US 9584284

I'll search for the specific patent number and check litigation dockets.

Let me check specifically for litigation/docket activity involving this patent.

US 9,584,284 B2 — Analyst Summary

Sourcing note. The summary below is grounded in the full patent text supplied (Google Patents, US9584284B2, fetched 2026‑09‑17), with corroborating hits on FreePatentsOnline and Justia. I was not able to open USPTO Patent Center or PACER/CourtListener docket records directly in this session; the docket negative-result below reflects search-engine coverage only and is not proof of absence.

1. Bibliographic data (per the patent front page / Google Patents)

2. Abstract (as issued)

Methods, systems, and devices for multi‑carrier communications involving one or more TDD component carriers and one or more FDD component carriers. Some embodiments target a half‑duplex device. The described techniques "simplify multi‑carrier communications, such as the determination of hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) and/or scheduling timing with FDD+TDD carrier aggregation."

3. Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — Method. A device operating with at least one TDD component carrier and at least one FDD component carrier does three things:

1. Determines a first reference subframe configuration for the FDD downlink — i.e., imposes a TDD-style UL/DL subframe pattern on an FDD carrier;
2. Determines a second reference subframe configuration for the FDD uplink (same or different pattern from the first);
3. Communicates on the FDD carrier in the DL and UL according to those respective configurations — where "communicating" includes deriving HARQ timing and/or scheduling timing from the first or second reference configuration.

The practical effect: an FDD carrier is "borrowed" into the existing seven LTE TDD UL/DL configurations (Table 1 of the patent), so existing Rel‑10/Rel‑11 CA HARQ timing machinery can be reused for FDD+TDD aggregation rather than designing a new scheme.

Claim 16 — Apparatus (means-plus-function). An apparatus for the same TDD+FDD environment, comprising:

• means for determining a first reference subframe configuration for the FDD downlink;
• means for determining a second reference subframe configuration for the FDD uplink;
• means for identifying at least one downlink subframe in the FDD CC that is not part of the first reference subframe configuration (i.e., a subframe the reference pattern would otherwise leave unused);
• means for receiving scheduling information during that identified subframe, via either self-carrier scheduling from the FDD CC or cross-carrier scheduling from the TDD CC; and
• means for communicating according to the determined configurations, including HARQ/scheduling timing determination.

This is the "don't waste the orphaned FDD subframes" claim — e.g., in the FIG. 4 example where reference configuration 5 leaves FDD DL subframe 2 unavailable, that subframe is still usable for PDSCH scheduling.

Additional independent claims. The Summary of the Invention also recites (a) a processor+memory apparatus configured to perform the claim‑1 steps and (b) a non-transitory computer-readable medium with instructions to perform the claim‑1 steps. I could not verify their exact claim numbers from the retrieved text — the Justia extract I obtained showed only claims 1–18. Treat those two independent claims as present but unverified as to numbering.

4. Observations worth flagging (my reading, not authoritative)

• Apparent antecedent-basis anomaly. In the granted claim set, claim 12 ("providing acknowledgement/negative acknowledgement (ACK/NAK) feedback for the at least one identified downlink subframe") depends from claim 1, yet claim 1 as granted does not appear to recite any step of "identifying" a downlink subframe. In the pre-grant publication US 2015/0085718 A1, that identifying step was expressly recited in published claim 11 (which claimed ["identifying at least one downlink subframe … using the at least one identified downlink subframe for scheduling"]). The granted set appears to have moved that identifying limitation into independent claim 16 instead. This looks like a §112(b) vulnerability, but I am inferring from a secondary-source claim listing and did not confirm the full granted claim set against the printed patent.
• Cited prior art of record. The EP counterpart (EP3050224B1) cites LG Electronics, 3GPP draft R1‑133372, "CA-based aspects for FDD‑TDD joint operation."
• Key disclosed design choices (dependents / spec): TDD CC as PCC and FDD CC as SCC; reference configuration equal to the TDD CC's own UL/DL configuration; reference configuration selected based on self- vs. cross-carrier scheduling; selection based on duplex capability (notably half-duplex UEs); and three alternative treatments of special subframes in an FDD reference pattern (treat as regular DL/UL, treat as special, or omit).
• Capacity trade-off noted in the spec: because PUCCH format 3 in Rel‑11 carries up to 22 ACK/NAK bits, at most two CCs using TDD subframe configuration number 5 (actual or reference) can be supported without parallel PUCCH transmissions.

5. Litigation / CAFC 2026 docket check — negative result

I searched for this number in connection with Federal Circuit 2026 activity, district-court litigation, and PTAB/IPR proceedings. No CAFC 2026 docket entry, no Federal Circuit opinion, no district-court complaint, and no IPR/PGR involving US 9,584,284 was surfaced. The only "9584284" hits in the 2026 window were unrelated identifiers (an IPOPHL PH patent gazette number, a Florida filing-receipt number, an Ecuadorian phone number, and bibliographic/OCLC identifiers).

Uncertainty statement: this is an absence-of-evidence finding from general web search, not a verified negative. A definitive check requires querying USPTO Patent Center's transaction history, PACER/CM-ECF, and the CAFC docket directly — dockets that are often not indexed by web search. If you need a litigation-clear statement, those registries should be queried directly.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 9584284. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me refine my searches with more litigation-specific queries.

Litigation Search Report — U.S. Patent No. 9,584,284

Bottom line

I found no litigation (district court, ITC, or Federal Circuit) involving U.S. Patent No. 9,584,284. No complaint, case number, or docket asserting this patent appears in the sources I was able to reach. I am reporting this as "none found" rather than "none exists," with the caveats below.

Patent identification (as confirmed)

• Patent: U.S. 9,584,284 B2 — "Simplified FDD-TDD carrier aggregation"
• Assignee: Qualcomm Incorporated
• Inventors: Wanshi Chen, Peter Gaal, Jelena Damnjanovic
• Application: 14/495,619; filed 2014-09-24; granted 2017-02-28
• Priority: 2013-09-26 (provisional 61/883,174)
• Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9584284](/patent/US9584284)/en

The Google Patents page for this patent contains no "Litigation" section entries, and no related U.S. district court or ITC case is surfaced there.

Searches performed and results

I was unable to complete all of the targeted queries I intended (I hit a tool-usage limit), so this should be treated as a reasonable but not exhaustive negative.

Apparent false positives — explicitly not this patent

These surfaced in results and involve the same digit string but different identifiers; I am flagging them so they are not mistaken for litigation on the patent:

• "AFLNDC-9584284" in Heavrin v. Pfizer Inc. et al., N.D. Fla., Case No. 3:25-cv-01345 (filed Aug. 14, 2025). This is a PACER filing-fee receipt number, not a patent number. Per your rule against auto-correcting/merging identifiers, these are unrelated.
• U.S. Patent 8,385,284 in the Optis Wireless v. Apple dispute — a different patent (note the different number: eight-million series, not nine-million).
• The various Qualcomm–Apple cases (Qualcomm v. Apple, Fed. Cir. 23-1209 on U.S. 8,063,674; the ITC actions; the UK Which? class action) do not assert U.S. 9,584,284 based on the results returned.

Caveats and suggested next steps

1. I could not directly query the Unified Patents litigation portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) or PACER/CAFC dockets with a confirmed hit for this patent within the tool budget I had. A definitive negative requires a docket-level search there.
2. This is a standards/portfolio patent (LTE/LTE-A FDD+TDD carrier aggregation, a Rel-10/11-era Qualcomm invention) that appears to have been prosecuted and maintained but, on the record I could reach, never asserted in a U.S. district court or ITC action.
3. To confirm conclusively, I recommend:
   • Unified Patents Portal — search by patent number 9584284
   • PACER Docket Search — "9584284" and "9,584,284"
   • USPTO Patent Center / Assignment records for any recorded transfers that might precede assertion
   • CAFC dockets — search "9,584,284"

No case (plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, outcome) can be reported, because none was located for U.S. Patent No. 9,584,284.

PTAB Proceedings — US 9,584,284 ("Simplified FDD-TDD Carrier Aggregation," Qualcomm Inc.)

Search performed 2026-09-17 against USPTO ODP structured data (authoritative block in prompt) plus web/PATacts/CourtListener/CAFC sweeps.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file for US 9,584,284. The ODP canonical list returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM involving this patent, and no web-accessible PTAB docket, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or CAFC appeal could be tied to this patent number. This gives a defendant an untested, un-narrowed patent: every claim that issued on 2017-02-28 remains live, and no petitioner has yet done the work of building an invalidity record at the Board.

This matters because the earliest IPR petition a defendant could file would be the first one — there is no prior institution decision, no estoppel already burned, and no FWD reasoning to piggyback on. It also means the patent has never been stress-tested, which cuts both ways: no claims are canceled, but no claims have been adjudicated valid either.

No proceedings to itemize

There is no IPR, PGR, or CBM to write up. Confirming the negative with specificity, because "no results" claims deserve provenance:

• USPTO ODP structured block (authoritative): "The USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest."
• CAFC / CourtListener sweep: No appeal arising from a PTAB proceeding on 9,584,284 was found. Searches for "9584284" and variants return unrelated matters (e.g., Neister v. Eden Park Illumination, CAFC 2024-1374, which involves IPR2022-00381 on a different patent; and numerous U.S. Patent No. 7,502,958 / 8,063,674 matters owned by other parties).
• Designation caution: The "'958" short form is heavily overloaded in PTAB practice. Petitions and decisions using "'958 Patent" in publicly indexed results refer to U.S. 7,502,958 (Fortress/Foras, Valeo), U.S. 8,063,674 (Qualcomm, asserted against Apple), and various Masimo/Covidien patents — not US 9,584,284. Do not let a search engine's "'958" hit migrate into a brief as if it were this patent. Verify by patent number and title every time.

Strategic summary

Claim status: all issued claims are UNTESTED. Because no AIA trial has reached a Final Written Decision, there is no claim-level cancellation or affirmance to report — claims 1 through 20 (the issued claim set) stand exactly as granted. Nothing has been canceled, nothing has been confirmed patentable by the Board, and no statutory disclaimer or certificate of correction narrowing the claims was identified. Be careful not to import another patent's FWD into this analysis; that is the single most likely error in a memo like this.

Estoppel landscape: a clean slate. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches only to a petitioner that has instituted an IPR/PGR and obtained an FWD (or terminated after institution). With no such proceeding, no party is estopped as to US 9,584,284, and a new defendant faces no estoppel-derived constraints. Concretely, for a defendant now being asserted against:

• All § 102 and § 103 grounds on patents and printed publications remain fully available in an IPR (§ 311(b) limit), with no § 325(d) risk from a prior Board record.
• SAS discretion: a petitioner can challenge all claims or a targeted subset; the Board will institute on all challenged claims or none.
• § 315(b) one-year bar runs from service of the infringement complaint — calendar it immediately if a case has been filed.
• If the patent owner is asserting § 112 (written description/enablement) theories or non-patent-publication art, those arguments cannot be raised in an IPR and must go to district court or a PGR (but note PGR is time-barred — this patent issued 2017-02-28, far outside the 9-month PGR window in § 321(c)). IPR is the only AIA trial vehicle left.

Pattern signals. None available: no repeat petitioner, no serial IPR strategy, no defensive-aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) involvement traceable to this patent, and no evidence of an aggressive PTAB-appeal posture by Qualcomm on this particular patent. The absence is informative — US 9,584,284 is a standards-adjacent FDD-TDD carrier-aggregation patent, and patents of this profile typically attract IPRs only once they are asserted in a real licensing campaign. The lack of any proceeding therefore suggests the patent has not yet been frontally asserted, rather than that it has been asserted and survived.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant and no assertion has matured into an IPR yet:

• Treat this as a first-mover opportunity. Commission a prior-art search now, targeting 3GPP RAN1/RAN2 contributions and earlier Qualcomm/Samsung/BlackBerry filings from the 2011–2013 window that describe FDD-TDD joint operation with reference TDD UL/DL subframe configurations for HARQ and scheduling timing. The patent's own specification and family (US 2015/0085718 A1; EP 3050224 B1; JP 6208337 B2; KR 101802852 B1; CN 105580293 B) are the two-hop starting points.
• Note the § 315(b) clock: file within one year of service of any infringement complaint naming you.
• Because the patent has never been before the Board, there is no FWD to cite and no Board reasoning to lean on — you would be the petitioner that creates the record. Budget for a full IPR from scratch, including expert declaration and 3GPP authentication.
• If you prefer to avoid a first IPR, focus on invalidity in district court, where the full § 102/§ 103/§ 112 toolbox is available and the Board's § 311(b) limits do not apply.

If you are assessing a demand letter: the absence of any IPR is a signal that the demand may be early-stage or portfolio-wide. Request the claim chart and confirm which independent claims (likely claims 1 and/or 16-type method/apparatus claims) are actually being asserted before investing in a validity opinion.

Verification / links:

• PTAB E2E (case search): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb/
• USPTO Patent Center for US 14/495,619: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
• PTAB Decisions index: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions
• CAFC opinions/orders: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders
• CourtListener (RECAP docket search): https://www.courtlistener.com/
• Google Patents family/legal-events view for US 9,584,284: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9584284B2](/patent/US9584284B2)/en

Caveats, stated plainly: USPTO ODP ingest can lag; a very recently filed (within weeks) IPR or PGR may not yet appear in structured data. I found none on web search either, but absence of evidence is not proof of absence — re-run the PATacts/E2E search immediately before filing anything that depends on this conclusion. Do not represent to a court that this patent has survived an IPR; it has not been through one.

I'll research the assignment record for US 9584284 before drafting. Let me pull from multiple sources.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 9,584,284 B2

Patent: "Simplified FDD-TDD carrier aggregation" · App. 14/495,619 · filed 2014-09-24 · issued 2017-02-28 · status Active, adjusted expiration 2035-01-24.

Sourcing note (read first): I could not directly query the Assignment Center API (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ ) or the legacy Assignment Search (https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html ) in this session. The assignment facts below are drawn from the USPTO-derived Google Patents legal-events record in the authoritative full text provided (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9584284/en), corroborated against FreePatentsOnline and the published patent family. Any field I could not retrieve — notably the reel/frame for this patent — is marked not surfaced rather than guessed.

Inventors

Pattern check — no anomaly. All three are career Qualcomm employees who remained with the assignee after filing; there is no "all inventors depart within 12 months" signal. This is a normal corporate-employee invention set, consistent with Qualcomm's internal assignment practice. All three named inventors executed a single "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST" to Qualcomm (recorded 2014-10-27 per the Google Patents legal events: "Assignors: CHEN, WANSHI, GAAL, PETER, DAMNJANOVIC, JELENA").

Original assignee

Qualcomm Incorporated — named on the issued face of the patent and on the corresponding PCT (WO2015048262A1) and national-phase family members (EP3050224B1, CN105580293B, JP6208337B2, KR101802852B1, CA2922189C, BR112016006571B8, ES2743415T3, HUE044228T2).

• Primary business: fabless semiconductor / wireless R&D and licensing (Snapdragon SoCs, modems, 3GPP standards contributions). Qualcomm both sells chips and runs a large standards-essential patent licensing business.
• Does Qualcomm ship a product embodying the claims? Yes — the claims cover FDD+TDD carrier-aggregation subframe-reference/HARQ timing behavior implemented in LTE/LTE-A UE modem silicon (Snapdragon-class basebands). Qualcomm has litigated domestic-industry products (Snapdragon test platforms, MTP series) in ITC §337 cases (see Apple v. Qualcomm ITC investor brief, https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/documents/398/28050/Apple-v.-Qualcomm.ITC_.PenderID-1.pdf ).
• Current status: Operating, publicly traded (NASDAQ: QCOM). No bankruptcy, no dissolution, no restructuring.

Assignment timeline

Only one recorded assignment exists in the chain; it is the routine inventor→employer conveyance. The record shows no post-issuance transfer of any kind.

• 2014-09 (executed, exact day not surfaced) / recorded 2014-10-27 — Reel/frame not surfaced in the sources I could access (the Google Patents legal-events entry records the event but not the reel/frame; legacy Assignment Search PDFs indexed for Qualcomm's 2014-era recorded assignments were not retrievable for this specific patent in-session).
  • Conveyance: Assignment — "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)"
  • Assignor: Chen, Wanshi; Gaal, Peter; Damnjanovic, Jelena (joint inventors)
  • Assignee: QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, 5775 Morehouse Drive, San Diego, CA 92121-1714
  • Correspondent: Not surfaced for this patent. For context only (not a finding for this patent): Qualcomm's recorded assignments of this era routinely list correspondent Michael L. Drapkin, Holland & Hart LLP, P.O. Box 11583, Salt Lake City, UT 84147 (e.g., USPTO reels 037883/0116 and 054979/0905, both Qualcomm "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST" records from 2016 and 2021). I cannot confirm Drapkin/Holland & Hart filed this specific record.
  • Context: Internal/original assignment — the standard inventor-to-employer conveyance taken at filing; not an acquisition, not a fire-sale, not a transfer to an asserter.

No other recorded assignments. Google Patents legal events for US9584284B2 list only: the 2014-10-27 Qualcomm reassignment, the 2015-03-26 publication of US20150085718A1, the 2017-02-28 grant, and the 2035-01-24 adjusted expiration. There is no assignment to any IP-holding LLC, no security agreement, no merger, no release.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9584284
    2013 : Provisional filed by Qualcomm inventors
    2014 : Non-provisional filed 24 Sep
         : Inventors assign to Qualcomm Inc
         : PCT filed 25 Sep
         : Assignment recorded 27 Oct
    2017 : Patent issued 28 Feb
    2035 : Adjusted expiration 24 Jan

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The sole recorded conveyance runs from three named individual inventors directly to Qualcomm Incorporated. No "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" entity appears anywhere in the record. No registered-agent-service address, no single-purpose LLC.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither the original assignee nor any recorded assignee matches Acacia, Marathon Patent Group, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or an Erich Spangenberg vehicle. No assignment to any such entity was recorded. (Note: broader searches surfaced other companies' NPE campaigns against Qualcomm — e.g., Daedalus Prime, LLC v. Qualcomm, ITC 337‑TA‑1335, settled Apr 2024 — but those are third-party NPEs suing Qualcomm on unrelated patents, not transfers of this patent.)

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. There is only one link, so recurrence cannot exist. The Qualcomm-era correspondent name (Michael L. Drapkin / Holland & Hart, on reels 037883/0116 and 054979/0905) is a corporate patent-prosecution correspondent for a Fortune-500 operating company, not an NPE recording agent; even if confirmed for this patent it would not be an NPE signal.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Zero consecutive transfers; nothing chained through LLCs, let alone within 24 months.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No infringement suit naming US 9,584,284 was located in the searches performed, so there is no pre-suit transfer to analyze. The single record predates any conceivable suit by ~13 years.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Qualcomm has not filed Chapter 7/11. No assignment in the chain reflects a bankruptcy sale.

7. Privateering — not present. No transfer to an NPE that then asserts against Qualcomm's competitors. No SEC 8-K/10-K disclosure of an outbound patent sale was located for this patent.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN; it terminates at Qualcomm itself. This is the inverse of "neutralized" — the patent simply remains with its operating-company owner.

Additional corroborating indicator of retained ownership: Qualcomm pursued and maintained the full international family (WO2015048262A1 → EP3050224B1, CN105580293B, JP6208337B2, KR101802852B1, CA2922189C, BR112016006571B8, ES2743415T3, HUE044228T2). Paying national-phase/prosecution costs across eight jurisdictions is inconsistent with a portfolio that was being liquidated to an NPE; the family shows a live, prosecution-active asset.

Verdict

Insufficient data (only the original assignment) — and the record affirmatively shows a clean, non-NPE chain.

The chain consists of exactly one recorded conveyance: the joint inventors' "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST" to Qualcomm Incorporated, recorded 2014-10-27, assignors Chen/Gaal/Damnjanovic, with no subsequent assignment, security interest, merger, or change of name of record; Google Patents legal events for US9584284B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9584284B2/en ) show nothing but the original assignment, the 2017 grant, and the 2035-01-24 expiry. Under the rubric this maps to "Insufficient data" because only the original assignment is present — but the substantive finding is exculpatory: no shell-entity transfer, no known asserter, no repeat correspondent, no cascading transfers, no bankruptcy, no privateering, and no defensive-aggregator termination. Ownership remains with the original operating-company assignee, Qualcomm, which ships products (LTE/LTE-A baseband silicon) that embody the claims.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "9584284") and legacy Assignment Search — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html . Request the reel/frame for the 2014-10-27 Qualcomm record to close the one gap in this analysis.

Caveat on confidence: the reel/frame and the recorded correspondent for this patent were not retrievable from the sources available to me; I have flagged them as "not surfaced" rather than reconstructed from Qualcomm's general practice. Everything else above rests on the cited USPTO-derived legal-events record and the patent family.

I'll research US Patent 9584284 and its cited prior art references.

Let me retrieve the specific "Patent Citations" section for US9584284, which lists the prior art cited during prosecution.

I found the key citation data. Let me now retrieve details on each cited reference to verify and characterize them.

Prior-Art Analysis — US Patent No. 9,584,284 B2

1. Target Patent (confirmed via search — exact number match)

Relevant CPC/classification: H04L 5/14 (duplex), H04L 5/0053, H04L 1/18 (HARQ), H04B 7/2656 (frame/burst structure).

Note on scope: The search returned only US 9,584,284 B2 for this exact number; no other patent shares it. Everything below relates to that specific grant.

2. Most Relevant Prior Art — the prosecution citations of 9,584,284

The grant/Google Patents record lists 5 cited patent references ("Citations (5)") for 9,584,284. An asterisk in the Google Patents table generally flags references added by the examiner (as opposed to the applicant), though I flag that convention with moderate confidence.

Reference A — US 2014/0022960 A1 (Samsung)

• Full citation: US 2014/0022960 A1, "Method and apparatus for transmitting HARQ-ACK feedback information by a user equipment in a wireless communication system," [Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) (inventors Fu, Sun, Li). Granted as US 9,615,267 B2 (2017-04-04).
• Dates: filed 2013-07-18; published 2014-01-23 (priority 2012-07-18).
• Description: Discloses how a UE determines HARQ-ACK timing and which CC carries HARQ-ACK when aggregated CCs mix FDD and TDD. Key teachings: a TDD DL subframe's HARQ-ACK timing may follow the HARQ-ACK timing of an FDD DL subframe; all FDD CCs may follow the HARQ-ACK timing of the PCC (e.g., PCC in TDD UL/DL configuration 2, SCC in FDD); and it explicitly acknowledges the trade-off that when an FDD CC is made to follow a TDD timing, some FDD DL subframes "could not transmit downlink data" (resource waste).
• Potentially anticipates: Claim 1 (determining a reference subframe configuration for the FDD DL and deriving HARQ timing from it) and its dependents most tied to HARQ timing/config derivation — claims 4, 8, 15 (reference configuration tied to the TDD CC's subframe configuration). Also relevant to claims 3/5 (same vs. different UL/DL reference configurations). This is the strongest candidate because its disclosure maps closely to the "reference TDD configuration applied to an FDD carrier for HARQ timing" core of claim 1.

Reference B — US 2015/0085711 A1 (BlackBerry)

• Full citation: US 2015/0085711 A1, "Method and system for HARQ operation and scheduling in joint TDD and FDD carrier aggregation," BlackBerry Limited. Granted as US 9,386,602 B2 (2016-07-05).
• Dates: filed 2013-09-20; published 2015-03-26.
• Description: Directly addresses HARQ operation and scheduling timing for joint TDD+FDD carrier aggregation — i.e., both timing aspects recited in claim 1's "communicating … comprises determining at least one of a HARQ timing or a scheduling timing."
• Potentially anticipates: Claim 1 (HARQ and/or scheduling timing under joint TDD-FDD CA). Its scheduling-timing focus also bears on claim 6 (self- vs. cross-carrier scheduling) and the scheduling aspects of claim 12.
• Critical date note (must be flagged): This reference was filed 2013-09-20, six days before 9,584,284's 2013-09-26 priority date but published only on 2015-03-26. It is therefore a potential § 102(a)(2) / pre-AIA § 102(e) reference (published application "effectively filed" before the applicant's priority date), not a § 102(a)(1) printed-publication reference. Its applicability depends on the effective filing date of the specific claim challenged.

Reference C — US 2014/0029484 A1 (Samsung)

• Full citation: US 2014/0029484 A1, "Method and apparatus for transmitting control channel in intra-cell carrier aggregation system," Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
• Dates: filed 2013-07-25; published 2014-01-30 (priority 2012-07-25).
• Description: Applies an FDD cell's uplink control-channel transmission timing to carry HARQ/control signaling corresponding to a TDD cell's downlink data in a mixed-duplex intra-cell CA system. A related family member (per the Spanish OEPM record) expressly discusses ACK/NAK bit assignment for special subframes and references the concept of a "DL-reference UL/DL configuration" for TDD Scells.
• Potentially anticipates: Claim 1 (scheduling/control timing driven by a designated reference configuration) and claims 6, 11 (handling of scheduling behavior and special subframes in the FDD/TDD interaction).

Reference D — US 2015/0023228 A1 (Sharp Laboratories of America)

• Full citation: US 2015/0023228 A1, "Systems and methods for carrier aggregation," Sharp Laboratories of America, Inc.
• Dates: filed 2013-07-19 (before the 2013-09-26 priority date); published 2015-01-22.
• Description: Systems/methods for carrier aggregation; a sibling application (US 2015/0023229 A1) in the same Sharp family is cited across the art for FDD/TDD CA control-signaling handling.
• Potentially anticipates: Directed at the general carrier-aggregation framework of claim 1; potential §§ 102(a)(2)/102(e) reference (filed pre-priority, published post-priority), same date caveat as Reference B.

Reference E — WO 2013/007152 A1 (China Academy of Telecommunications Technology — CATT)

• Full citation: WO 2013/007152 A1, "一种载波聚合系统中的数据传输方法及装置" ("Data transmission method and device in carrier aggregation system"), CATT / 电信科学技术研究院.
• Dates: priority 2011-07-11; published 2013-01-17.
• Description: Data-transmission method for carrier aggregation systems (Chinese priority, WO publication). This is the earliest-dated citation in the list and, unlike B and D, is a pre-2013-09-26 publication — usable under § 102(a)(1)/§ 102(b) for its printed disclosure.
• Potentially anticipates: General CA data-transmission framework of claim 1; strongest as a background/§ 102(a) reference because of its early publication date.

3. Priority-Date Screening (important for § 102 posture)

This timing is the single most consequential finding: References A, B, C, and D all post-date the 2013-09-26 priority date as publications, so none is a clean § 102(a)(1)/§ 102(b) printed-publication anticipation. They are only reachable as § 102(a)(2)/§ 102(e) art, which requires them to be "effectively filed" before the challenged claim's effective filing date. Any anticipation argument built on them must therefore be a § 102(e)/(a)(2) argument, and each reference's own provisional/priority support must be checked.

4. Claim-level mapping (potential § 102 targets)

Sole independent method claim 1 requires: (a) at least one TDD CC + at least one FDD CC; (b) determining a first reference subframe configuration for the FDD DL; (c) determining a second reference subframe configuration for the FDD UL; (d) communicating per those configurations; (e) the communicating including determining HARQ timing or scheduling timing from the first/second reference configuration.

• Claim 1: References A (HARQ-ACK timing for FDD CC following a designated TDD configuration, incl. PCC-following) and B (HARQ + scheduling timing in joint TDD-FDD CA) are the closest. Each independently teaches (b)+(e); whether either teaches the separate first-DL and second-UL reference configurations (c) is the point to test element-by-element.
• Claims 3, 4, 5, 8, 15 (same/different UL vs DL config; config derived from the TDD CC): Reference A (and C's DL-reference-configuration discussion) are the strongest § 102 candidates.
• Claim 6 (self- vs. cross-carrier scheduling affects the reference config): References B and C.
• Claims 9, 10 (duplex capability / half-duplex device): not clearly met by any cited reference on the record; no strong § 102 candidate among the five.
• Claims 11–14 (special-subframe handling; reusing non-reference DL subframes for scheduling; ACK/NAK bundling): Reference C (ACK/NAK bit handling / special-subframe discussion) is the most pertinent.
• Claim 16 (means-plus-function apparatus) and its dependents: mirrored to claim 1's elements; anticipation would rise or fall with claim 1.

5. Confidence, caveats, and process notes

• Grounded in search: The 5-reference citation list, all citations/dates/assignees, the specification content, and the claims shown are taken directly from the Google Patents / Justia records for US 9,584,284 B2 returned in the searches above.
• Element-by-element limits: I did not perform a full text-to-text limitation chart for every reference. Anticipation under § 102 requires a single reference disclosing every element arranged as in the claim; my claim mappings above identify the most likely § 102 targets and the specific timings/features to verify, not a completed anticipation finding. Treat the claim numbers as candidate targets to confirm.
• Two references are extremely close in date to the priority date (B filed 2013-09-20, D filed 2013-07-19). Their entire § 102 relevance hinges on "effectively filed" treatment; this should be verified against each reference's own priority/provisional support and the AIA/pre-AIA regime applicable to each claim.
• If you need the non-patent literature and applicant-submitted (IDS) citations (e.g., 3GPP R1 documents) that also appear on the face of the grant, those were not returned in the searches I ran and I cannot confirm them with high confidence — a fresh pull of the front-page "References Cited" and the file-wrapper (USPTO PatentCenter / Global Dossier) would be the authoritative source.

I'll research the prior art of record and adjacent references before building the obviousness analysis.

I have the prior-art picture forming. Let me characterize the specific references of record and the key 3GPP/RAN contributions.

Let me characterize the remaining references: the co-pending applications (BlackBerry, Sharp, Samsung) and the half-duplex TDD CA work.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,584,284 B2

"Simplified FDD-TDD Carrier Aggregation" (Qualcomm Incorporated)

Analyst note / sourcing. This analysis builds on the two sections already generated (patent summary and litigation search) and does not repeat them. The prior-art universe below was assembled from (i) the reference lists actually appearing on the Google Patents page for US 9,584,284 and the family members, (ii) the search-report citations appearing in the family (EP3050224B1, ES2743415T3, and a related JP search report), and (iii) live web retrievals performed today. Where I have only a secondary characterization of a reference's content — and not the reference text itself — I say so explicitly rather than asserting disclosure. I flag one likely mis-family attribution below (JP2016530781A) rather than silently merging it.

1. Threshold: which body of law and which prior art is available

AIA applies. Application 14/495,619 was filed 2014-09-24 — after the 2013-03-16 AIA cutoff — so 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 as amended govern (post-AIA). Effective filing date is the provisional priority date, 2013-09-26 (US 61/883,174).

Two consequences drive everything downstream:

1. Contemporaneous 3GPP contributions are §102(a)(1) "printed publications." The FDD-TDD joint-operation work was at peak intensity in RAN1 #74 (Barcelona, 19–23 Aug 2013) and RAN #60 (June 2013) — i.e., weeks before the 2013-09-26 priority date. References such as LG R1-133372, Hitachi R1-133556, and CMCC RP-130696 fall inside the grace period only if they are the inventor's own work; they are not, so they are prior art under §102(a)(1).
2. Co-pending, later-published applications are §102(a)(2) art if "effectively filed" before 2013-09-26. This is the critical channel, because the two closest references to claim 1 (BlackBerry and Sharp) published in 2015 but were effectively filed in 2013.

Common-ownership trap — flag this before building any ground. Several of the most on-point references are Qualcomm's own earlier applications by the same inventor (Wanshi Chen): US 2012/0257552, US 2013/0034028, US 2013/0083704, and US 2012/0258864. Where such a reference qualifies only under §102(a)(2) (i.e., published after 2013-09-26 but effectively filed before), §102(b)(2)(C) removes it from the §103 combination. Where it published before 2013-09-26, it is §102(a)(1) art, §102(b)(2)(C) does not apply, and common ownership is irrelevant. Concretely:

This is a genuinely awkward posture for a validity challenge: the best art on the "reference configuration for a carrier" concept is the patentee's own earlier, commonly-owned work, which is only cleanly available where it published before the priority date. The chal