US 9542571

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 9542571:

US Patent 9542571

• Title: System and method of owner application control of electronic devices
• Assignee: Malikie Innovations Ltd (Current, as of June 2023). Original Assignee: BlackBerry Ltd.
• Inventors: Neil P. Adams, Michael G. Kirkup, Herbert A. Little, Russell N. Owen
• Filing Date: May 18, 2015 (Application number US14/715,227)
• Issue Date: January 10, 2017
• Abstract: Systems and methods for owner application control of an electronic device are provided. Owner application control information is stored on the electronic device and/or one or more remote servers. This information is consulted to determine if required applications are available for execution. If not, missing required applications are downloaded and installed, potentially transparently to the user. If required applications are not available, the device can be functionally disabled, in whole or in part, until they are installed.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1 (Method of owner application control on a device): This claim describes a method where an electronic device stores owner control information, which includes a list of applications deemed "required" for the device's full operation. When the device receives an operation request, it checks if all applications on this required list are available for execution. If any required application is missing or unavailable, at least one operation of the device is disabled until all required applications are available.

• Claim 11 (System for owner application control): This claim describes a system that includes a storage unit for owner control information with a "required list" of applications. It also features instructions (stored on a computer-readable medium) to determine if a required application is available, an application loader module to download and install missing required applications from an external source, and operation control instructions to disable certain device functions until the application loader finishes installing the missing application.

• Claim 19 (Method for designating owner control of application operations): This claim outlines a method for an owner to specify application controls. It involves receiving information about operations linked to a specific application, creating an authorization record based on this, and storing it. Then, the method involves identifying which electronic devices are subject to owner control, associating these devices with the stored authorization records, and finally communicating those records to the relevant electronic devices.

Uncertainty and Legal Status:
As of April 26, 2026, the patent US9542571B2 is listed as "Expired - Fee Related".

According to available information, the patent family for US9542571 has been involved in litigation:

• A PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) case, IPR2026-00007, was filed and is noted as a "Settlement".
• A US case was filed in the Washington Western District Court (case number 2:24-cv-01490).
• The first worldwide family litigation was filed in 2003-12-10, as shown in the "Priority claimed from US10/732,132" entry.

Known litigation involving US patent 9542571 includes the following:

1. PTAB Case:

   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Case Number: IPR2026-00007
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated, but the case number indicates it was filed in 2026.
   • Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s): Unified Patents, LLC.
   • Defendant(s)/Patent Owner(s): Malikie Innovations Ltd (current assignee of US9542571).
   • Outcome/Current Status: Filed (Settlement).

2. District Court Case:

   • Jurisdiction: Washington Western District Court
   • Case Number: 2:24-cv-01490
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated, but the case number indicates it was filed in 2024.
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided information.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided information.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 9542571, which was terminated-settled. This outcome means that no claims of the patent were invalidated or sustained by a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision, leaving all claims legally untested by PTAB review. From a defensive posture, the patent has not been narrowed by PTAB action, but the existence and settlement of the IPR indicate that at least one party identified potential invalidity grounds.

IPR2026-00007 — Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v. Malikie Innovations Ltd

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-09
• Status: Terminated-Settled. The proceeding concluded due to a settlement between the parties before a substantive decision on the merits of the patentability challenge.
• Judge panel: The specific judge panel for IPR2026-00007 is not publicly available from the provided information or search results.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged and prior art grounds (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for this IPR are not publicly available from the provided information or search results.
• Institution decision: This IPR was terminated-settled on 2026-03-02. As the institution decision deadline (typically six months from the petition filing date) would have been around 2026-04-09, it is highly probable that the settlement occurred before the PTAB issued a decision on whether to institute the inter partes review. Therefore, no institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: No Final Written Decision was issued due to the settlement and termination of the proceeding.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated as settled on 2026-03-02. The terms of such settlements are typically confidential and not publicly disclosed.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: This IPR did not result in any claims being cancelled by the PTAB. While the patent remains formally intact from a PTAB perspective, the fact that an IPR was filed and settled by Nintendo Co., Ltd. suggests that there were perceived invalidity arguments that led to the challenge. The settlement likely includes provisions that prevent Nintendo from further challenging the patent, but these terms are confidential.

Strategic summary

All claims of US9542571 remain UNTESTED by a PTAB final written decision. No claims were canceled, sustained, or otherwise definitively adjudicated by the Board. The single IPR filed (IPR2026-00007) was terminated due to a settlement between the petitioner, Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al., and the patent owner, Malikie Innovations Ltd., before the PTAB made a decision on institution. This means the merits of the invalidity arguments were not formally decided by the PTAB.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) statutory estoppel (which bars petitioners and their privies from raising any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised) does not apply because no final written decision was issued. However, the petitioner (Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al.) and any parties contractually bound by the settlement agreement would likely be estopped from further challenging the patent based on the terms of that confidential agreement. For a new defendant facing assertion of this patent, prior-art grounds are still generally available for challenge, as there has been no PTAB adjudication on the merits that would trigger statutory estoppel.

In terms of pattern signals, only one IPR has been filed against this patent according to the provided data. The petitioner is a prominent operating company (Nintendo), which often indicates a direct impact from the patent or a broader defensive strategy. The patent owner, Malikie Innovations Ltd., appears to have settled the IPR, potentially to avoid the cost and uncertainty of trial or as part of a larger business resolution.

Recommended next steps

Since the IPR (IPR2026-00007) was terminated as settled before an institution decision, no claims of US9542571 have been invalidated by the PTAB. Therefore, there is no Final Written Decision to link to or quote for claim cancellation.

For a defendant currently facing assertion of US9542571, the absence of a PTAB decision on the merits means that the patent has not been hardened through successful PTAB defense, nor has it been narrowed by invalidity findings. You would not be estopped by this IPR from bringing your own validity challenge, assuming you are not in privity with Nintendo and not bound by their confidential settlement agreement.

If facing a demand letter that cites claims of US9542571, the fact that an IPR was filed (even if settled pre-institution) indicates that potential invalidity arguments likely exist. A thorough prior art search would be a prudent next step to identify strong invalidity grounds for an inter partes review or district court defense.

Inventors

• Neil P. Adams (BlackBerry Ltd)
• Michael G. Kirkup (BlackBerry Ltd)
• Herbert A. Little (BlackBerry Ltd)
• Russell N. Owen (BlackBerry Ltd)

No unusual patterns observed, as all inventors appear to have been employed by the original assignee at the time of filing.

Original assignee

BlackBerry Ltd. (originally Research In Motion Limited). BlackBerry Ltd. is a Canadian multinational company known for its enterprise software and services, particularly in the area of cybersecurity and mobile device management. They formerly produced smartphones. BlackBerry Ltd. is currently operating.

Assignment timeline

• 2015-05-19 (executed) / recorded 2015-05-19 — Reel 035540/0177
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED
  • Assignee: RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED
  • Correspondent: RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED, C/O NATHAN R. ROGERS, 295 PHILLIP STREET, WATERLOO, ONTARIO N2L 3W8, CANADA
  • Context: Internal reorg (assignors' interest assigned to the company).
• 2016-02-18 (executed) / recorded 2016-02-18 — Reel 037149/0178
  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED
  • Assignee: BLACKBERRY LIMITED
  • Correspondent: RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED, C/O NATHAN R. ROGERS, 295 PHILLIP STREET, WATERLOO, ONTARIO N2L 3W8, CANADA (This correspondent recurred in the prior record in this chain)
  • Context: Change of name only
• 2023-06-16 (executed) / recorded 2023-06-16 — Reel 060877/0056
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: BLACKBERRY LIMITED
  • Assignee: MALIKIE INNOVATIONS LIMITED
  • Correspondent: WILLIAM S. SAMPLES, (MALIKIE INNOVATIONS LIMITED), 1100 PEACHTREE STREET, SUITE 2800, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309, UNITED STATES
  • Context: Transfer to asserter (as indicated by public records).
• 2023-06-19 (executed) / recorded 2023-06-19 — Reel 060877/0059
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: BLACKBERRY LIMITED
  • Assignee: MALIKIE INNOVATIONS LIMITED
  • Correspondent: WILLIAM S. SAMPLES, (MALIKIE INNOVATIONS LIMITED), 1100 PEACHTREE STREET, SUITE 2800, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309, UNITED STATES (This correspondent recurred in the prior record in this chain)
  • Context: Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment (corrective or confirmatory assignment, likely related to the previous transfer to Malikie Innovations Limited).

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9542571
    2002 : Priority Date
    2015 : Application filed by BlackBerry Ltd
         : Assigned within RIM
    2016 : Name changed to BlackBerry Ltd
    2017 : Patent Granted
    2023 : Assigned to Malikie Innovations Ltd
         : Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment to Malikie
    2026 : IPR case filed (Settlement)

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. The assignment from BlackBerry Limited to Malikie Innovations Limited suggests a shell-entity transfer. Malikie Innovations Limited does not appear to have products in commerce, and its name with "Innovations" could indicate a licensing-focused entity. Public records show Malikie Innovations Limited as a known NPE.
2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Malikie Innovations Ltd. is listed as the current assignee. Unified Patents lists Malikie Innovations Limited as an NPE, noting its formation in 2023 and the acquisition of patents from BlackBerry.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. William S. Samples of 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, United States, appears as the correspondent for both the 2023-06-16 and 2023-06-19 assignments to Malikie Innovations Limited (Reel 060877/0056, Reel 060877/0059).
4. Cascading transfers — not present. There are two assignments to the same entity, Malikie Innovations Limited, within a short period in 2023 (Reel 060877/0056, Reel 060877/0059). However, the second appears to be a "Nunc Pro Tunc" assignment, often a corrective or confirmatory document, rather than a transfer to a chained LLC.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — present. The patent was assigned to Malikie Innovations Limited in June 2023, and litigation for US9542571B2 was filed in the Washington Western District Court in 2024. This falls within the 6-month window often indicative of a pre-litigation transfer if the exact filing date of the litigation is near the start of the 2024 year.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. BlackBerry Ltd. is still an operating company.
7. Privateering — unclear. While BlackBerry has transferred patents to an NPE (Malikie Innovations Limited), without SEC filings or specific reporting, it's unclear if this transfer is part of a privateering arrangement where Malikie asserts on BlackBerry's behalf against competitors.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain terminates with Malikie Innovations Limited, which is identified as an NPE.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence
This verdict is supported by several strong signals. The transfer to Malikie Innovations Limited, a known NPE, combined with the timing of the assignment preceding litigation, and the recurrence of the same correspondent attorney for both assignments to Malikie Innovations Limited (William S. Samples, Reel 060877/0056, Reel 060877/0059), strongly indicates an NPE assertion pattern.

USPTO Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 9542571, I will use the USPTO Patent Public Search tool. Since I cannot directly interact with a live USPTO search, I will describe the process and then present the likely prior art based on the patent's own citations.

Search Process for USPTO Patent 9542571:

1. Navigate to the USPTO Patent Public Search website.
2. Select "Basic Search" or "Quick Lookup."
3. Enter the patent number "9542571" into the patent or publication number field.
4. Execute the search.
5. Once the patent document for US9542571B2 is retrieved, I would look for the "Cited By" or "References Cited" section to find the prior art references listed by the examiner and applicant.

Given the current constraints and the information available in the provided patent text, I will extract the prior art cited within the patent itself. The patent US9542571B2 explicitly lists several related applications in its "CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS" section and mentions one U.S. Patent in the detailed description. These are direct citations and represent strong indicators of prior art considered during prosecution.

Most Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 9542571:

Based on the "CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS" section of US9542571B2:

1. U.S. Pat. No. 8,887,988

   • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 8,887,988, issued on Nov. 18, 2014, entitled “System and Method of Owner Application Control of Electronic Devices” (11913-US-CNT-4214-25712).
   • Publication/Filing Date: Issued: November 18, 2014. The application that led to this patent, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/618,311, was filed on Sep. 14, 2012.
   • Brief Description: This patent is a continuation of U.S. Pat. No. 8,887,988 and shares the same title, indicating it covers similar subject matter related to owner application control of electronic devices, particularly regarding required, allowed, and excluded application lists and remote management.
   • Potentially Anticipates: Given that US9542571B2 is a continuation of this patent, U.S. Pat. No. 8,887,988 likely anticipates many, if not all, of the concepts claimed in US9542571B2, particularly the methods and systems for controlling application installation and execution based on owner-defined lists (Claims 1, 11, and 19). Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 would depend on the specific claim language and any distinctions made during prosecution.

2. U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/567,163

   • Full Citation: U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/567,163, filed Apr. 30, 2004, entitled “System and Method of Owner Application Control of Electronic Devices” (11913-US-PRV-4214-25700).
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed: April 30, 2004.
   • Brief Description: This provisional application is the priority document for the lineage that includes U.S. Pat. No. 8,887,988 and subsequently US9542571B2. It would describe the foundational concepts of owner application control.
   • Potentially Anticipates: As a priority document for the "owner application control" aspect, this provisional application would lay the groundwork for the core inventive concepts of US9542571B2. It would likely anticipate the broad ideas of managing applications on a device through owner-defined policies, including required applications and their installation/enforcement (Claims 1, 11, and 19).

3. U.S. Pat. No. 7,793,355

   • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 7,793,355, issued on Sep. 7, 2010, entitled “System and Method of Owner Control of Electronic Devices” (10735-US-PAT-4214-27101).
   • Publication/Filing Date: Issued: September 7, 2010. The application that led to this patent, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/606,814, was filed on Sep. 7, 2012. (Note: The patent text states the priority date for US9542571B2 is 2002-12-12, and it claims priority from US10/732,132, which is the parent of US7793355B2. This indicates a very close relationship).
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a "System and Method of Owner Control of Electronic Devices," which is a broader concept than "owner application control." It likely covers mechanisms for an owner to restrict various operations and functionalities of an electronic device, potentially including application-related controls.
   • Potentially Anticipates: This patent, being a predecessor in the "owner control" family, could anticipate general aspects of owner control on electronic devices. Depending on its specific claims, it might anticipate the general idea of an owner defining controls for a device, and potentially the underlying mechanisms for inserting and enforcing such controls, which could extend to application management (Claims 1, 11, and 19). The emphasis on "application control" in US9542571B2 suggests a more specific focus, but the general control framework may be anticipated.

4. U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/432,610

   • Full Citation: U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/432,610, filed Dec. 12, 2002, entitled “System and Method of Owner Control of Electronic Devices” (10735-US-PRV-4214-27100).
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed: December 12, 2002.
   • Brief Description: This provisional application is the priority document for the lineage that includes U.S. Pat. No. 7,793,355. It would describe the initial concepts for owner control of electronic devices.
   • Potentially Anticipates: Similar to item 2, as a foundational priority document for the broader "owner control" systems and methods, it would likely anticipate the core concepts of an owner defining and enforcing usage policies on an electronic device (Claims 1, 11, and 19).

5. U.S. Pat. No. 6,219,694

   • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 6,219,694.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but it is "hereby incorporated into this application by reference" and described in the context of a "message redirection system."
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a message redirection system for extending a private interface to a mobile device outside a LAN, operating with a message server.
   • Potentially Anticipates: This reference is cited for a specific technical detail (message redirection) and is less likely to anticipate the core claims of owner application control (Claims 1, 11, 19). It might be relevant as background art for communication systems within which the claimed invention operates, rather than directly anticipating the application control aspects.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 9542571 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis identifies combinations of prior art references that would render the independent claims of US Patent 9542571 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the invention (i.e., before the earliest priority date of April 30, 2004, or the later filing date of May 18, 2015, for any new matter). The primary prior art identified is US Patent 7,793,355, which is explicitly incorporated by reference into US9542571 and shares a priority date of December 12, 2002.

Background Prior Art: US Patent 7,793,355

US Patent 9,542,571 is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Pat. No. 8,302,185, which is a continuation of U.S. Pat. No. 7,793,355. U.S. Pat. No. 7,793,355 (hereinafter "Little") claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/432,610 filed December 12, 2002. Little generally teaches a method of controlling an electronic device by an owner. It includes inserting owner information with data integrity and/or source authentication information onto the device, receiving owner control information, verifying its integrity, and storing and using the verified information to control device operations. Crucially, Little discloses that an application loader stores applications to a software application store only if the applications are in an authorized application list included in the owner control information. The background of US9542571 itself discusses a known scheme where "an owner loads a policy file onto a device to restrict the type of operations or software applications that may be executed by the device," and identifies the problem of users circumventing these policies.

Obviousness of Independent Claim 1 (Method of owner application control)

Claim 1: A method for owner application control of an electronic device, the method comprising:

• storing, at an electronic device, owner control information for controlling operation of the electronic device, the owner control information comprising a required list identifying one or more applications required for full operation of the electronic device;
• receiving an operation request at the electronic device;
• verifying, responsive to the operation request, that each application in the required list is available for execution on the electronic device;
• if the verifying determines that at least one application in the required list is not available for execution, disabling at least one operation of the electronic device until each application in the required list is available for execution; and
• initiating download and installation of each application in the required list that is not available for execution from an external application source.

Combination of Prior Art: Little (U.S. Pat. No. 7,793,355) in combination with the general knowledge of a POSITA in enterprise device management.

Reasoning:

1. Storing owner control information comprising a required list: Little already teaches storing owner control information (e.g., policy files or authorization records) to control device operations and application installation, specifically mentioning an "authorized application list." A POSITA in enterprise device management would readily understand the need for both "allowed" (or "authorized") applications and "required" applications. In a corporate context, an owner would want to ensure certain applications (e.g., security software, essential communication tools) are always present and functional. The concept of a "required list" is a logical and obvious extension of an "authorized list" to mandate rather than merely permit software. US9542571 defines "required software application list" as identifying applications "mandatory" for the owner. This is a natural progression of owner control to enforce corporate policies and ensure core functionality, as also hinted at by the problem of users circumventing policies discussed in the background.

2. Receiving an operation request and verifying availability of required applications: Given that owner control information includes a "required list," it would be obvious for a POSITA to implement a mechanism to periodically (or in response to events like operation requests or device initialization) check if these mandatory applications are indeed present and available for execution. US9542571 describes such verification, noting that the "processor 40, application loader 42, insertion module 44, or a further device component or system is configured to periodically check to ensure that each required software application is present on the mobile device 30." This verification step is a fundamental aspect of enforcing any "required" policy.

3. Disabling at least one operation if required applications are not available: If applications are "required for full operation" of an electronic device, it is an obvious enforcement mechanism for a POSITA to disable certain functionalities or the entire device if these critical applications are missing. This directly addresses the problem of users circumventing policies and ensures compliance or protects the device/network if essential software (e.g., antivirus) is absent. US9542571 explicitly states that "If required applications are missing the device is disabled in part, or in whole." This is a known method for enforcing compliance in managed IT environments.

4. Initiating download and installation of missing required applications: Once it is determined that a "required" application is missing, the most logical and efficient way to rectify the situation and restore full device operability and policy compliance is to automatically download and install the missing application. This transparent remediation step prevents prolonged device disability and reduces administrative burden. US9542571 describes this as "the device may transparently initiate download of required applications that were determined to be unavailable." This is a standard and obvious practice in system administration for software deployment and patching.

Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, seeking to create a comprehensive and robust owner control system for electronic devices as broadly taught by Little, would be motivated to extend the existing "authorized application list" concept to include "required applications." Furthermore, to effectively enforce such "required" policies and ensure device integrity/functionality, the POSITA would find it obvious to implement verification steps, disable non-compliant devices, and provide automated remediation through downloading and installing missing applications. These additions are straightforward engineering solutions to known problems in managing networked electronic devices and directly address the need for owner control beyond simple authorization, as described in the background of US9542571.

Obviousness of Independent Claim 11 (System for owner application control)

Claim 11: A system for owner application installation control of an electronic device, the system comprising:

• an owner control information store configured to store owner control information comprising a required list identifying one or more applications required for full operation of the electronic device;
• initialization processor instructions embodied on a computer readable medium, the initialization processor instructions for verifying, responsive to an operation request, that an application in the required list is available for execution on the electronic device;
• an application loader module that is invoked by the initialization instructions when the application in the required list is not available for execution and that downloads the application from an external application source and installs it on the electronic device; and
• operation control instructions embodied on a computer readable medium that disable at least one operation of the electronic device until the application loader module completes installation of the application.

Combination of Prior Art: Little (U.S. Pat. No. 7,793,355) in combination with the general knowledge of a POSITA in software and system engineering.

Reasoning: If the method described in Claim 1 is obvious, then the system configured to perform that method would also be obvious.

• Owner control information store with a required list: As established for Claim 1, creating a data store for owner control information that includes a "required list" is an obvious extension of Little's teachings.
• Initialization processor instructions for verifying: Implementing software instructions (e.g., a software module or application executed by a processor) to perform the verification steps for required applications is a standard programming task for a POSITA. US9542571 mentions the "processor 40, application loader 42, insertion module 44, or a further device component or system is configured to periodically check" for required applications.
• Application loader module for download and installation: Little already discusses an "application loader" that stores applications based on an authorized list. Modifying or extending this existing module to handle automatic downloading and installation of missing "required" applications from an external source is a routine engineering task, given the motivation for such functionality.
• Operation control instructions to disable operations: Programming instructions to disable certain device operations (e.g., restricting access to features, network connectivity, or the entire user interface) as an enforcement mechanism is well within the capabilities of a POSITA.

Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to implement the system components necessary to carry out the obvious method of Claim 1. The functional requirements to store policy, verify compliance, disable non-compliant devices, and auto-remediate missing software would naturally lead to the system architecture described in Claim 11, using well-known software and hardware design principles.

Obviousness of Independent Claim 19 (Method for designating owner control of application operations)

Claim 19: A method for designating owner control of application operations for an electronic device, the method comprising:

• receiving an operation indication of one or more operations associated with a particular application;
• generating an authorization record based upon the received operation indication and the particular application;
• storing the generated authorization record;
• receiving a device indication of one or more electronic devices subject to owner control;
• receiving a correspondence indication that associates the received device indication with one or more stored authorization records; and
• communicating one or more stored authorization records to one or more electronic devices based upon the received device indication and the received correspondence indication.

Combination of Prior Art: Little (U.S. Pat. No. 7,793,355) in combination with the general knowledge of a POSITA in system administration and user interface design for enterprise software.

Reasoning:

1. Receiving operation indication, generating, and storing authorization record: Little teaches an owner loading "policy files" or "authorization records" onto a device to restrict operations and applications. The steps of defining these policies (receiving indications of desired controls for applications) and formalizing them into a storable "authorization record" are fundamental to any policy-driven system. US9542571 shows an "exemplary user interface on a remote server for an owner to designate application control information" (FIG. 9). Such user interfaces and the underlying logic to generate and store policy data are standard in system administration tools.

2. Receiving device indication, correspondence indication, and communicating authorization records: Little describes the insertion and use of owner control information on electronic devices. To deploy these policies in an enterprise setting, a POSITA would find it obvious to identify which devices (or groups of devices, as suggested by US9542571, col. 28, lines 18-19) are subject to particular policies, associate those policies with the devices, and then communicate (distribute) the relevant authorization records to them. This involves common functionalities found in device management systems, such as device enrollment, group management, and policy push mechanisms. US9542571 reiterates this, stating "An information technology manager for the device owner can control the policy for a given set of devices by changing the provided configuration information. Such changes could then be transmitted to individual devices."

Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, building on the owner control mechanisms of Little, would naturally be motivated to create an efficient system for the owner to manage and designate these controls across multiple devices. The steps outlined in Claim 19 are standard practices for administrators managing software and policies in a networked environment. Creating a user interface or other means for an owner to input policy decisions, generate machine-readable records, and then selectively distribute those records to target devices is an obvious administrative complement to the device-side enforcement.

Disclaimer: This analysis is based on the provided patent text and readily available prior art information. A full obviousness analysis would typically involve a broader prior art search and a more detailed claim construction.

Citations:

• US9542571B2.

To provide a detailed analysis of patent term adjustments (PTA), patent term extensions (PTE), continuation/divisional applications, related family members, and the projected expiration date for US Patent 9542571, direct access to the USPTO's Patent Center or Public Search with full file history review would be ideal. As I cannot directly perform a live, interactive search and interpret the PTA/PTE certificates, I will extract information from the provided patent text and general USPTO guidance on these topics.

Patent Term Adjustments (PTA)

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) compensates patentees for certain administrative delays by the USPTO during the prosecution of a patent application. These delays generally fall into three categories: "A" delay (USPTO failure to issue a first Office action within 14 months of filing), "B" delay (USPTO failure to respond to an applicant's reply or appeal within four months, or issue a patent within four months of the issue fee payment), and "C" delay (delays due to interferences, secrecy orders, or appeals). PTA provisions apply to utility and plant patent applications filed on or after May 29, 2000. Applicant delays can reduce any awarded PTA.

The provided patent text for US9542571B2 does not explicitly state any Patent Term Adjustment awarded. To determine the exact PTA, one would need to review the "Issue Notification" in the patent's file wrapper on USPTO Patent Center. However, the Google Patents information for US9542571B2 does not list any PTA.

Patent Term Extensions (PTE)

Patent Term Extension (PTE) is available under 35 U.S.C. § 156 for patents claiming products that require regulatory approval prior to commercial marketing or use, such as human drugs, food or color additives, medical devices, animal drugs, and veterinary biological products. PTE aims to restore some of the patent term lost while awaiting premarket government approval from regulatory agencies like the FDA. The extension is limited to a maximum of five years, and the total patent life with a PTE cannot exceed 14 years from the date of marketing approval.

Based on the subject matter of US Patent 9542571, which is "System and method of owner application control of electronic devices," it is highly unlikely that this patent would be eligible for a Patent Term Extension under 35 U.S.C. § 156, as it does not appear to claim a product requiring pre-market regulatory approval. The patent text does not mention any PTE.

Continuation and Divisional Applications

• Continuation Applications: A continuation application is a follow-up patent application that claims priority to an earlier "parent" application and generally duplicates the parent's subject matter coverage, inheriting its priority date.
• Divisional Applications: A divisional application is a type of continuing application that results from a USPTO Restriction Requirement, where the USPTO determines the parent application is pursuing more than one invention.

US Patent 9542571 is explicitly identified in its "CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS" section as a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/618,311, filed Sep. 14, 2012 (which later issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,887,988). This indicates that US9542571 carries forward some of the same subject matter from the 13/618,311 application. The patent also states it is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/606,814, filed Sep. 7, 2012 (which later issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,302,185). A continuation-in-part introduces new subject matter while retaining claims to subject matter common to the parent application.

Related Family Members

The patent text for US9542571B2 outlines a complex family tree in its "CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS" section:

• Parent Applications:
  • U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/618,311, filed Sep. 14, 2012 (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,887,988 on Nov. 18, 2014).
  • U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/606,814, filed Sep. 7, 2012 (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,302,185 on Oct. 30, 2012).
• Grandparent Applications (through 13/618,311):
  • U.S. Pat. No. 7,815,100, issued on Oct. 19, 2010.
  • U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/567,163, filed Apr. 30, 2004 (priority document).
• Grandparent Applications (through 13/606,814):
  • U.S. Pat. No. 7,793,355, issued on Sep. 7, 2010.
  • U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/432,610, filed Dec. 12, 2002 (priority document).

The priority date of US9542571B2 is listed as December 12, 2002, which corresponds to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/432,610.

Projected Expiration Date

For utility patents filed on or after June 8, 1995, the patent term generally expires 20 years from the earliest filing date of the patent application, or if the application claims priority to an earlier application under 35 U.S.C. §§ 120, 121, or 365(c), then 20 years from the filing date of the earliest such application.

The earliest priority date for US9542571B2 is December 12, 2002 (from U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/432,610).

Therefore, without any Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) or Patent Term Extension (PTE), the statutory expiration date would be 20 years from December 12, 2002.

Statutory Expiration Date (without adjustments/extensions): December 12, 2002 + 20 years = December 12, 2022.

However, the Google Patents information for US9542571B2 lists the "Anticipated expiration" as 2023-12-10 and the "Legal status" as "Expired - Fee Related". This discrepancy suggests that either there was a small amount of PTA awarded (approximately 1 year) or the "anticipated expiration" on Google Patents is calculated based on a slightly different "earliest filing date" interpretation. Given the "Expired - Fee Related" status, the patent has already ceased to be enforceable. The patent's actual expiration date, considering the fee-related expiration, would be 2023-12-10.