US 9615192

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 9615192:

US Patent 9615192

• Title: Message link server with plural message delivery triggers
• Assignee: Headwater Research LLC
• Inventor: Gregory G. Raleigh
• Filing Date: July 15, 2016
• Issue Date: April 4, 2017

Abstract:
The patent describes a message link server designed with multiple triggers for message delivery. It outlines a method for managing wireless network usage, which involves receiving several messages from a wireless communication device, each with a specific message type. The method then determines a first message delivery trigger for a first message type and a second message delivery trigger for a second message type. A response message is subsequently delivered to the wireless communication device based on both the first and second message delivery triggers.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1: This claim describes a computer-implemented method for managing how a wireless communication device uses a network. The method involves:

  1. Receiving multiple messages from the wireless device, each with its own type.
  2. Identifying a first trigger for delivering a message, which is linked to a first type of message.
  3. Identifying a second trigger for delivering a message, which is linked to a second type of message.
  4. Sending a response message back to the wireless device based on both of these identified triggers.

• Independent Claim 10: This claim describes a message link server that handles message delivery. The server includes:

  1. A processor.
  2. A memory that stores instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the server to perform actions similar to Claim 1. These actions include receiving multiple messages (each with a type) from a wireless device, determining first and second message delivery triggers linked to different message types, and then delivering a response message to the device based on these triggers.

• Independent Claim 15: This claim also describes a computer program product that manages wireless network usage. The product is embodied on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and contains instructions that, when run by a processor, cause a system to:

  1. Receive multiple messages from a wireless communication device, with each message having an associated type.
  2. Determine a first message delivery trigger corresponding to a first message type.
  3. Determine a second message delivery trigger corresponding to a second message type.
  4. Deliver a response message to the wireless communication device based on both the first and second message delivery triggers.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
As of April 26, 2026, a search of the provided resources did not yield specific dockets for US Patent 9615192 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) for the year 2026. However, the patent family has been involved in several district court and PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) litigations in 2026, including cases filed in the Texas Western District Court, Texas Eastern District Court, California Eastern District Court, and California Northern District Court, as well as a PTAB case IPR2026-00154.

US Patent 9615192, titled "Message link server with plural message delivery triggers," has been involved in several litigation cases. The current assignee of the patent is Headwater Research LLC.

Here's a summary of known litigation:

• Headwater Research LLC v. Verizon Communications

  • Plaintiff(s): Headwater Research LLC
  • Defendant(s): Verizon Communications (also Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless)
  • Jurisdiction: Eastern District of Texas
  • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00709 (This specific case number is for the voluntary dismissal without prejudice, other cases against Verizon may exist)
  • Filing Date: July 11, 2025
  • Outcome/Current Status: In a case filed July 11, 2025, in the Eastern District of Texas, Headwater Research LLC's patent infringement action against Cellco Partnership (dba Verizon Wireless) was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on September 26, 2025. This means Headwater Research can refile the same patent claims against Verizon or other defendants in the future.
    • It should be noted that a jury verdict of $175,000,000 was awarded to Headwater Research LLC against Verizon Communications on July 24, 2025, for infringement of two of Headwater's asserted patents. It's not explicitly stated if US9615192 was one of those two patents in that specific verdict, but it confirms Headwater's active litigation against Verizon.

• Headwater Research LLC v. Samsung Electronics

  • Plaintiff(s): Headwater Research LLC
  • Defendant(s): Samsung Electronics
  • Jurisdiction: Eastern District of Texas
  • Case Number: Specific case number not provided in search results for the dismissal with prejudice, but a related case mentioned in context of standing was assigned to Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated, but a jury award was made on April 25, 2025.
  • Outcome/Current Status: The Eastern District of Texas granted a joint motion to dismiss Headwater's claims against Samsung with prejudice, meaning Headwater cannot refile the same claims against Samsung on the patents involved in that specific case. Samsung's counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice. This outcome typically reflects a confidential settlement or licensing agreement. The case involved US 9,609,510, US 11,096,055, and US 11,405,429, not explicitly US9615192 in the dismissal details.
    • Prior to this, on April 25, 2025, a jury awarded Headwater Research $278.8 million in damages against Samsung for patent infringement, following a ruling on April 20, 2025, that Headwater had standing to sue. It is important to note that the specific patents involved in this verdict are not explicitly named in the context of the verdict summary.

• Headwater Research LLC v. Supercell Oy

  • Plaintiff(s): Headwater Research LLC
  • Defendant(s): Supercell Oy
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00964
  • Filing Date: September 18, 2025
  • Outcome/Current Status: This case is currently "Open." US Patent 9615192 B2 is listed among the patents in this litigation. There have been motions related to staying proceedings.

Additionally, Google Patents indicates that the patent family has been involved in several other litigations:

• Texas Western District Court:
  • Case: 7:25-cv-00286
  • Case: 7:25-cv-00371
  • Case: 7:25-cv-00231
• PTAB Cases:
  • IPR2024-00010 (Settlement)
  • IPR2026-00154 (Not Instituted - Procedural)
  • IPR2026-00088 (Pending - Instituted)
• Texas Eastern District Court:
  • Case: 2:25-cv-00962
  • Case: 2:25-cv-00965
  • Case: 2:25-cv-00963
  • Case: 2:23-cv-00103
• California Eastern District Court:
  • Case: 5:24-mc-80255
• California Northern District Court:
  • Case: 3:26-cv-01460
  • Case: 5:26-cv-01460
  • Case: 5:26-cv-01545

Specific plaintiff(s), defendant(s), and detailed status for each of these additional cases are not provided in the readily available Google Patents litigation data.

Proceedings overview

There are two AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 9615192: one has reached a status of Discretionary Denial, and the other is currently at the Trial Instituted stage. This indicates that the patent has had one IPR denied institution and one IPR is active in trial.

IPR2026-00088 — Amazon.com Services LLC et al. v. Headwater Research LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-11-10
• Status: Trial Instituted (The PTAB has decided to institute a trial on the patentability of challenged claims.)
• Judge panel: Not publicly available yet in general search results, typically found in the institution decision document itself.
• Petition grounds: Information on specific claims challenged, prior art used, and statutory basis (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) is detailed in the petition and institution decision, which will be retrieved.
• Institution decision: Instituted. As the status is "Trial Instituted", the PTAB found that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable. The institution decision would outline the specific claims and grounds for which trial was instituted.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not yet issued. Given the filing date of 2025-11-10, the statutory one-year deadline for a Final Written Decision would typically be around 2026-11-10.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement or termination information is publicly available at this stage.
• Appeal: Not applicable at this stage as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This active proceeding means that the patentability of some claims is currently being challenged. The outcome of this IPR could significantly impact the strength of the patent. If institution was broad, a defendant should monitor this IPR closely, as an invalidation of key claims would weaken the patent owner's position.

IPR2026-00154 — Target Corporation v. Headwater Research LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-11-25
• Status: Discretionary Denial (The PTAB declined to institute a trial, potentially based on factors like judicial economy or parallel litigation, rather than solely on the merits of the unpatentability grounds).
• Judge panel: Not publicly available yet in general search results, typically found in the institution decision document itself.
• Petition grounds: Information on specific claims challenged, prior art used, and statutory basis (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) is detailed in the petition and institution decision, which will be retrieved.
• Institution decision: Denied. The IPR was denied institution on 2026-04-23 on discretionary grounds. This indicates that while the merits of the unpatentability arguments may have been considered, the denial was based on other factors, such as the stage of parallel district court litigation or other considerations outlined in cases like Fintiv.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable as institution was denied.
• Appeal: No appeal information is publicly available given the discretionary denial.
• Defensive value: The discretionary denial in this IPR means that Target Corporation was unable to proceed with its challenge. This strengthens the patent owner's position against future IPRs on similar grounds, particularly if the discretionary denial was based on grounds that would apply to other potential petitioners. For a defendant, this outcome indicates that pursuing an IPR on similar grounds or against the same claims might face similar discretionary hurdles.

Strategic summary

At present, US Patent 9615192 has faced two AIA trial proceedings. One IPR (IPR2026-00154) was denied institution on discretionary grounds, meaning its claims were not substantively reviewed for patentability by the PTAB. The other IPR (IPR2026-00088) has been instituted, and the trial is currently pending, meaning the patentability of some claims is under active review. Therefore, as of today, no claims of US9615192 have been canceled by the PTAB. All claims remain patentable until a Final Written Decision is issued in IPR2026-00088 or any other future proceeding.

The estoppel landscape currently only applies to Target Corporation and its privies for IPR2026-00154, barring them from re-litigating grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in that petition. However, since institution was denied on discretionary grounds, the scope of estoppel may be narrower than if a full merits-based review had occurred. For Amazon.com Services LLC, if IPR2026-00088 proceeds to a Final Written Decision, estoppel under § 315(e)(2) will apply to the claims and grounds that were part of the instituted trial. The presence of Amazon.com Services LLC as a petitioner signals a significant defendant actively challenging the patent.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent, the ongoing IPR2026-00088 by Amazon.com Services LLC is the most critical development. It is recommended to closely monitor this proceeding, especially the institution decision document (if publicly available via the USPTO PTAB E2E system), to understand which specific claims were challenged and on what grounds. The Final Written Decision for IPR2026-00088 is anticipated around November 10, 2026, and its outcome will be highly impactful.

Given the discretionary denial in IPR2026-00154, a new IPR petition should carefully consider the grounds for that denial (e.g., Fintiv factors) and formulate arguments or adjust timing to mitigate such risks.## Proceedings overview
There are two AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 9615192: one resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, and the other is currently in the trial stage. This indicates that while one challenge was dismissed without a full merits review, another is actively proceeding, meaning the patentability of certain claims is still contested.

IPR2026-00088 — Amazon.com Services LLC et al. v. Headwater Research LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-11-10
• Status: Trial Instituted (The PTAB has decided to institute a trial on the patentability of challenged claims).
• Judge panel: The institution decision was issued under the authority of John A. Squires, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. (Further details on the specific Administrative Patent Judges for the trial will be in the full institution document, which is needed for precise naming.)
• Petition grounds: Specific claims challenged, the prior art asserted, and the statutory bases (§ 102 for anticipation or § 103 for obviousness) will be detailed in the institution decision document. This information is not available in the general snippets provided.
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2026-04-06. The Director determined that the petition demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable, leading to the institution of trial. The full reasoning for institution, including which claims and grounds were found sufficient, is contained within the "Institution Decision: Grant" document (Paper 11) available through the USPTO PTAB Open Data Portal.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not yet issued. Given the filing date of 2025-11-10, the statutory one-year deadline for the Final Written Decision is expected around 2026-11-10.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement or termination information is publicly available at this stage of the proceeding.
• Appeal: Not applicable at this stage as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This ongoing IPR presents a direct challenge to the patentability of certain claims of US9615192. A defendant facing assertion of this patent should closely monitor this IPR, as a successful challenge could lead to the invalidation of claims, significantly impacting the patent owner's ability to assert them. The outcome of this trial will be crucial in determining the strength and scope of the patent.

IPR2026-00154 — Target Corporation v. Headwater Research LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-11-25
• Status: Discretionary Denial (The PTAB declined to institute a trial, based on discretionary and non-merits considerations).
• Judge panel: The notice of decision on institution was issued under the authority of John A. Squires, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. (The full opinion, which is stated to be "forthcoming," will contain further details).
• Petition grounds: Specific claims challenged, the prior art asserted, and the statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103) are detailed in the petition. However, as institution was denied on discretionary grounds, the merits of these arguments were not fully adjudicated. This information is not available in the general snippets provided.
• Institution decision: Denied institution on 2026-03-23, based on "discretionary and non-merits considerations." A full opinion outlining the specific reasoning for this discretionary denial is indicated as "forthcoming." This type of denial often relies on factors like those discussed in Fintiv, such as the stage of parallel litigation.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued, as institution for the IPR trial was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable as institution was denied.
• Appeal: No appeal information is publicly available for this proceeding given the discretionary denial of institution.
• Defensive value: The discretionary denial of this IPR means that Target Corporation was unsuccessful in initiating a formal PTAB review of the patent's claims. While this particular challenge did not proceed to a merits determination, the underlying issues in the petition were not judged for patentability. For a potential defendant, this signals that future IPRs might also face similar discretionary hurdles, and a strong strategy would be needed to overcome such issues.

Strategic summary

No claims of US Patent 9615192 have been canceled or sustained by the PTAB in a Final Written Decision as of the current date. IPR2026-00154 by Target Corporation was denied institution on discretionary grounds, meaning the validity of the challenged claims was not substantively assessed. However, IPR2026-00088, filed by Amazon.com Services LLC, has been instituted and is currently in the trial phase. This means that the patentability of at least some claims of US9615192 is actively being challenged and reviewed by the PTAB.

The estoppel landscape for Target Corporation (and its privies) regarding IPR2026-00154 is limited due to the discretionary denial, as the PTAB did not issue a decision on the merits of patentability. Thus, the grounds that could have been reasonably raised are not fully subject to estoppel in the same way they would be following a Final Written Decision. For Amazon.com Services LLC, if IPR2026-00088 proceeds to a Final Written Decision, estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) will apply to Amazon.com Services LLC and its privies for any claims and grounds that were instituted and decided in the IPR. The involvement of Amazon.com Services LLC, a major entity, in an instituted IPR indicates a significant challenge to the patent.

Recommended next steps

For any defendant currently being asserted against, it is paramount to obtain and thoroughly review the Institution Decision for IPR2026-00088 (Paper 11, dated 2026-04-06) to understand precisely which claims have been instituted for trial, the specific prior art applied, and the PTAB's reasoning for institution. This document will outline the arguments that the PTAB found to have a reasonable likelihood of success, which can be highly informative for any ongoing or future litigation strategy. The Final Written Decision for IPR2026-00088 is expected around November 10, 2026, and its outcome will be a critical milestone for the patent.

Inventors

• Gregory G. Raleigh: At the time of filing (July 15, 2016), Gregory G. Raleigh was the lead inventor and a co-founder of Headwater Research LLC, where he led the invention team.

Original assignee

The original assignee listed on the patent is Headwater Research LLC.

Headwater Research LLC is a technology innovation firm focused on inventing and developing technological breakthroughs. Their primary line of business involves mobile device operating system enhancements, cloud technology, and, to a lesser extent, medical devices. They state that their technology has enabled the incorporation of a spin-out company with a product line of smart service devices, cloud infrastructure, and mobile services, and that their portfolio is being licensed for global services and products. Gregory G. Raleigh, the inventor, also co-invented and commercialized cloud-based products.

However, Headwater Research LLC has an extensive history of patent assertion, consistently acting as a plaintiff in patent infringement lawsuits against major telecommunications and electronics companies. They are described as a "patent holding entity focused on wireless networking and device management technologies" and were awarded a significant jury verdict in a patent infringement case against Samsung.

Headwater Research LLC is a privately held company, headquartered in Tyler, TX, and was founded in 2008. Their current status is operating and actively engaged in technology development, licensing, and patent assertion.

Assignment timeline

Based on the Google Patents "Legal status" section, which indicates recorded assignments, the following chronological events are noted. Due to the inability to perform a live USPTO Assignment Center search, specific reel/frame numbers and the name of the correspondent attorney of record for each transaction cannot be provided with high confidence, and are indicated as placeholders.

• 2016-07-14 (executed) / recorded 2016-07-15 — Reel [UNCONFIRMED]/[UNCONFIRMED]

  • Conveyance: Assignment (implied from "Assigned to HEADWATER PARTNERS I LLC" and standard practice of inventor assigning to an entity)
  • Assignor: Gregory G. Raleigh (Inventor)
  • Assignee: Headwater Partners I LLC
  • Correspondent: [UNCONFIRMED]
  • Context: Transfer of rights from individual inventor to an entity within the Headwater group.

• 2017-01-04 (executed) / recorded 2017-01-05 — Reel [UNCONFIRMED]/[UNCONFIRMED]

  • Conveyance: Merger and Change of Name / Reassignment
  • Assignor: Headwater Management LLC, Headwater Partners I LLC
  • Assignee: Headwater Research LLC
  • Correspondent: [UNCONFIRMED]
  • Context: Internal restructuring within the Headwater group, consolidating ownership under Headwater Research LLC.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9615192
    2016 : Inventor assigned to Headwater Partners I LLC
    2017 : Headwater Partners I LLC merged into Headwater Research LLC
         : Patent issued
    2025 : Litigation by Headwater Research LLC
    2026 : Litigation by Headwater Research LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Unclear. Headwater Research LLC identifies itself as a technology innovation firm that develops and licenses technology, and has spun out product companies. This suggests it is not a pure shell entity. However, its significant and frequent patent litigation activity and description as a "patent holding entity" suggest a strong focus on assertion, which is common for NPEs. The transfers within the "Headwater" family (to Headwater Partners I LLC, then to Headwater Research LLC) are internal and don't involve external shell entities.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. Headwater Research LLC is itself a high-frequency patent plaintiff (asserter). Unified Patents and RPX data (referenced in the Google Patents litigation section) also identify litigation involving Headwater Research LLC. For example, Headwater Research LLC has filed multiple cases in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear. Due to the inability to perform a live USPTO Assignment Center search, correspondent details (name, firm, address) for the recorded assignments are not available.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There were two transfers in total, one from the inventor to an internal entity, and then an internal restructuring. These occurred over a period of about six months and don't suggest rapid, consecutive external transfers to different LLCs.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The assignments (2016-07-15, 2017-01-05) occurred before the patent was issued (2017-04-04). The earliest litigation mentioned for Headwater Research LLC in general is from 2023, with many cases in 2025 and 2026. There is no transfer recorded within six months before any documented litigation specifically naming this patent (9615192) in the available information.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. Headwater Research LLC appears to be an active and financially engaged entity, not one that has undergone a bankruptcy fire-sale.
7. Privateering — Unclear. While Headwater Research LLC asserts patents, there is no direct evidence from the provided text that it is doing so on behalf of a specific operating company competitor. It appears to be asserting its own patent portfolio.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain ends with Headwater Research LLC, an active asserter.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence. Headwater Research LLC is documented as a prolific patent asserter, having initiated numerous infringement suits against major technology companies. While they describe themselves as an innovation firm that licenses technology, their extensive and consistent litigation record, including a significant jury award for other patents, aligns strongly with an NPE profile. The patent ownership is held by Headwater Research LLC, which is also the asserting entity.

For verification of assignment records, please refer to the USPTO Assignment Center search for US9615192: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/patent/assignment-result?query=US9615192

I will now search the USPTO database for prior art citations listed on US patent 9615192. I will then analyze each citation to determine its relevance to the claims of 9615192.
The most relevant prior art for US patent 9615192 will be identified from the patent's own citations. The Google Patents link provides a "Prior art keywords" section and a "Prior art date" of 2009-01-28.

Based on the patent text for US9615192, here's an analysis of the prior art cited within the patent:

To identify the most relevant prior art, it is necessary to examine the "References Cited" section of US Patent 9615192. Since direct access to the USPTO database for a live search is not available in this environment, I will rely on the provided Google Patents link as the source for cited prior art. However, the provided content from Google Patents does not list specific patent citations in a structured format within the "References" section. Instead, it provides "Prior art keywords" and a "Prior art date" of 2009-01-28.

Without the explicit list of cited patents from the "References Cited" section of US9615192, a detailed analysis of each patent citation for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 cannot be performed. The "Prior art keywords" (service, network, message, agent, usage) indicate general areas of technology relevant to the patent, but not specific anticipatory documents.

Therefore, I cannot provide:

• Full citation for each reference.
• Publication/filing date for each reference.
• Brief description for each reference.
• Which claim(s) it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

To complete this task, the actual "References Cited" section from the US9615192 patent document (e.g., from the USPTO website or a comprehensive patent database) would be required.

To analyze the obviousness of US Patent 9615192 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is necessary to identify specific prior art references published before the patent's priority date of January 28, 2009, that collectively teach or suggest the elements of the claims and would have provided a motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) to combine them.

However, the "Prior art section" provided in the patent document only lists "Prior art keywords: service, network, message, agent, usage" and a "Prior art date: 2009-01-28." It does not identify any specific prior art references (e.g., patent numbers, publication numbers, or academic papers) that can be combined for an obviousness analysis.

Therefore, I cannot identify specific combinations of prior art references to render the claims obvious as requested, because no such references are provided in the authoritative text for this task.

Were specific prior art references available, an obviousness analysis would focus on the following aspects of the independent claims (1, 10, and 15) of US9615192:

• Claim 1 (Computer-implemented method):

  • Receiving multiple messages from a wireless communication device, each having an associated message type.
  • Determining a first message delivery trigger for a first message type.
  • Determining a second message delivery trigger for a second message type.
  • Delivering a response message to the wireless communication device based on both the first and second message delivery triggers.

• Claim 10 (Message link server):

  • A processor and memory configured to perform the method steps of Claim 1.

• Claim 15 (Computer program product):

  • A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions to perform the method steps of Claim 1.

A hypothetical obviousness argument would likely seek prior art references that demonstrate:

1. Network communication systems capable of receiving messages from wireless devices and sending response messages.
2. Message typing and classification in network environments.
3. Trigger-based message delivery mechanisms, especially those that activate based on certain conditions or message types.
4. The concept of using multiple conditions or triggers to control a single response or action.

Potential Motivation for Combination (Hypothetical):
If prior art existed that, for example, taught a network server receiving messages from wireless devices (element 1) and separately taught using distinct triggers for different message types to control network behavior (elements 2, 3), a motivation to combine these would likely stem from the common engineering goal of improving network efficiency, flexibility, or control. A POSA might be motivated to combine such elements to:

• Enhance service differentiation: By using different triggers for different message types, network operators could offer more granular control over various services, such as prioritizing emergency messages over regular data traffic, or applying different billing policies to different application usage (e.g., based on the "service activity" examples provided in the patent like content downloads, application usage, or e-commerce transactions).
• Optimize resource utilization: Implementing plural message delivery triggers could allow for more dynamic and adaptive network resource allocation, responding differently to different types of user demands.
• Improve user experience and billing: As noted in the patent, "managing service consumption in a user friendly manner the overall service capacity required to satisfy the user device needs can be tailored more closely to the needs of a given user thereby reducing user service costs and increasing service provider profits." A system that uses multiple message types and triggers could directly support such refined management and billing.

Without specific prior art references, this discussion on motivation remains theoretical and cannot be tied to concrete evidence of obviousness.