    2016 : US 9294527 issued to inventor
    2022 : Assigned to Weple IP Holdings LLC
    2024 : Weple sues Meta in Seattle court
         : Four more family patents added to suit
    2025 : Three asserted patents held ineligible
    2026 : Remaining patents invalidated
         : Meta IPR filed on the 591 patent

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present (single-purpose holding LLC), but in the inventor-controlled variant.
Evidence: the only transfer on record moves the patent from individual inventor to WEPLE IP HOLDINGS LLC (reel 060536/0508, executed 2022-07-15, recorded 2022-07-18). The "Holdings" suffix and the single-purpose nature of the LLC fit the pattern, and I found no evidence of products in commerce. However: (a) the transferor is the inventor herself and she is reported as the sole owner of Weple's parent — this is not a buy-side shell absorbing a stranger's patent; (b) I could not confirm a registered-agent service address, so the "registered-agent address" tell is unverified. Call it a shell-entity form with inventor control.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present.
Neither Mary Anne Fletcher nor Weple IP Holdings LLC appears on any of the enumerated public asserter lists (Acacia, Marathon Patent Group, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio IP Ventures, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). RPX categorises this matter as "Inventor-Controlled," which is a distinct RPX bucket from its high-frequency-NPE tracking (RPX Empower, 2024-08-24).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / insufficient data.
With a single recorded assignment there is no second link against which to test recurrence, and the correspondent on reel 060536/0508 was not retrievable in this session. This signal is unresolved and is the single most important open item. Separately (and distinct from assignment correspondents), the same litigation counsel recurs throughout this enforcement campaign: Jason Zucchi, Avantech Law LLP, appears as Weple's counsel in both the April 2025 and January 2026 orders; Meta is represented by Cooley LLP (Dena Chen; Heidi L. Keefe). Litigation-counsel recurrence is not the same signal as assignment-correspondent recurrence, but it is worth ticking in the file.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present.
One conveyance in twelve years of ownership, then no further movement. There is no chain of chained LLCs and no <24-month cascade.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present.
Assignment executed 2022-07-15; first suit filed 2024-08-22 — a ~25-month gap, far outside the 6-month window. (Related but distinct observation: the continuation filings were timed to litigation. Four applications filed 2024-01-25 cleared to issue in October 2024 — '2,357 and '1,357 on 2024-10-29, '591 on 2024-10-15 — and Weple amended its complaint to assert them on 2024-10-31, within days of issuance. That is a prosecution/enforcement-timing pattern, not an assignment-timing one.)

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present.
No bankruptcy of any assignor or assignee appears anywhere in the record. The transferor is an individual inventor and the transferee is her own entity.

7. Privateering — Not present on the evidence.
There is no operating company in this chain at all, so the classic privateering fact pattern (a practising company funding an NPE to sue competitors) cannot be established. Fletcher, an individual, is not alleged to be a Meta competitor; Weple's own pleadings frame the patents against "existing social media platforms" generally.

8. Defensive aggregator — Not present (inverse).
The chain terminates at an asserting entity. Weple IP Holdings LLC filed and litigated Weple IP Holdings LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-01316-JLR (W.D. Wash., filed 2024-08-22; amended 2024-10-31). No RPX / AST / LOT / Unified / OIN acquisition appears anywhere in the chain. Note: this patent (the '527) was not itself asserted — the six patents-in-suit (US 11,734,730; 11,966,952; 12,112,357; 12,118,591; 12,131,356; 12,131,357) are later continuations sharing the same specification.

Enforcement outcome (relevant to the assertion-quality assessment):

• 2025-04-24 — the '952, '730 and '356 patents held directed to ineligible subject matter under §101; dismissed with prejudice.
• 2026-01-09 — judgment on the pleadings granted on the remaining '356, '591 and '1,357 patents on the same §101 ground; Weple's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint denied as futile. Meta's parallel IPR2026-00080 on the '591 patent is pending at the PTAB.

---

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

The chain contains exactly one recorded transfer — reel 060536/0508, executed 2022-07-15 and recorded 2022-07-18, moving US 9,294,527 from individual inventor Mary Anne Fletcher to Weple IP Holdings LLC — after which Weple, an entity with no demonstrated product in commerce, filed its first and only known suit, Weple IP Holdings LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-01316-JLR (W.D. Wash., filed 2024-08-22), against a large practising platform operator. That is one strong signal (single-purpose holding entity used to assert) and it is enough for the non-practising characterization, but it falls short of high confidence because the assignee is inventor-controlled rather than a known third-party acquirer: no listed NPE appears in the chain, there is no cascade of transfers, no pre-litigation assignment, no bankruptcy and no defensive-aggregator endpoint, and the correspondent-of-record on reel 060536/0508 could not be retrieved, leaving the highest-value recurrence test unresolved.

Discriminator worth carrying forward: this is best characterised as inventor-side assertion (individual inventor → her own IP-holding LLC → single suit against a platform, then invalidated under §101), not as classic patent-troll aggregation (acquired portfolio → serial assertion → licensing revenue). The evidence does not support calling it an operating-company assertion either — Weple has not been shown to ship anything.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 9,294,527; or reel/frame 060536/0508) — specifically to capture the correspondent of record and to confirm whether any sibling entries sit in reel 060536. Cross-references: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9294527/en (legal events), https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/news/82515-inventor-controlled-weple-ip-sues-meta (RPX), and Darts-ip family 44370394 (Google Patents flags this family as having litigation).

I'll start by searching for the patent and then examine each cited reference.

Now let me search the remaining cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 9,294,527 B2 ("Mobile device streaming media application")

1. Patent identification (verified)

Claims: 23 total, but only claim 1 is independent; claims 2–23 all depend from claim 1. This matters critically for § 102 analysis (see § 4 below).

Claim 1 (paraphrased elements):

• (a) a display interface for streaming media message data, configured to (i) receive media message data from a network-connected server and (ii) stream that data on a mobile device;
• (b) an input interface configured to input media message data and upload it to a network-connected server for storing and transmitting to a plurality of mobile devices running the application;
• (c) the media message data comprises a media message of text, audio, video, an image, or a combination;
• (d) the application is configured to allow multiple devices to stream the same media message, "thereby promoting collective thought and awareness."

---

2. Method / caveats

• The nine references below are exactly the "Patent Citations (9)" listed on the face of US 9,294,527 (as recorded on the Google Patents bibliographic record). That record tags each with an asterisk meaning "cited by examiner."
• I verified full text/abstracts for McGuire (US 2003/0023489 A1), Volk (US 2007/0294177 A1), Rossano (US 2009/0156170 A1) and Aldrey/Verizon (US 2009/0171780 A1) by live search. The remaining five I report from the patent's own citation table plus their published abstracts/titles; where I could not independently confirm bibliographic detail, I say so rather than invent it.
• § 102 caveat under AIA vs. pre-AIA: Because the 9,294,527 family's earliest effective filing date is 2010-02-12, references must predate that date (as § 102(a)/(b)/(e) or § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) art) to be available. Two of the nine look problematic on their face (flagged in § 3).
• A reference can only anticipate (not merely be "relevant to") a dependent claim if it discloses every limitation of independent claim 1 as well, because a dependent claim incorporates claim 1. I keep that discipline below.
• Nothing here is a legal conclusion; this is a technical mapping.

---

3. The nine cited references

---

4. Reference-by-reference: citation, description, and § 102 claim mapping

Reference 1 — US 2003/0023489 A1 (McGuire et al.)

• Full citation: McGuire, M.P., Bradshaw, S., Nicholas, F.C., Carswell, I.B., "Method and system for providing network based target advertising," U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0023489 A1; App. No. 10/172,492, filed Jun. 14, 2002; published Jan. 30, 2003 (priority to provisionals of Jun. 14, 2001, Nov. 26, 2001, Mar. 7, 2002). Assignee/applicant context: Dizpersion Group LLC; also published as WO 02/103997 A2.
• Description: A telecommunication system (network 110; ad-selection node 140; user-identification node 150) that serves targeted online ads to a user node that may be a cell phone 121, PDA 122, or PC 123. Ads are tied to zip-code/geographic regions, demographic profiles and timeframes (month/week/day/hour), with advertiser purchase/definition interfaces, coupon destinations, revenue sharing and billing. Supports web, WAP, SMS, radio/video broadcast and satellite-radio delivery, including multiplexed ad slots selected by demographic.
• § 102 relevance: It is advertising/monetization art, not streaming-a-user-authored-message art. It does not disclose a user inputting a media message from a mobile device and uploading it for redistribution to a plurality of devices, nor streaming of that message.
  • Potentially relevant to claim 20 (advertisement interface) as an element, and arguably to the scheduling ideas of claims 4–9, but it lacks claim 1's input/upload-to-many and streaming limitations.
  • Does not anticipate claim 1 (and therefore cannot anticipate any of claims 2–23, which incorporate claim 1).

Reference 2 — US 2007/0294177 A1 (Volk et al.) — most relevant of the nine

• Full citation: Volk, W., Cuono, S., Arem, K., "Mobile content publishing system and method," U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0294177 A1; App. No. 11/454,763, filed Jun. 15, 2006; published Dec. 20, 2007. Original assignee Mynumo LLC (later Playscreen LLC).
• Description: A mobile content publishing platform enabling mobile users to create, edit, upload, distribute and sell ringtones, ringback tones, text (blogs), pictures and video. Content is uploaded to a server 103, which converts file formats for downloading devices 107/106, and is offered in a marketplace 104 (m-commerce website) with automatic billing and revenue sharing. Notably, text may be published to a "channel" that consumers subscribe to, with creator compensation tied to subscribers. The user may also preview content after transfer to the server. Metadata (name, thumbnail, previews) may accompany content.
• § 102 relevance:
  • Strongly discloses claim 1's "input interface … inputting media message data" (create on device) and "uploading … to a network-connected server", and the server distributing the content to multiple consumer devices; also the preview feature of claim 15, text/audio/video/image subject matter of claims 16–19, payment of claim 10 (automatic billing), and a subscriber/"channel" distribution concept.
  • But it depicts distribution as purchase/download (and "on-the-fly" conversion) rather than streaming the message on the device; and it contains no teaching of multiple users being "simultaneously aware of the same media message" to promote collective thought/awareness. It also lacks the air-date/air-time data of claims 4–9 and the consciousness-message framing of claims 2–3.
  • Assessment: Best candidate for a § 102 attack on the content-type and previewing dependent claims (15–19) if combined with a streaming disclosure, but it does not anticipate independent claim 1 and accordingly cannot anticipate claims 2–23 on its own.

Reference 3 — US 2009/0156170 A1 (Rossano)

• Full citation: Rossano, A., et al., "Methods and systems for transmitting video messages to mobile communication devices," U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0156170 A1; App. filed Dec. 12, 2008; published Jun. 18, 2009 (priority Dec. 12, 2007). (Family includes US 8,457,661 and US 9,473,909 B2.)
• Description: A video-messaging system with a content database of videos and a user database (carrier ID, phone capability, phone number). A user views available videos, sees the price, selects a video, types accompanying text, designates a recipient, and the system sends the video+text as a message (e.g., to a recipient's mobile phone, email or webpage), with an approval/authorization request back to the sender, per-message charging and delivery confirmation.
• § 102 relevance: Discloses video message content (claim 18), transmission from a server to mobile devices, and charging (claim 10-type concepts). However it is a point-to-point message delivery system (sender → designated recipient) with approval gating, not a stream of a message to a plurality of mobile devices for simultaneous viewing, and it has no "collective thought and awareness" element.
  • Does not anticipate claim 1.

Reference 4 — US 2009/0171780 A1 (Aldrey et al., Verizon)

• Full citation: Aldrey, R., Solleti, A.K., Sharma, S., Vontela, N.R., Kukoyi, D.T.O., Obi, I., "Methods and system for a targeted advertisement management interface," U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0171780 A1; App. No. 11/967,477, filed Dec. 31, 2007; published Jul. 2, 2009. Assignee Verizon Data Services Inc.
• Description: A campaign-management interface for creating/managing targeted advertisements delivered across multiple device types — televisions, set-top boxes, computers, smartphones and mobile devices — via VOD, banner, interactive, video, SMS/text and email ads. Includes a targeting module that schedules campaign launch, delivers in response to a triggering event (including "a scheduled advertisement … sent at a specified time"), and gathers impression/conversion metrics for billing and tuning.
• § 102 relevance: Relevant to the advertising interface of claim 20 and, at a conceptual level, to the scheduled/air-date/air-time concepts of claims 4–9 and the targeting/category concepts of claims 12–13. It does not, however, disclose a user creating and uploading a media message that is streamed simultaneously to many devices.
  • Does not anticipate claim 1.

Reference 5 — US 2009/0198538 A1 (Yahoo! Inc.)

• Full citation: "Mobile advertisement filtering," U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0198538 A1; filed Feb. 5, 2008; published Aug. 6, 2009. Assignee Yahoo! Inc. (I could not independently re-verify the full inventor list within this session; citation data is taken from the face of US 9,294,527.)
• Description: Filtering/selecting advertisements on/for mobile devices.
• § 102 relevance: Advertising-delivery art only. Potentially relevant to claim 20 as an element of an advertisement interface; it discloses nothing of claim 1's input/upload/stream-to-many content flow.
  • Does not anticipate claim 1.

Reference 6 — US 2009/0204479 A1 (Automated Media Services, Inc.)

• Full citation: "System and method for creating an in-store media network using traditional media metrics," U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0204479 A1; filed Feb. 8, 2008; published Aug. 13, 2009. Assignee Automated Media Services, Inc. (Citation data from the face of US 9,294,527; full text not re-verified this session.)
• Description: Creating an networked in-store media/advertising system using traditional (broadcast-style) media metrics — i.e., scheduled/programmed media playlists and audience metrics in a retail environment.
• § 102 relevance: Scheduled-programming art; potentially touches the scheduling concepts of claims 4–9 in a general way, but it concerns a managed in-store display network, not user-created media messages uploaded from mobile devices and streamed to a fleet of mobile devices.
  • Does not anticipate claim 1.

Reference 7 — US 2010/0215167 A1 (Burneo)

• Full citation: Burneo, V., "Telephone-interface donation system," U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0215167 A1; filed Feb. 20, 2009; published Aug. 26, 2010. (Citation data from the face of US 9,294,527.)
• Description: A donation system accessed through a telephone interface.
• § 102 relevance: Directly relevant only to the donation aspects — claim 11 (donation request information), claim 21 (donation interface), and arguably claim 23 (comment donation interface). It discloses no media-message creation/upload/streaming.
  • Does not anticipate claim 1.

Reference 8 — US 2011/0208822 A1 (Rathod) — date problem

• Full citation: Rathod, Y.C., "Method and system for customized, contextual, dynamic and unified communication, zero click advertisement and prospective customers search engine," U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0208822 A1; filed Feb. 22, 2010 (per the citation table's priority date); published Aug. 25, 2011.
• Description: Unified/customized communication and "zero-click" advertising with a prospective-customer search engine — i.e., ad targeting and unified messaging infrastructure.
• § 102 relevance — flag: Its stated date (2010-02-22) post-dates the 9,294,527 family's earliest effective filing date of 2010-02-12. If the provisional priority chain (61/304,331) holds, this reference would not be § 102 prior art to claim 1. It appears in the citation table because it was likely cited against a later-filed continuation in the same family (some of which were filed 2016–2025). I flag this rather than treat it as anticipatory.
  • Not anticipatory of claim 1 on the present record.

Reference 9 — US 2011/0213657 A1 (O'Malley)

• Full citation: O'Malley, M.C., "System and method for providing messages," U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0213657 A1; priority date 2008-11-06; published Sep. 1, 2011. (The application number/filing date was not confirmed in my sources; I state the priority date as recorded on the face of US 9,294,527 rather than guess.)
• Description: System and method for providing/delivering messages (published application; message provisioning to users).
• § 102 relevance: As a U.S. published application with a priority date (2008-11-06) earlier than the 9,294,527 priority date, it is a candidate for § 102(e)/§ 102(a)(2) art only if its actual filing predates 2010-02-12 — the publication date alone (2011-09-01) is too late for § 102(a)/(b). At most it is "providing messages" art analogous to the claim 22 (comment interface) theme; it discloses nothing of claim 1's stream-to-many / collective-awareness limitation.
  • Does not anticipate claim 1.

---

5. Bottom line

1. No single one of the nine cited references discloses every limitation of independent claim 1. Each omits at least the core combination of (i) user input + upload of a media message to a server, (ii) streaming the same message simultaneously to a plurality of mobile devices, and (iii) the stated purpose of producing simultaneous awareness / "collective thought and awareness." Because claims 2–23 all depend from claim 1, none of the nine anticipates claims 2–23 either, standing alone.
2. Most relevant references within the nine:
   • US 2007/0294177 A1 (Volk) — by far the closest on the input → server → distribution half of claim 1, plus explicit support for claims 10, 15, 16–19. Its weak point is the absence of streaming and simultaneous multi-device awareness.
   • US 2009/0156170 A1 (Rossano) — closest on video message to mobile, relevant to claim 18 and charging (claim 10), but point-to-point.
   • US 2009/0171780 A1 (Aldrey/Verizon) — closest on scheduled delivery and advertising/targeting interfaces (claims 4–9, 12–13, 20).
   • US 2010/0215167 A1 (Burneo) — targeted at the donation claims (11, 21, 23).
3. Most fruitful lines for a § 103 (obviousness) attack would be Volk + Rossano (user-created media messages distributed/streamed to mobiles) and Volk or Rossano + Aldrey (scheduled, simultaneous delivery) + Burneo/McGuire (donation/advertising), rather than any single-reference anticipation.
4. Dates to double-check before relying on any of these: (a) Rathod (2010-02-22 post-dates priority); (b) O'Malley (only its 2008-11-06 priority date makes it colorable art); and (c) confirm the exact filing dates of references 5, 6, 7 and 9 from the USPTO PatentCenter/IEEE record rather than from the face of the patent, as I could not independently re-verify those in this session.

Note on this family: US 9,294,527 is one node in a 19-application family, is flagged as having litigation, and appears from the search results to have been the subject of both PTAB proceedings and district-court § 101/§ 112 arguments. If your goal is invalidity work, the prosecution histories of the sibling continuations (e.g., US 10,102,552; 10,102,553; 11,674,730; 11,911,668 etc.) will list additional art that was cited later than the original 2010 filing and that may be more on point than the nine references on the '527 face.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual cited references. Let me pull details on the key prior-art references listed on the patent page.

Let me ground two more references relevant to the advertising and message-targeting claims.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,294,527 B2

"Mobile device streaming media application"
Inventor: Mary Anne Fletcher · Current assignee: Weple IP Holdings LLC · App. No. 14/512,353 (filed 2014‑10‑10) · Priority claimed to Prov. 61/304,331 (2010‑02‑12) · Granted 2016‑03‑22
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9294527](/patent/US9294527)/en

---

1. Governing framework

• Statute: Because the chain claims priority to 2010‑02‑12 (and the first non‑provisional, App. 13/027,191, was filed 2011‑02‑14), the pre‑AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 103 governs. The critical date for prior‑art purposes is 12 February 2010, assuming the benefit claim is perfected.
• Standard: Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) (scope/content, differences, PHOSITA level, secondary considerations), as refined by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (a combination of known elements, each performing its known function, is obvious where the results are predictable; the "motivation" need not be found in the references themselves but may come from the problem to be solved, market demand, design incentives, or common sense).
• Level of ordinary skill (proposed): a bachelor's degree in computer science/electrical engineering (or equivalent), plus ~2 years' experience designing network‑connected mobile applications and server‑side media delivery. By Feb. 2010 this artisan would have had ready familiarity with app‑store distribution, in‑app purchasing, mobile streaming, SMS‑based donations, and network ad‑serving.

1.1 Prior-art status of the references cited on the face of the patent (date check — done literally)

Two traps worth flagging: (i) Rathod is not usable, notwithstanding that the examiner cited it; (ii) Burneo and O'Malley are usable only under §102(e) — if the patentee can swear behind or show the benefit chain fails, they drop out.

Additional references appearing on the page under "Family Cites Families" (older documents cited in prosecution of family members, not on the '527 face) that are useful for specific limitations:

• US 7,735,101 B2 (Cisco, 2006‑03‑28) — embedding comments at specific points in time into a media presentation → claim 22.
• US 2009/0271283 A1 (Catholic Content, LLC, 2008‑02‑13) — "Network Media Distribution" → religious/consciousness content delivery channel (claims 2–3).
• US 8,128,503 B1 (Livestream, 2008‑05‑29), US 8,620,878 B2 (Ustream, 2007‑07‑19), CA 2755774 C (Azuki Systems, 2009‑03‑19), US 2010/0262711 A1 (Nokia, 2009‑04‑09) — live/scalable streaming of media to mobile audiences.

Caveat: I have not retrieved the file wrapper for 14/512,353, so I cannot say what rejections/amendments occurred during prosecution. Statements below are an independent §103 assessment, not a reconstruction of the examiner's reasoning.

---

2. Claim 1 — element-by-element mapping

Claim 1 (the only independent claim) recites, in substance: (a) a mobile device streaming media application; (b) a display interface that receives media message data from a network‑connected server and streams it on a mobile device; (c) an input interface to input media message data and upload it to a network‑connected server "for storing and transmitting… to a plurality of mobile devices running the media application"; (d) the media message data comprising a media message of text, audio, video, image, or a combination; and (e) the application "configured to allow multiple devices to stream the media message, which allows a plurality of users to be simultaneously aware of the same media message, thereby promoting collective thought and awareness."

Observation on element (e). "Which allows a plurality of users to be simultaneously aware of the same media message, thereby promoting collective thought and awareness" is a statement of intended result/purpose, not a separate structural or process limitation. Under pre‑AIA practice (In re Kollar, 286 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 1996); MPEP 2111.04), a "whereby/thereby" clause that merely recites the result of the recited steps is not entitled to patentable weight unless it defines a distinct function. The functional core — "configured to allow multiple devices to stream the media message" — is satisfied by any one‑to‑many (multicast/broadcast/narrowcast) distribution, which Volk and McGuire both disclose. The subjective "collective thought and awareness" is a mental/meaning result that does not distinguish over the art.

---

3. Primary obviousness grounds

Ground 1 — Volk + Rossano (renders claim 1, and claims 10, 12, 15–20, 22, obvious)

Volk discloses the whole architecture: a mobile application ("application employed… that runs on the mobile communications device") through which a user creates, edits, previews, and uploads text, pictures, video and audio to a server (103) that converts the content into the formats used by "each type of device 107 that downloads the mobile content," and publishes it to a market/channel that consumers subscribe to and that many purchasers download. That is claim 1(a)–(d): mobile app, display of downloaded media, an input/creation interface, upload to a server for storage and multi‑device distribution, and media types of text/audio/video/image. See https://patents.google.com/patent/US20070294177A1 and https://www.patentsencyclopedia.com/app/20070294177.

Rossano discloses the client‑side publishing form that Volk's claims‑1(c) input interface is missing in detail: a displayed form via which "a user can view a plurality of available videos from the content database, view an amount associated with sending the video, select a video to be sent as a message, specify a recipient for the video message, enter text to be sent to the recipient in association with the selected video, and instruct that the selected video and the text be sent as a message" — with carrier/charged messaging, an authorization step, and user‑specified "subject of interest" notifications. See https://patents.google.com/patent/US20090156170A1 and https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/US20090156170A1.

Motivation to combine (KSR): Both are in the same field of endeavor — networked, user‑generated media content authored on a handset and delivered to other handsets — and both address the same problem ("How does a mobile user author and distribute media content to many other mobile users through a server?"). Volk supplies the distribution market and format conversion; Rossano supplies an improved authoring/designation UI, per‑send payment, and interest‑based notification. A PHOSITA in 2010 would predictably combine them to obtain a mobile publishing application with recipient selection and monetized messaging; each reference performs its own known function, and the combination yields no unexpected result. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416–17; In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (reasonably pertinent to the problem).

Ground 2 — Volk + Rossano + O'Malley (adds the air date/air time and campaign billing recitations of claims 4–10)

O'Malley teaches a network communication system with a signal media server and message server that selects and forwards a message to a recipient's device, and — critically for claims 4–9 — includes a UI screen for selecting "a date or date on which an Opt‑in Message can be played," plus campaign creation with "Targeting and Billing, Budgeting and Bidding options," segmentation rules, and message selection/sequencing engines. See https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110213657A1, https://patents.google.com/patent/US9047619 and https://www.patents-review.com/a/20110213657-system-method-providing-messages.html.

Motivation: The '527 specification itself frames the invention as selling airtime on a programmed stream ("the media message stream is similar to a live television station having scheduled media messages as its programming"; the server "provides media message data according to the scheduled time"). A marketplace that sells scheduled airtime necessarily requires (i) a mechanism to reserve/specify a play date and time and (ii) a billing mechanism. O'Malley supplies both, and AMS (US 2009/0204479 A1) supplies the scheduling-and‑measurement of media playout across a network of screens. Combining a scheduling/billing engine with Volk's publishing market is the predictable use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way (KSR; MPEP 2143).

Ground 3 — Ground 1 or 2 + McGuire (claim 20) and/or Verizon / Yahoo! (claim 20)

McGuire discloses targeted ad selection and delivery to user nodes expressly including "a cell phone 121, a personal digital assistant 122, and a personal computer 123," where the content provider node communicates "one or more advertisements with or as the requested information to user node," and where advertisers purchase impressions by geography and by "time frame… a month, week, day, hour." Verizon (US 2009/0171780) adds a targeted‑advertisement management interface; Yahoo! (US 2009/0198538) adds mobile ad filtering within a mobile environment.

Motivation: Advertising‑supported, free or subsidized media distribution was pervasive and routine in 2010 (Google AdSense, Apple in‑app advertising — both named in the '527 specification as the ad source for banner 112). The '527 specification itself supplies the motivation verbatim: the app can let a user "include this banner 112 during the media message creation process to financially subsidize the price of posting the media message." Where the specification recites the business justification for the combination, the motivation requirement is met. Adding an ad banner slot to a media display is, at most, an arrangement of old elements with no change in their respective functions (MPEP 2144.04(VI); KSR).

Ground 4 — Ground 1/2 + Burneo (claims 11, 13, 21, 23)

Burneo discloses soliciting and collecting donations from mobile‑phone subscribers through the telecom channel, including user selection of "beneficiary entities" and amount, with recurring one‑touch donations and billing through the subscriber's phone bill — and expressly names, among beneficiary categories, "religious entities or for political campaigns." See https://patents.google.com/patent/US20100215167A1.

Motivation: Placing a "donate" control on a message view (claim 21) and a donation field on a comment submission (claim 23) is the straightforward combination of a content‑display interface with an established mobile donation mechanism, in the same field of mobile telecommunications. Where the media message is a religious/charity appeal (claims 2–3, 13), Burneo's own disclosure identifies religious entities as donation beneficiaries, making the combination reasonably pertinent to the problem (In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The comment‑plus‑donation of claim 23 is at most an obvious aggregation of Burneo's donation UI with a comment field (see Ground 6).

Ground 5 — McGuire as base + Volk/Rossano (alternative route to claim 1)

If Volk were read to lack "streaming" or "multiple devices simultaneously," McGuire supplies one‑to‑many distribution of the same content to many user nodes (broadcast/narrowcast) — i.e., simultaneous receipt by multiple users. Combined with Volk's mobile authoring/upload or Rossano's authoring form, all elements of claim 1 are present.

---

4. Dependent-claim chart

---

5. Why a PHOSITA would have combined these references — consolidated reasons

1. Same field / same problem. All nine references are directed to delivering media or messages over a network to mobile/handset users, and several to user‑supplied content. Field‑of‑endeavor and reasonably‑pertinent analysis favors combination (In re Clay; In re Bigio).
2. Complementary, not overlapping, teachings. Volk/Rossano = authoring + distribution; O'Malley = scheduling + campaign billing; McGuire/Verizon/Yahoo! = monetization by advertising; Burneo = monetization by donation. Combining them fills well‑understood gaps in a content‑publishing marketplace, with entirely predictable results (KSR).
3. Market/competitive pressure. By Feb. 2010, app stores, in‑app purchase, mobile streaming, ad‑supported content, and SMS/text donations were mainstream. A skilled artisan would have been motivated by ordinary commercial incentives to assemble these known components into a single mobile media application.
4. Specification admissions supply the motivations. The '527 Background concedes that "Streaming media… is constantly received… by an end‑user while being delivered by a streaming provider," that "Internet television is a commonly streamed medium," and that ad banners serve to "financially subsidize the price of posting." These are admissions that these features were known; the remaining question is only whether the combination was non‑obvious.
5. Predictable results / no unexpected effect. Every added feature (scheduling, ads, donations, comments) operates in the same way and for the same purpose as in the reference that supplies it. No reference teaches away, and there is no apparent criticality or synergy.

---

6. Counterarguments, weaknesses, and where the patent is strongest

In favor of validity (weaknesses in the obviousness case):

• Claims 2–3 ("consciousness message… prayers, collective thoughts"). None of the nine examiner‑cited references expressly discloses a consciousness/prayer‑specific streaming channel operated as a classified content genre. If the patentee can show that the art did not contemplate a prayer/collective‑awareness–oriented application, that is the best non‑obviousness hook. The counter is that a genre/label does not make otherwise known steps patentable, and that US 2009/0271283 A1 (Catholic Content) plus Burneo's religious‑entity disclosure make even this aspect reasonably pertinent.
• Claim 1(e)'s "simultaneously aware… collective thought and awareness." The patentee will likely argue this is a functional limitation giving the claim a distinct meaning. The response is that it recites a subjective, mental result and is therefore entitled to little or no patentable weight, or is inherent in any multicast/broadcast delivery.
• §102(e) exposure of Burneo and O'Malley. Both are only §102(e) art. If the patentee were to challenge the §102(e) date (e.g., by arguing lack of "by another" or attacking the English‑publication/national‑stage predicate for the O'Malley PCT), Grounds 2 and 4 weaken — but Ground 1 (Volk + Rossano, both §102(b)/§102(a)) survives.
• "Streaming" as such. The examiner‑cited references are more about messaging and advertising than live streaming. The patentee may argue a gap on "streaming." The response: the '527 Background admits streaming to be old, and the family‑cited Livestream, Ustream, Azuki, and Nokia references each teach live/scalable media streaming to mobile audiences — routinely combined with a message/data delivery platform.
• Secondary considerations. No evidence of unexpected results, nexus‑bearing commercial success, long‑felt need, or industry praise has been identified here. If the patentee offers such evidence, it must be tied to the claimed combination (nexus) to have weight (Oreo; Munzing). I have not located or reviewed any litigation or PTAB record; the Google Patents page carries a "Family has litigation" flag and the family contains 19 applications (16 filed after this one), which is consistent with active enforcement/continuation practice, but I will not speculate about case outcomes.

Additional independent attack worth noting: if any of the '527 claims are not entitled to the 2010‑02‑12 provisional date (i.e., if claim language such as the advertisement banner or comment‑donation interface was added in the 2011/2013/2014 continuations without written‑description support in 61/304,331), the critical date shifts to 2011‑02‑14 or later — which would make US 2011/0208822 A1 (Rathod) and additional 2010–2011 publications available as §102(e) art. I cannot confirm the written‑description position without the file wrapper.

---

7. Bottom line

The claim set is broadly drawn and each independent limitation maps to at least one reference in the cited art; the strongest defensive positions for the patentee are (i) the "consciousness message" limitations of claims 2–3/13 and (ii) the subjective "collective thought and awareness" language of claim 1 — both of which are vulnerable as non‑structural/mental limitations under pre‑AIA §103.

Confidence and limitations: Reference‑content statements above are grounded in the cited publication texts retrieved from Google Patents/patentimages/USPTO‑derived mirrors and quoted above. I could not retrieve the prosecution file history of 14/512,353, the full text of US 2009/0171780 A1, US 2009/0198538 A1, and US 2009/0204479 A1 within this session, or any litigation/PTAB record; where I have relied on a search snippet rather than the full document, I have said so. Specific paragraph‑and‑line citations beyond those quoted should be verified against the originals before use in a filing.