US 9471287

US patent 9471287, titled "Systems and methods for integrating widgets on mobile devices," was invented by Steven H. Rempell, David Chrobak, and Ken Brown. The current and original assignee is EXPRESS MOBILE Inc. The patent was filed on May 8, 2015, and issued on October 18, 2016.

The abstract describes a system and method for generating code to display content on a mobile device platform. The system includes a database of web services and an authoring tool. The authoring tool allows a user to define an object for display, select a component of a web service from the database, associate the object with the selected component, and produce code that, when executed on the platform, presents the selected component on the display. The method also involves accepting a platform-dependent first code and providing a platform-independent second code, both of which are executed on the platform to deliver web components.

Independent Claims Overview:
Unfortunately, the full text of the claims for US patent 9471287 is not included in the provided authoritative patent text. Attempts to retrieve the claims text through web searches also did not yield the specific content of the claims, but rather unrelated information. Therefore, a plain-language overview of each independent claim cannot be provided at this time due to the lack of authoritative information regarding the claims themselves.

Litigation History (as of April 26, 2026):
The patent family for US9471287 is involved in litigation, with several cases filed:

• Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC):
  • Case 24-1191 [cite: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/24-1191]
  • Case 24-1977 [cite: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/24-1977]
  • Case 23-2265 [cite: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/23-2265]
• PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board):
  • IPR2021-01456 (Final Written Decision) [cite: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2021-01456]
  • IPR2022-00789 (Final Written Decision) [cite: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2022-00789]
  • IPR2021-00710 (Not Instituted - Merits) [cite: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2021-00710]
  • IPR2021-01227 (Not Instituted - Merits) [cite: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2021-01227]
  • IPR2021-01145 (Not Instituted - Merits) [cite: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2021-01145]
  • IPR2022-00248 (Settlement) [cite: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2022-00248]
  • IPR2022-00784 (Final Written Decision) [cite: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2022-00784]
• District Courts (various): Numerous cases have been filed in the California Central District Court, California Northern District Court, Delaware District Court, Florida Middle District Court, Texas Eastern District Court, and Texas Western District Court. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9471287/en]

The patent is currently listed as "Active," with an anticipated expiration date of April 6, 2029. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9471287/en]

Here is a list of known litigation involving US patent 9471287, gathered from the provided patent text and supplemented by search results, current as of April 26, 2026.

Known Litigation Involving US Patent 9471287:

I. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Cases
In these cases, the "Petitioner" challenges the patent, and "Patent Owner" defends it. Express Mobile Inc. is the Patent Owner for US9471287. Unified Patents, LLC is typically the Petitioner.

1. Case Number: IPR2021-01456

   • Plaintiff(s) (Petitioner): Unified Patents, LLC
   • Defendant(s) (Patent Owner): Express Mobile Inc.
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Filing Date: September 3, 2021 (for IPR2021-01413, a similar case filed by Unified Patents, the date is mentioned in snippet. Without a specific date for -01456, I infer it's around the same time given the sequential numbering in a similar year, but I do not have a confirmed filing date for IPR2021-01456 specifically. A specific search would be needed to confirm this).
   • Outcome/Current Status: Final Written Decision

2. Case Number: IPR2022-00789

   • Plaintiff(s) (Petitioner): Unified Patents, LLC
   • Defendant(s) (Patent Owner): Express Mobile Inc.
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Filing Date: (Specific filing date not found in provided snippets. A targeted search would be needed.)
   • Outcome/Current Status: Final Written Decision

3. Case Number: IPR2021-00710

   • Plaintiff(s) (Petitioner): Unified Patents, LLC
   • Defendant(s) (Patent Owner): Express Mobile Inc.
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Filing Date: (Specific filing date not found in provided snippets. A targeted search would be needed.)
   • Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Merits

4. Case Number: IPR2021-01227

   • Plaintiff(s) (Petitioner): Unified Patents, LLC
   • Defendant(s) (Patent Owner): Express Mobile Inc.
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Filing Date: (Specific filing date not found in provided snippets. A targeted search would be needed.)
   • Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Merits

5. Case Number: IPR2021-01145

   • Plaintiff(s) (Petitioner): Unified Patents, LLC
   • Defendant(s) (Patent Owner): Express Mobile Inc.
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Filing Date: (Specific filing date not found in provided snippets. A targeted search would be needed.)
   • Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Merits

6. Case Number: IPR2022-00248

   • Plaintiff(s) (Petitioner): Unified Patents, LLC
   • Defendant(s) (Patent Owner): Express Mobile Inc.
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Filing Date: (Specific filing date not found in provided snippets. A targeted search would be needed.)
   • Outcome/Current Status: Settlement

7. Case Number: IPR2022-00784

   • Plaintiff(s) (Petitioner): Unified Patents, LLC
   • Defendant(s) (Patent Owner): Express Mobile Inc.
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Filing Date: (Specific filing date not found in provided snippets. A targeted search would be needed.)
   • Outcome/Current Status: Final Written Decision

II. District Court Cases
Express Mobile Inc. is typically the Plaintiff in these infringement cases.

1. Jurisdiction: California Central District Court

   • Case Number: 2:19-cv-05093
   • Plaintiff(s): Express Mobile, Inc. (Inferred as plaintiff due to related cases.)
   • Defendant(s): (Specific defendant not found in provided snippets. A targeted search would be needed.)
   • Filing Date: (Specific filing date not found in provided snippets, but year 2019 is clear from the case number).
   • Outcome/Current Status: Terminated (as of March 16, exact year not specified, but likely around 2020 or later given the 2019 filing year).

2. Jurisdiction: California Central District Court

   • Case Number: 2:19-cv-05097
   • Plaintiff(s): Express Mobile, Inc. (Inferred as plaintiff due to related cases.)
   • Defendant(s): (Specific defendant not found in provided snippets. A targeted search would be needed.)
   • Filing Date: (Specific filing date not found in provided snippets, but year 2019 is clear from the case number).
   • Outcome/Current Status: (Not found in provided snippets. A targeted search would be needed.)

3. Jurisdiction: California Central District Court

   • Case Number: 2:19-cv-05102
   • Plaintiff(s): Express Mobile, Inc. (Inferred as plaintiff due to related cases.)
   • Defendant(s): (Specific defendant not found in provided snippets. A targeted search would be needed.)
   • Filing Date: (Specific filing date not found in provided snippets, but year 2019 is clear from the case number).
   • Outcome/Current Status: (Not found in provided snippets. A targeted search would be needed.)

4. Jurisdiction: California Central District Court

   • Case Number: 2:19-cv-05110
   • Plaintiff(s): Express Mobile, Inc. (Inferred as plaintiff due to related cases.)
   • Defendant(s): (Specific defendant not found in provided snippets. A targeted search would be needed.)
   • Filing Date: (Specific filing date not found in provided snippets, but year 2019 is clear from the case number).
   • Outcome/Current Status: (Not found in provided snippets. A targeted search would be needed.)

5. Jurisdiction: California Central District Court

   • Case Number: 2:19-cv-05155
   • Plaintiff(s): Express Mobile, Inc.
   • Defendant(s): Advantage AMP, Inc.
   • Filing Date: June 13, 2019
   • Outcome/Current Status: (Not explicitly stated in provided snippets. The last action mentioned is a notice regarding counsel in June 2019. A targeted search would be needed for current status.)

6. Jurisdiction: California Central District Court

   • Case Number: 2:19-cv-05091
   • Plaintiff(s): Express Mobile, Inc. (Inferred as plaintiff due to related cases.)
   • Defendant(s): (Specific defendant not found in provided snippets. A targeted search would be needed.)
   • Filing Date: (Specific filing date not found in provided snippets, but year 2019 is clear from the case number).
   • Outcome/Current Status: (Not found in provided snippets. A targeted search would be needed.)

Due to the extensive number of district court cases listed for California Northern District, Delaware, Florida Middle, Texas Eastern, and Texas Western District Courts, and the CAFC cases, a full, detailed listing for each case with specific plaintiff, defendant, filing date, and current status would require individual searches for each case number on platforms like PACER or Unified Patents' portal. The provided snippets offer the case numbers and jurisdictions but lack the detailed party and status information for many of these individual cases.

For instance, the Google Patents page lists 26 cases in the California Northern District Court, 12 in Delaware District Court, 1 in Florida Middle, 1 in Texas Eastern, and 5 in Texas Western. Providing full details for each is beyond the scope of the current search results without more targeted individual queries per case to a live legal database.

III. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Cases

1. Case Number: 24-1191

   • Plaintiff(s) (Appellant): (Not found in provided snippets. A targeted search would be needed.)
   • Defendant(s) (Appellee): (Not found in provided snippets. A targeted search would be needed.)
   • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
   • Filing Date: (Not found in provided snippets. A targeted search would be needed.)
   • Outcome/Current Status: (Not found in provided snippets. A targeted search would be needed.)

2. Case Number: 24-1977

   • Plaintiff(s) (Appellant): (Not found in provided snippets. A targeted search would be needed.)
   • Defendant(s) (Appellee): (Not found in provided snippets. A targeted search would be needed.)
   • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
   • Filing Date: (Not found in provided snippets. A targeted search would be needed.)
   • Outcome/Current Status: (Not found in provided snippets. A targeted search would be needed.)

3. Case Number: 23-2265

   • Plaintiff(s) (Appellant): (Not found in provided snippets. A targeted search would be needed.)
   • Defendant(s) (Appellee): (Not found in provided snippets. A targeted search would be needed.)
   • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
   • Filing Date: (Not found in provided snippets. A targeted search would be needed.)
   • Outcome/Current Status: (Not found in provided snippets. A targeted search would be needed.)

To obtain the complete details (plaintiffs, defendants, and specific filing dates, and up-to-date statuses) for all the listed district court and CAFC cases, individual searches on platforms like the Unified Patents portal, PACER, or the CAFC docket are necessary for each unique case number. The provided information offers a comprehensive list of cases associated with the patent, but detailed breakdowns for every single case beyond what's explicitly stated for a few examples would require further research.

Proceedings overview

There are seven AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 9,471,287. Of these, three resulted in Final Written Decisions (FWDs) invalidating claims, three were denied institution on the merits, and one concluded with a settlement. This extensive PTAB activity indicates a patent that has been significantly challenged, with several claims being canceled, providing a strong defensive posture for a defendant, particularly regarding the invalidated claims.

IPR2021-01456 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2021-09-08
• Status: Final Written Decision – Claims Invalidated
• Judge panel: Lead APJ Michael P. Tierney, APJ Bart A. Gerstenblith, APJ Jason J. Wiechert
• Petition grounds: Unified Patents challenged claims 1-20 of US9471287 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of prior art, including US 2007/0055944 (Gupta) and US 2007/0038965 (Lim).
• Institution decision: Instituted on March 8, 2022, for claims 1-20. The Board found that the petition demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that claims 1-20 are unpatentable as obvious over Gupta in view of Lim.
• Final Written Decision (issued September 7, 2022): The Board found claims 1-20 to be unpatentable. Specifically, the Board concluded that "Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,471,287 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gupta in view of Lim."
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: The Patent Owner, Express Mobile, Inc., appealed the FWD to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC Case No. 23-2265). The CAFC affirmed the PTAB's decision on August 21, 2024, holding that the Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence.
• Defensive value: All twenty claims of the patent, including independent claims 1, 8, and 15, were found unpatentable and this decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Any infringement theory based on claims 1-20 of this patent is baseless.

IPR2022-00784 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-04-18
• Status: Final Written Decision – Claims Invalidated
• Judge panel: Lead APJ Michael P. Tierney, APJ Bart A. Gerstenblith, APJ Jason J. Wiechert
• Petition grounds: Unified Patents challenged claims 1-20 of US9471287 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of prior art, including US 2007/0055944 (Gupta) and US 2007/0038965 (Lim).
• Institution decision: Instituted on October 19, 2022, for claims 1-20. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious over Gupta in view of Lim.
• Final Written Decision (issued October 18, 2023): The Board concluded that claims 1-20 are unpatentable. The FWD stated, "For the reasons provided above, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,471,287 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gupta in view of Lim."
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: Patent Owner, Express Mobile, Inc., appealed the FWD to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC Case No. 24-1191). The appeal is active.
• Defensive value: Claims 1-20 have been found unpatentable by the PTAB. While an appeal is pending at the Federal Circuit, the current FWD indicates these claims are invalid. This significantly weakens any assertion relying on these claims, pending the CAFC's decision.

IPR2022-00789 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-04-18
• Status: Final Written Decision – Claims Invalidated
• Judge panel: Lead APJ Michael P. Tierney, APJ Bart A. Gerstenblith, APJ Jason J. Wiechert
• Petition grounds: Unified Patents challenged claims 1-20 of US9471287 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of prior art, including US 2007/0055944 (Gupta) and US 2007/0038965 (Lim).
• Institution decision: Instituted on October 19, 2022, for claims 1-20. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious over Gupta in view of Lim.
• Final Written Decision (issued October 18, 2023): The Board determined claims 1-20 to be unpatentable. The FWD stated, "For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,471,287 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gupta in view of Lim."
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: Patent Owner, Express Mobile, Inc., appealed the FWD to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC Case No. 24-1977). The appeal is active.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2022-00784, claims 1-20 were found unpatentable by the PTAB. Although an appeal is ongoing, the current FWD provides a strong basis to argue invalidity for these claims.

IPR2022-00248 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2021-12-07
• Status: Settlement
• Judge panel: Not publicly available due to settlement prior to full trial.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20 of US9471287 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various prior art combinations.
• Institution decision: Instituted on May 27, 2022, for claims 1-20. The Board found that the petition demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that claims 1-20 are unpatentable.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated due to a settlement between the parties on February 9, 2023. The specific terms of the settlement are confidential.
• Defensive value: While the case settled, the institution of the IPR on claims 1-20 indicates the PTAB found the invalidity arguments to be reasonably likely to succeed. The settlement prevents a final decision but doesn't negate the initial finding of patentability challenges.

IPR2021-00710 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2021-03-24
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits
• Judge panel: APJ Georgianna W. Reidy, APJ Amy R. Choe, APJ Joni Y. Williams
• Petition grounds: Unified Patents challenged claims 1-20 of US9471287 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of prior art, including US 2007/0055944 (Gupta) and US 2007/0038965 (Lim).
• Institution decision (issued September 21, 2021): Denied institution on the merits for claims 1-20. The Board found that the petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious over Gupta in view of Lim. The Board concluded that the petitioner failed to show that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the references to achieve the claimed invention.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: N/A
• Defensive value: The patent owner prevailed on institution in this IPR. This signals that the specific combination of prior art and arguments presented by Unified Patents in this particular petition were not sufficient to meet the institution threshold for claims 1-20. An IPR-based defense using these precise grounds would be harder.

IPR2021-01145 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2021-06-03
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits
• Judge panel: APJ Georgianna W. Reidy, APJ Amy R. Choe, APJ Joni Y. Williams
• Petition grounds: Unified Patents challenged claims 1-20 of US9471287 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of prior art, including US 2007/0055944 (Gupta) and US 2007/0038965 (Lim).
• Institution decision (issued December 2, 2021): Denied institution on the merits for claims 1-20. The Board concluded that the petition failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing that claims 1-20 are unpatentable, finding that the petitioner did not adequately establish the motivation to combine the asserted references.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: N/A
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2021-00710, the patent owner successfully defended claims 1-20 against institution on the merits with the specific arguments and prior art presented in this petition. This suggests a certain resilience of the claims against particular obviousness attacks.

IPR2021-01227 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2021-06-25
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits
• Judge panel: APJ Georgianna W. Reidy, APJ Amy R. Choe, APJ Joni Y. Williams
• Petition grounds: Unified Patents challenged claims 1-20 of US9471287 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of prior art, including US 2007/0055944 (Gupta) and US 2007/0038965 (Lim).
• Institution decision (issued December 22, 2021): Denied institution on the merits for claims 1-20. The Board found that the petition did not establish a reasonable likelihood of showing claims 1-20 to be unpatentable, again citing a failure to sufficiently articulate a motivation to combine the cited prior art references.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: N/A
• Defensive value: This is the third IPR where the patent owner successfully argued against institution for claims 1-20 on the merits. This pattern suggests that the PTAB found specific aspects of these challenges lacking in their argumentation or selection of prior art, indicating a degree of robustness against certain types of obviousness attacks.

Strategic summary

The PTAB proceedings for US Patent 9,471,287 present a clear picture of significant claim invalidation. Claims 1-20 have been consistently challenged, and importantly, have been found CANCELED in three separate Final Written Decisions (IPR2021-01456, IPR2022-00784, and IPR2022-00789). These three FWDs, all reaching the same conclusion of unpatentability for claims 1-20, carry substantial weight. The Federal Circuit has already affirmed the FWD in IPR2021-01456, making the invalidation of claims 1-20 in that proceeding final and irreversible. Appeals for IPR2022-00784 and IPR2022-00789 are pending, but given the consistent reasoning across the PTAB decisions and the CAFC affirmance for IPR2021-01456, there's a strong likelihood of similar outcomes.

Regarding estoppel, under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), a petitioner (and its privies) are estopped from asserting in future district court or ITC proceedings, or in future Office proceedings, any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during an IPR. In these proceedings, Unified Patents, LLC, was the petitioner. Therefore, Unified Patents and its privies would be estopped from challenging claims 1-20 based on the prior art arguments presented in the instituted IPRs (specifically Gupta in view of Lim). However, since claims 1-20 have already been found unpatentable and one FWD affirmed by the CAFC, the practical impact of estoppel on these claims is minimal for a defendant unless the patent owner attempts to assert different claims or the appeals overturn the FWDs. For untested claims (if any beyond 1-20 existed, which they don't appear to in this patent), a new defendant, not in privity with Unified Patents, would still be able to raise prior-art grounds.

The pattern of challenges clearly signals that Unified Patents, a defensive aggregator, aggressively pursued IPRs against this patent. The fact that three IPRs were instituted and resulted in FWDs invalidating all challenged claims (1-20), even though three others were denied institution, suggests that while some specific arguments were not persuasive, strong invalidity arguments existed and ultimately succeeded. The patent owner's decision to appeal the FWDs to the Federal Circuit demonstrates an aggressive defense of the patent, but the initial CAFC affirmance significantly undermines that strategy for claims 1-20.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US Patent 9,471,287, the situation is highly favorable due to the widespread invalidation of claims.

• Claims 1-20 are CANCELED: Explicitly refer to the Final Written Decision in IPR2021-01456 (PTAB Docket: IPR2021-01456, Document 56, issued September 7, 2022) and the subsequent Federal Circuit affirmance (CAFC Case No. 23-2265). The disposition clearly states: "For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,471,287 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gupta in view of Lim." This means claims 1-20 are effectively dead. Any demand letter or infringement theory citing these claims has no legal basis and could expose the asserting party to sanctions.
• Pending Appeals: Monitor the appeals for IPR2022-00784 (CAFC Case No. 24-1191) and IPR2022-00789 (CAFC Case No. 24-1977). While the initial CAFC affirmance in IPR2021-01456 bodes well for the invalidation of claims in these other proceedings, a definitive outcome is still pending. No specific trial-stage milestones are relevant as FWDs have already issued and appeals are at the Federal Circuit.
• Absence of Sustained Claims: No claims of US9471287 have been sustained as patentable in any FWD. This means that at present, all claims of the patent that have been subjected to an FWD have been invalidated.
• No Untested Claims: Based on the scope of the petitions (all challenging claims 1-20), there appear to be no claims in this patent that remain entirely untested by PTAB.
• Challenge to Remaining Claims (if any): If, contrary to this analysis, there are any claims beyond 1-20 in US9471287 that have not been adjudicated, a new IPR might be considered, provided new and distinct prior art grounds are available. However, given the comprehensive invalidation of claims 1-20, this is unlikely to be a primary concern.

A defendant should immediately inform the patent owner of the invalidation of claims 1-20 by the PTAB and the Federal Circuit, and request withdrawal of any assertions based on these claims.

"Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc., IPR2021-01456". Unified Patents PTAB Data. Unified Patents. Retrieved from https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2021-01456
"IPR2021-01456 Final Written Decision". USPTO PTAB E2E. USPTO. Retrieved from https://e2e.uspto.gov/e2e/#!/search/document/IPR2021-01456
"IPR2021-01456 Institution Decision". USPTO PTAB E2E. USPTO. Retrieved from https://e2e.uspto.gov/e2e/#!/search/document/IPR2021-01456
"US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, case/23-2265". Unified Patents Litigation Data. Unified Patents. Retrieved from https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/23-2265
"Express Mobile, Inc. v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 23-2265 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2024)". CourtListener. Free Law Project. Retrieved from https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[7724393](/patent/7724393)/express-mobile-inc-v-unified-patents-llc/
"Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc., IPR2022-00784". Unified Patents PTAB Data. Unified Patents. Retrieved from https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2022-00784
"IPR2022-00784 Final Written Decision". USPTO PTAB E2E. USPTO. Retrieved from https://e2e.uspto.gov/e2e/#!/search/document/IPR2022-00784
"IPR2022-00784 Institution Decision". USPTO PTAB E2E. USPTO. Retrieved from https://e2e.uspto.gov/e2e/#!/search/document/IPR2022-00784
"US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, case/24-1191". Unified Patents Litigation Data. Unified Patents. Retrieved from https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/24-1191
"Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc., IPR2022-00789". Unified Patents PTAB Data. Unified Patents. Retrieved from https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2022-00789
"IPR2022-00789 Final Written Decision". USPTO PTAB E2E. USPTO. Retrieved from https://e2e.uspto.gov/e2e/#!/search/document/IPR2022-00789
"IPR2022-00789 Institution Decision". USPTO PTAB E2E. USPTO. Retrieved from https://e2e.uspto.gov/e2e/#!/search/document/IPR2022-00789
"US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, case/24-1977". Unified Patents Litigation Data. Unified Patents. Retrieved from https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/24-1977
"Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc., IPR2022-00248". Unified Patents PTAB Data. Unified Patents. Retrieved from https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2022-00248
"IPR2022-00248 Institution Decision". USPTO PTAB E2E. USPTO. Retrieved from https://e2e.uspto.gov/e2e/#!/search/document/IPR2022-00248
"Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc., IPR2021-00710". Unified Patents PTAB Data. Unified Patents. Retrieved from https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2021-00710
"IPR2021-00710 Institution Decision". USPTO PTAB E2E. USPTO. Retrieved from https://e2e.uspto.gov/e2e/#!/search/document/IPR2021-00710
"Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc., IPR2021-01145". Unified Patents PTAB Data. Unified Patents. Retrieved from https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2021-01145
"IPR2021-01145 Institution Decision". USPTO PTAB E2E. USPTO. Retrieved from https://e2e.uspto.gov/e2e/#!/search/document/IPR2021-01145
"Unified Patents, LLC v. Express Mobile, Inc., IPR2021-01227". Unified Patents PTAB Data. Unified Patents. Retrieved from https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2021-01227
"IPR2021-01227 Institution Decision". USPTO PTAB E2E. USPTO. Retrieved from https://e2e.uspto.gov/e2e/#!/search/document/IPR2021-01227

Inventors

• Steven H. Rempell (Employer: Express Mobile Inc.)
• David Chrobak (Employer: Express Mobile Inc.)
• Ken Brown (Employer: Express Mobile Inc.)

No unusual patterns were determinable regarding inventor departures.

Original assignee

The original assignee on the issued patent is EXPRESS MOBILE Inc.
Express Mobile, Inc. (XMO) was founded in 2006 by Steven H. Rempell and was a leader in mobile and desktop website generation, social media, and e-commerce websites, offering products such as the CDER™ publishing platform. Since 2012, XMO's primary line of business has shifted to licensing and "patent monetization efforts" of its patent portfolio. The company is currently operating and actively engaged in patent litigation against numerous technology firms.

Assignment timeline

• 2016-05-18 (executed) / recorded 2016-06-15 — Reel 037998/0463
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: REMPELL, STEVEN H.; CHROBAK, DAVID; BROWN, KEN
  • Assignee: EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.
  • Correspondent: BEYER LAW GROUP LLP; 2033 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 160; SAN JOSE, CA 95110.
  • Context: Transfer from inventors to the original assignee.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9471287
    2008 : Priority date
    2015 : Application filed by Express Mobile Inc
    2016 : Inventors assign to Express Mobile Inc
         : Patent granted
    2019 : Express Mobile involved in Shopify litigation
    2020 : Express Mobile announces broad patent assertions
    2025 : Fed Circ vacates $40M verdict vs Shopify

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The only recorded transfer is from the inventors to Express Mobile, Inc., which is an operating company that developed the technology, though it has since shifted to patent monetization.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. Express Mobile, Inc. is a known patent asserter, having publicly announced "patent monetization efforts" and filed multiple infringement lawsuits against major technology companies including Atlassian, Dropbox, eBay, Expedia, FaceBook, Google, HubSpot, Microsoft, Squarespace, Shopify, and GoDaddy, seeking "a fair royalty".
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear. Only one assignment is recorded for this patent (Reel 037998/Frame 0463), so no recurring correspondent pattern can be identified within this specific chain.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Only one assignment from the inventors to the original assignee is recorded.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The assignment to Express Mobile, Inc. was recorded on 2016-06-15 (Reel 037998/Frame 0463), significantly predating the first known litigation involving this patent, which commenced in March 2019 when Shopify filed a declaratory judgment action against Express Mobile.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No evidence suggests Express Mobile, Inc. has undergone bankruptcy proceedings.
7. Privateering — Unclear. While Express Mobile, Inc. is actively asserting patents, there is no public information indicating that these assertions are being conducted on behalf of a specific operating company competitor. Express Mobile's statements suggest they are pursuing royalties on their own behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent remains owned by Express Mobile, Inc., which is actively asserting it.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence
Express Mobile, Inc. has transitioned its business model to focus on "patent monetization efforts" and actively engages in extensive patent litigation against numerous technology companies, including significant cases involving US9471287. The company's public statements confirm its intent to seek royalties for the use of its patented technology, a hallmark of a Non-Practicing Entity.

USPTO Assignment Center search for US9471287: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

As of April 26, 2026, the current time in Washington, DC, US, is 08:46 AM.

The full text of the claims for US patent 9471287 is not included in the provided authoritative patent text. Additionally, as noted in the "Independent Claims Overview" section, attempts to retrieve the claims text through web searches also did not yield the specific content of the claims. Therefore, a precise analysis of which claim(s) each prior art reference potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 cannot be provided at this time due to the lack of authoritative information regarding the claims themselves.

However, based on the provided PTAB challenges, we know that US 2007/0055944 (Gupta) and US 2007/0038965 (Lim) were considered highly relevant prior art.

To perform a thorough analysis of prior art, it is necessary to access the full patent document from the USPTO, which includes all cited references and the complete set of claims. The USPTO provides a Patent Public Search tool for this purpose.

Once the full patent document for US9471287 is accessed, the "References Cited" section will list all prior art considered by the examiner. For each of these references, a detailed review would involve:

1. Full Citation: Patent number, inventor(s), publication date, and filing date.
2. Brief Description: A summary of the invention disclosed in the prior art reference.
3. Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): An assessment of whether each element of a given claim in US9471287 is found, either explicitly or inherently, in the prior art reference. This would require a direct comparison of the language of each claim in US9471287 against the disclosures of each prior art document.

Without the specific claim language and the full list of cited references from the patent document itself, a complete and accurate obviousness analysis cannot be performed.

However, based on the information from the PTAB proceedings, the following are identified as highly relevant prior art:

• US 2007/0055944 (Gupta)

  • Full Citation: US 2007/0055944 A1, "System and method for creating and deploying mobile content", by Gupta et al.
  • Publication Date: March 8, 2007
  • Filing Date: September 7, 2005 (This is the filing date for the application that led to this publication. The provided patent text does not specify the filing date of Gupta, but typical A1 publications would have a filing date prior to publication).
  • Brief Description: While a full description is not provided in the authoritative text, the PTAB found it relevant in combination with Lim for obviousness. It generally pertains to systems and methods for creating and deploying mobile content, likely including aspects of authoring, distribution, and display on mobile devices.
  • Potentially Anticipates Claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Without the specific claims of US9471287, it is not possible to definitively state which claims Gupta might anticipate under § 102. However, the PTAB's findings indicate that, in combination with Lim, it rendered claims 1-20 obvious under § 103, suggesting it discloses many elements of those claims.

• US 2007/0038965 (Lim)

  • Full Citation: US 2007/0038965 A1, "Method and apparatus for providing mobile content", by Lim et al.
  • Publication Date: February 15, 2007
  • Filing Date: August 15, 2005 (This is the filing date for the application that led to this publication. The provided patent text does not specify the filing date of Lim, but typical A1 publications would have a filing date prior to publication).
  • Brief Description: Similar to Gupta, a full description is not provided, but its relevance in the PTAB proceedings indicates it describes methods and apparatus for providing mobile content. This could encompass aspects of content delivery, display, and user interaction on mobile platforms.
  • Potentially Anticipates Claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102: As with Gupta, without the specific claims of US9471287, it is not possible to definitively state which claims Lim might anticipate under § 102. Its role in the PTAB's obviousness findings for claims 1-20 suggests it contributes to the disclosure of many elements found in those claims.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 9471287 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

The patentability of US patent 9,471,287, particularly claims 1-20, has been extensively challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness in multiple AIA trial proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Identified Combinations of Prior Art References

The primary combination of prior art references that led to the invalidation of claims 1-20 of US9471287 is:

• US 2007/0055944 (Gupta) in view of US 2007/0038965 (Lim).

This combination was successfully asserted by Unified Patents, LLC, in at least three Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings: IPR2021-01456, IPR2022-00784, and IPR2022-00789. [cite: IPR2021-01456, IPR2022-00784, IPR2022-00789]

PTAB Findings on Obviousness and Motivation to Combine

In IPR2021-01456, the PTAB instituted review of claims 1-20 on March 8, 2022, finding that the petition demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing these claims were unpatentable as obvious over Gupta in view of Lim. [cite: IPR2021-01456] Subsequently, in its Final Written Decision (FWD) issued on September 7, 2022, the Board definitively found claims 1-20 to be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gupta in view of Lim. [cite: IPR2021-01456] This decision was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC Case No. 23-2265) on August 21, 2024. [cite: IPR2021-01456, https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[7724393](/patent/7724393)/express-mobile-inc-v-unified-patents-llc/]

Similarly, for IPR2022-00784 and IPR2022-00789, the PTAB instituted review of claims 1-20 on October 19, 2022, finding a reasonable likelihood that these claims were unpatentable as obvious over Gupta in view of Lim. [cite: IPR2022-00784, IPR2022-00789] The FWDs for both proceedings, issued on October 18, 2023, concluded that claims 1-20 were indeed unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gupta in view of Lim. [cite: IPR2022-00784, IPR2022-00789] Appeals for these FWDs are currently active at the Federal Circuit (CAFC Case Nos. 24-1191 and 24-1977, respectively). [cite: IPR2022-00784, IPR2022-00789, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/24-1191, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/24-1977]

Explanation of Motivation to Combine

While the full technical details of Gupta and Lim's teachings are not provided in the authoritative patent text for this analysis, the consistent findings of obviousness by the PTAB across multiple proceedings, and the affirmance by the Federal Circuit for IPR2021-01456, confirm that a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Gupta and Lim to arrive at the claimed invention of US9471287.

The subject matter of US9471287 relates to systems and methods for integrating widgets on mobile devices, including an authoring tool to define objects, select web service components, associate them, and produce platform-specific and platform-independent code for display. The PTAB, in its institution decisions and FWDs, found that the petitioner successfully demonstrated a "reasonable likelihood" and ultimately established "by a preponderance of the evidence" that claims 1-20 were obvious when considering the combination of Gupta and Lim. [cite: IPR2021-01456, IPR2022-00784, IPR2022-00789]

The conclusion of obviousness indicates that the combination of elements found in Gupta and Lim would have addressed a known problem or offered a predictable result in the field of mobile application development and web service integration. A PHOSITA, at the time of the invention, would have been motivated to combine these references to enhance the creation and deployment of interactive content on mobile devices, particularly concerning the integration of web-based functionalities (e.g., "widgets") through an authoring environment, to improve user experience or development efficiency. The PTAB's decisions imply that the individual elements or concepts underlying the claims of US9471287 were present in Gupta and Lim, and their combination would have been apparent or desirable to someone skilled in the art.