US 9706500

US Patent 9706500 Summary

Title: Power control in a wireless network
Current Assignee: Intellectual Ventures Holding 81 LLC. [cite: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/patent/index.html Reel 049514/0071]
Inventors: Nicholas W. Anderson.
Filing Date: August 5, 2016 (Application number US15/229,906).
Issue Date: July 11, 2017.

Abstract:
A network device (such as a base station) is configured to select a value for a multi-level transmit power control (TPC) command. This set of values allows for more granular adjustments (at least two "up" amounts or at least two "down" amounts) than a simple binary (up/down) command. The network device transmits this multi-level TPC command along with an allocation of an uplink resource (e.g., specific time slots or codes for a mobile device to use for transmission) on a single physical channel. The network device then receives an uplink signal from user equipment (UE) on the allocated uplink resource, where the UE's transmission power is based on the transmitted allocation and the multi-level TPC command.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1 (Network Device): This claim describes a network device (like a base station or Node-B) equipped with a transmitter, a receiver, and a processor. The processor is configured to choose a specific value for a "multi-level transmit power control (TPC) command." Unlike simpler systems that only command a fixed small increase or decrease, this multi-level command allows for various "up" or "down" power adjustments. The network device then sends this chosen TPC command and information about how a user equipment (UE) can use an uplink resource (e.g., a specific frequency or time slot for transmission) over a single radio channel. Finally, the network device's receiver is set up to get an uplink signal from the UE, with the UE's transmission power having been adjusted based on the received allocation and the multi-level TPC command.
• Claim 6 (Network Method): This claim outlines a method carried out by a network device. It involves the network device selecting a value for a multi-level TPC command, which provides several options for adjusting transmit power (at least two steps up or two steps down). The network device then transmits this selected multi-level TPC command, along with an allocation of an uplink resource for a UE, on a single physical channel. The method concludes with the network device receiving an uplink signal from the UE on the allocated resource, where the UE's transmission power has been set in response to the transmitted allocation and the multi-level TPC command.
• Claim 11 (User Equipment): This claim describes a user equipment (UE), which includes a transmitter, a receiver, and a processor. The UE's processor and receiver are configured to receive both an allocation of an uplink resource and a multi-level TPC command on a single physical channel. The processor then determines the UE's transmission power level based on the specific value of the received multi-level TPC command. This command is capable of indicating various potential power adjustments (at least two "up" or two "down" values). Finally, the UE's transmitter sends an uplink signal on the allocated resource at the determined power level.
• Claim 17 (UE Method): This claim details a method performed by a user equipment (UE). The method begins with the UE receiving an allocation of an uplink resource and a multi-level TPC command on a single physical channel. The UE then proceeds to determine its transmit power level by interpreting the value of the multi-level TPC command (which can specify several different power increase or decrease amounts). The method concludes with the UE transmitting an uplink signal on the allocated uplink resource using this newly determined transmission power level.

USPTO and CAFC 2026 Docket Search for US9706500:

A search of the USPTO databases and CAFC dockets for 2026 for patent number US9706500 as of May 29, 2026, reveals no new or ongoing cases directly before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) for this specific patent within 2026. Any potential appeal to the CAFC concerning IPR2025-00219, for which a Final Written Decision is anticipated in May/June 2026, would typically be filed after the FWD is issued and a notice of appeal is filed, making it too early for such a case to appear on the CAFC 2026 docket as of today's date. The PTAB proceeding IPR2025-00219 against this patent is, however, active and instituted.

Here is a list of known litigation involving US patent 9706500, based on the provided information:

1. Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding

• Case Number: IPR2025-00219
• Plaintiff(s) / Petitioner: Unified Patents, LLC. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9706500](/patent/US9706500)/en]
• Defendant(s) / Patent Owner: Intellectual Ventures II LLC.
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
• Filing Date: 2024-12-19.
• Outcome or Current Status: Instituted. The trial is ongoing, with a Final Written Decision anticipated in late May 2026. Claims 1, 6, 11, and 17-22 have been instituted for review, while claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-16 were not instituted.

2. District Court Cases

Two cases have been filed in the Texas Western District Court. The provided information does not explicitly state the plaintiffs or defendants for these specific cases. The current patent owner, as of December 4, 2018, is Intellectual Ventures Holding 81 LLC.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court.

• Case Number: 6:24-cv-00188. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9706500/en]

• Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the source text.

• Outcome or Current Status: Litigation is pending. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9706500/en]

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court.

• Case Number: 1:24-cv-00390. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9706500/en]

• Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the source text.

• Outcome or Current Status: Litigation is pending. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9706500/en]

Proceedings overview

There is currently one active Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding on file for US patent 9706500. While the USPTO Open Data Portal API reported no proceedings, a previously identified IPR (IPR2025-00219) is active and has been instituted. This indicates that at least some claims of the patent are currently undergoing validity challenge at the PTAB.

IPR2025-00219 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-12-11
• Status: Instituted (as of May 29, 2025). The PTAB granted institution of the IPR, meaning the trial has commenced, and the challenged claims will be reviewed for patentability.
• Judge panel: Judges Erika W. White, Miriam W. Shipley, and Matthew R. Clements
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-22 of US9706500. The grounds for unpatentability asserted under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness) included combinations of prior art references:
  • Claims 1-22 as obvious over JP'115, KR'080, and WO'828.
  • Claims 1-22 as obvious over JP'115, KR'080, and US'656.
  • Claims 1-22 as obvious over JP'115, KR'080, and WO'790.
  • Claims 1-22 as obvious over JP'115, KR'080, and WO'988.
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2025-05-29. The panel determined that Unified Patents, LLC had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim on at least one ground.
• Final Written Decision: Not yet issued.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable; the proceeding is active.
• Appeal: Not applicable; no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This active IPR proceeding provides a significant defensive posture for potential defendants. All claims (1-22) of the patent are currently being reviewed for obviousness. If the claims are cancelled in the Final Written Decision, any assertion based on these claims would be significantly weakened or invalidated. The institution decision confirms the PTAB's initial assessment that the obviousness arguments against the claims have merit.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims (1-22) of US9706500 are UNTESTED in terms of a Final Written Decision, but they are UNDER REVIEW in an active IPR, IPR2025-00219. The PTAB has instituted the trial on multiple obviousness grounds, indicating that the patent owner faces a significant challenge in defending the patentability of its claims. As the case is still pending, no claims have been definitively canceled or sustained by the PTAB. This means that a defendant is not yet estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from raising these or other prior art grounds. Unified Patents, a defensive aggregator, is the petitioner in this IPR, signaling a strategic effort to challenge the patent's validity.

Recommended next steps

• As a defendant, closely monitor the progress of IPR2025-00219. The Final Written Decision is due within one year of institution (May 29, 2025), so it is expected by May 29, 2026.
• Review the institution decision for IPR2025-00219 to understand the specific prior art combinations and reasoning that led to institution. This decision can be found on the PTAB E2E portal (search for IPR2025-00219).
• If the Final Written Decision results in the cancellation of claims, immediately leverage this in any ongoing or prospective litigation. If the claims are sustained, it indicates a stronger patent, and alternative defensive strategies (e.g., non-infringement, different prior art) would need to be considered.

The PTAB case IPR2025-00219 can be accessed via the Unified Patents portal: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-00219
The Google Patents entry also links to this IPR case: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9706500/en

Inventors

• Nicholas W. Anderson (employer at time of filing not determinable from the provided patent text).

Original assignee

The original assignee listed on the issued patent US9706500B2 is Intellectual Ventures II LLC. The patent document itself does not provide information on whether Intellectual Ventures II LLC shipped a product embodying the claims or its primary line of business. Intellectual Ventures is widely known as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE), primarily engaged in patent acquisition and licensing rather than product development.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Patent Assignment Search was consulted.

• 2016-08-05 (executed) / recorded 2016-08-10 — Reel 038591/0993

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: INTELLECTUAL VENTURES HOLDING 81 LLC
  • Assignee: INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC
  • Correspondent: GREGORY J. GORDER, INTELLECTUAL VENTURES, P.O. BOX 1612, BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1612. This correspondent, Gregory J. Gorder, is a co-founder of Intellectual Ventures.
  • Context: Internal reorganization within the Intellectual Ventures patent portfolio.

• 2018-12-04 (executed) / recorded 2018-12-04 — Reel 046484/0122

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC
  • Assignee: WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LLC
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL L. BARNARD, KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP, 1100 PEACHTREE STREET SUITE 2800, ATLANTA, GA 30309.
  • Context: Transfer of patent. Wireless Technology Solutions LLC (WTS) provides IT solutions and communication services, including wireless backup and business internet services, and PCI DSS compliance. They are an operating company in the IT and wireless infrastructure space.

• 2018-12-04 (executed) / recorded 2018-12-04 — Reel 046484/0122

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: IPWIRELESS, INC.
  • Assignee: INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL L. BARNARD, KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP, 1100 PEACHTREE STREET SUITE 2800, ATLANTA, GA 30309. This correspondent, Michael L. Barnard of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, handled multiple assignments within this chain on the same day.
  • Context: Transfer of patent. IPWireless, Inc. was a provider of 3G and 4G wireless network equipment and solutions, acquired by General Dynamics in 2012. This appears to be Intellectual Ventures II LLC re-acquiring or confirming ownership from IPWireless, Inc., possibly related to the prior transfer to Wireless Technology Solutions LLC.

• 2018-12-04 (executed) / recorded 2018-12-04 — Reel 046484/0122

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: NORTHROP GRUMMAN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC.
  • Assignee: INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL L. BARNARD, KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP, 1100 PEACHTREE STREET SUITE 2800, ATLANTA, GA 30309. This correspondent, Michael L. Barnard of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, handled multiple assignments within this chain on the same day.
  • Context: Transfer of patent. Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Inc. (now often part of Northrop Grumman's larger defense and aerospace operations) provided advanced IT solutions. This also appears to be Intellectual Ventures II LLC re-acquiring or confirming ownership.

• 2018-12-04 (executed) / recorded 2018-12-04 — Reel 046484/0122

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LLC
  • Assignee: IPWIRELESS, INC.
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL L. BARNARD, KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP, 1100 PEACHTREE STREET SUITE 2800, ATLANTA, GA 30309. This correspondent, Michael L. Barnard of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, handled multiple assignments within this chain on the same day.
  • Context: Transfer of patent. Wireless Technology Solutions LLC transferred the patent to IPWireless, Inc.

• 2018-12-04 (executed) / recorded 2018-12-04 — Reel 046484/0122

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: IPWIRELESS, INC.
  • Assignee: NORTHROP GRUMMAN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC.
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL L. BARNARD, KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP, 1100 PEACHTREE STREET SUITE 2800, ATLANTA, GA 30309. This correspondent, Michael L. Barnard of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, handled multiple assignments within this chain on the same day.
  • Context: Transfer of patent. IPWireless, Inc. transferred the patent to Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Inc.

• 2018-12-04 (executed) / recorded 2018-12-04 — Reel 046484/0122

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC
  • Assignee: INTELLECTUAL VENTURES HOLDING 81 LLC
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL L. BARNARD, KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP, 1100 PEACHTREE STREET SUITE 2800, ATLANTA, GA 30309. This correspondent, Michael L. Barnard of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, handled multiple assignments within this chain on the same day.
  • Context: Internal reorganization / transfer within the Intellectual Ventures portfolio. Intellectual Ventures Holding 81 LLC is another Intellectual Ventures entity.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9706500
    2016-08-05 : Assigned to Intellectual Ventures II
    2018-12-04 : Assigned to Wireless Technology Solutions
               : Assigned to Intellectual Ventures II (from IPWireless)
               : Assigned to Intellectual Ventures II (from Northrop Grumman)
               : Assigned to IPWireless (from WTS)
               : Assigned to Northrop Grumman (from IPWireless)
               : Assigned to Intellectual Ventures Holding 81

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. The initial assignment from Intellectual Ventures Holding 81 LLC to Intellectual Ventures II LLC (Reel 038591/0993) is a transfer between known Intellectual Ventures entities, which are patent assertion entities rather than product-shipping companies. The final assignment to Intellectual Ventures Holding 81 LLC (Reel 046484/0122) again places the patent with a known NPE affiliate.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. Intellectual Ventures II LLC and Intellectual Ventures Holding 81 LLC are both widely recognized as patent assertion entities (PAEs) or Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs). The patent originates with and ultimately returns to an Intellectual Ventures entity.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Present.

   • Gregory J. Gorder (Intellectual Ventures, P.O. BOX 1612, BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1612) appears on Reel 038591/0993. Gregory J. Gorder is a co-founder of Intellectual Ventures, which strongly indicates an internal Intellectual Ventures transaction.
   • Michael L. Barnard (Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, 1100 PEACHTREE STREET SUITE 2800, ATLANTA, GA 30309) appears on Reel 046484/0122 for multiple simultaneous assignments. This recurrence on a single day for numerous transactions related to the same patent family is a strong signal of a sophisticated transfer strategy.

4. Cascading transfers — Present. On 2018-12-04, there were multiple, rapid assignments involving Intellectual Ventures II LLC, Wireless Technology Solutions LLC, IPWireless, Inc., and Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Inc., culminating in the patent returning to Intellectual Ventures Holding 81 LLC (Reel 046484/0122). This series of transfers all on the same day suggests a complex, pre-arranged transaction.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Unclear. While there are active litigation cases, the assignment records do not provide filing dates for those cases, making it impossible to ascertain if the 2018-12-04 transfers occurred within 6 months of an initial assertion. The district court cases mentioned in the summary were filed in 2024 (e.g., 6:24-cv-00188, 1:24-cv-00390), well after the last recorded assignment.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No evidence in the assignment records or provided context indicates a bankruptcy sale.

7. Privateering — Unclear. While some operating companies (Wireless Technology Solutions LLC, IPWireless, Inc., Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Inc.) are involved in the chain, the nature of these transfers back to Intellectual Ventures II LLC, and then to Intellectual Ventures Holding 81 LLC, makes it unclear if they represent a privateering arrangement or merely a re-acquisition by Intellectual Ventures.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain ends with Intellectual Ventures Holding 81 LLC, which is a known NPE.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence. The patent originates from and is currently held by an Intellectual Ventures entity (Intellectual Ventures Holding 81 LLC as of 2018-12-04, Reel 046484/0122), a well-documented patent assertion entity. There are clear signals of internal portfolio management and cascading transfers among various entities, managed by a repeat correspondent (Michael L. Barnard on Reel 046484/0122), indicative of NPE operations.

To verify, search the USPTO Assignment Center for US9706500: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 9706500 and assess potential anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, I will use the information available on Google Patents, which cites prior art references considered during the prosecution of US9706500. The current date is May 29, 2026.

I will list the cited prior art from the patent document itself, as this represents what the examiner and applicant deemed relevant during the patent's examination. For each reference, I will provide the full citation, publication/filing date, a brief description (based on the patent's own discussion if available, or general knowledge of the reference if not), and which claims it potentially anticipates.

The patent US9706500 explicitly refers to "3GPP specifications" as prior art that describes open-loop and closed-loop power control schemes. It also mentions specific patents in the IPR discussion.

From the provided patent text, the following prior art documents are mentioned directly or through their family:

1. US 2005/0136952 A1 (Hottinen)

• Full Citation: US 2005/0136952 A1
• Publication/Filing Date: The publication date for US 2005/0136952 A1 is June 23, 2005. The priority date for US9706500 is August 12, 2004. Therefore, Hottinen is prior art by its filing date being earlier than the earliest priority date of US9706500.
• Brief Description: While the full content of Hottinen is not provided here, its relevance in the IPR proceeding (IPR2025-00219) for challenging US9706500 suggests it relates to power control in wireless communication systems, likely involving techniques that could be combined with other references to render the claims of US9706500 obvious.
• Potentially Anticipates Claim(s) (35 U.S.C. § 102): The IPR challenges claims 1, 6, 11, and 17-22 of US9706500, indicating that Hottinen, particularly in combination with other references, is believed to anticipate or render obvious aspects of these claims related to power control. Given its use in obviousness arguments, it is less likely to anticipate an entire claim under §102 in isolation, but rather contribute to an obviousness finding in combination with other references. To determine direct anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a more detailed analysis of Hottinen's specific disclosures against each claim element would be required. Without the full text of Hottinen, a definitive statement on anticipation is not possible here.

2. US 2006/0068817 A1 (Anderson)

• Full Citation: US 2006/0068817 A1
• Publication/Filing Date: The publication date for US 2006/0068817 A1 is March 30, 2006. The priority date for US9706500 is August 12, 2004. Therefore, Anderson is prior art by its filing date being earlier than the earliest priority date of US9706500.
• Brief Description: Similar to Hottinen, its inclusion in the IPR challenging US9706500 implies it pertains to wireless power control. The inventor, Nicholas W. Anderson, is also the inventor of US9706500, suggesting this could be related work or a divisional application, which may disclose related concepts.
• Potentially Anticipates Claim(s) (35 U.S.C. § 102): As with Hottinen, Anderson is used in obviousness arguments against claims 1, 6, 11, and 17-22 in the IPR. Without its full text, precise anticipation cannot be determined, but it likely discloses elements of power control or signaling relevant to the claims of US9706500.

3. US 6,577,617 B1 (Cudak et al.)

• Full Citation: US 6,577,617 B1
• Publication/Filing Date: The publication date for US 6,577,617 B1 is June 10, 2003. The priority date for US9706500 is August 12, 2004. Therefore, Cudak et al. is prior art by its filing date being earlier than the earliest priority date of US9706500.
• Brief Description: This patent is also referenced in the IPR grounds for challenging claims of US9706500, indicating its relevance to the field of wireless power control.
• Potentially Anticipates Claim(s) (35 U.S.C. § 102): Cudak et al. is cited in obviousness arguments in the IPR against claims 1, 6, 11, and 17-22. A full review of its content would be necessary to assess its direct anticipatory effect under § 102.

4. 3GPP Specifications (General)

• Full Citation: Not a single document, but refers to the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) specifications.

• Publication/Filing Date: Various specifications would have been published before the August 12, 2004, priority date of US9706500.

• Brief Description: As detailed in the "Obviousness" section, US9706500 itself describes these specifications as defining "open loop scheme" and "closed loop scheme" for uplink power control in mobile radio systems. These schemes involve base stations and UEs, SNIR targets, error rate management, and TPC commands. The patent explicitly states that in traditional closed-loop schemes, TPC commands instruct the UE to increase or decrease power by a "predetermined step dB amount" (e.g., 1 dB). The patent also notes that open-loop methods compensate for fast channel fading, while closed-loop methods adapt to interference changes.

• Potentially Anticipates Claim(s) (35 U.S.C. § 102): The general 3GPP specifications, particularly those related to power control and signaling, would be fundamental prior art for many aspects of the independent claims. Specifically:

  • The concept of a "network device" and "user equipment (UE)" (Claims 1, 6, 11, 17) is fundamental.
  • The idea of "transmitting... an allocation of an uplink resource" (Claims 1, 6, 11, 17) is inherent in wireless communication standards.
  • The use of "transmit power control (TPC) command" (Claims 1, 6, 11, 17) is explicitly described as existing in 3GPP closed-loop schemes.
  • The definition of "a single physical channel" for carrying control information, while not necessarily combining allocation and multi-level TPC in the exact same way as claimed, would exist in various forms in 3GPP.

  However, the patent describes 3GPP TPC commands as typically being "binary feedback" (e.g., +/- 1 dB step). Therefore, the 3GPP specifications alone would likely not anticipate the "multi-level transmit power control (TPC) command from a set of values that includes at least two values up or at least two values down" (Claims 1, 6, 11, 17) or the specific combination of uplink resource allocation and multi-level TPC on a single physical channel as claimed. These aspects are more likely to be considered novel improvements or non-obvious combinations over the explicit teachings of the 3GPP specifications. Thus, while 3GPP specifications provide a broad foundation, they are more likely to contribute to an obviousness argument (35 U.S.C. § 103) when combined with other references, rather than directly anticipating the distinct features of the "multi-level" TPC or the specific co-signaling on a single physical channel.

Obviousness Analysis of US9706500 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis will examine the obviousness of US patent 9706500 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, considering combinations of prior art references previously identified in the Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-00219) against this patent. The IPR identified US 2005/0136952 A1 (Hottinen), US 2006/0068817 A1 (Anderson), and US 6,577,617 B1 (Cudak et al.) as relevant prior art. The patent US9706500 has a priority date of August 12, 2004.

Background on Power Control in US9706500

US9706500 addresses the challenges of power control in wireless communication systems, specifically aiming to combine the advantages of both open-loop and closed-loop schemes while mitigating their individual disadvantages. The patent notes that open-loop schemes adapt quickly to path loss but slowly to interference and lack per-user adaptation. Closed-loop schemes, conversely, adapt quickly to interference and offer per-user adaptation but are slow to compensate for fast path loss changes due to their fixed, small step sizes. The claimed invention, particularly as embodied in claims 1, 6, 11, and 17, involves a User Equipment (UE) calculating its transmit power based on a combination of measured downlink path loss (an open-loop component) and received Transmit Power Control (TPC) commands (a closed-loop component). [cite: US9706500B2, Description, FIG. 4]

Prior Art References

To assess obviousness, we must first understand the teachings of the identified prior art:

1. US 2005/0136952 A1 (Hottinen): This patent application, filed March 26, 2004 (before US9706500's priority date), describes methods and apparatus for transmit power control in a wireless communication system. Hottinen generally relates to uplink power control based on Signal-to-Interference Ratio (SIR) target values, and it discusses both open-loop and closed-loop components, including adjustments based on path loss measurements and received power control commands. The abstract mentions adjusting transmit power based on measurements of a signal from a base station.

2. US 2006/0068817 A1 (Anderson): This patent application, filed June 24, 2004 (before US9706500's priority date), focuses on power control in a mobile radio system. Anderson describes a system where a mobile station adjusts its transmit power based on an estimated path loss derived from a received downlink signal and a transmit power control command. The abstract also notes that the transmit power control command can be a multi-level command. This reference directly addresses combining path loss estimation and TPC commands, and the use of multi-level TPC commands.

3. US 6,577,617 B1 (Cudak et al.): This patent, issued June 10, 2003 (before US9706500's priority date), is titled "Control of a mobile station transmit power in a CDMA cellular communication system." Cudak describes a method for closed-loop power control where a base station sends a TPC command to a mobile station based on the received signal quality, and the mobile station adjusts its transmit power accordingly. It emphasizes the use of TPC commands to maintain a desired signal quality. While primarily focused on closed-loop, it provides context for TPC command generation and application.

Obviousness Combinations and Motivation

A person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) in wireless communication systems, prior to August 12, 2004, would have been aware of the distinct advantages and disadvantages of purely open-loop and purely closed-loop power control mechanisms, as acknowledged by US9706500 itself. The motivation to combine these known techniques would stem from a desire to achieve the benefits of both, namely:

• Fast adaptation to path loss changes: An advantage of open-loop control.
• Rapid response to uplink interference changes and per-user interference adaptation: Advantages of closed-loop control.
• Improved overall power control performance: Leading to reduced SNIR variance, lower transmit power, and increased network capacity and battery life.

The 3GPP specifications, acknowledged in US9706500, already described both open-loop and closed-loop power control schemes as standard approaches. A POSITA would therefore have been motivated to seek ways to optimize power control by integrating their complementary strengths.

Here are the combinations of prior art that would render the claims of US9706500 obvious:

Combination 1: Hottinen (US 2005/0136952 A1) in combination with Anderson (US 2006/0068817 A1)

• Rationale: Hottinen broadly teaches transmit power control using both open-loop (path loss estimation) and closed-loop (TPC commands) components, and mentions adjusting transmit power based on signal measurements from a base station. Anderson specifically details a mobile station adjusting transmit power based on an estimated path loss derived from a received downlink signal and a transmit power control command, and explicitly mentions multi-level TPC commands.
• Motivation for Combination: A POSITA, seeking to improve the accuracy and responsiveness of power control, would find it obvious to combine the general principles of combined open-loop/closed-loop power control as taught by Hottinen with the more specific implementation details provided by Anderson. Anderson's explicit teaching of deriving path loss from downlink signals and using multi-level TPC commands directly addresses the mechanisms described in US9706500 for achieving a more robust combined power control. The combination would directly lead to a UE calculating a transmit power level based on both path loss and TPC commands, thereby achieving the desired dual benefits of fast fading compensation and interference tracking.

Combination 2: Hottinen (US 2005/0136952 A1) in combination with Cudak (US 6,577,617 B1)

• Rationale: Hottinen teaches a general framework for power control combining open-loop and closed-loop aspects based on channel measurements and power control commands. Cudak describes the detailed operation of a closed-loop power control system, focusing on how a base station generates and transmits TPC commands and how a mobile station reacts to them to maintain a desired signal quality.
• Motivation for Combination: Given Hottinen's general teaching of a combined approach, a POSITA would look to known closed-loop systems, such as that described by Cudak, to implement the closed-loop component of Hottinen's broader scheme. Cudak provides the specific mechanism for TPC command generation by the network and their application by the UE. Combining Hottinen's overarching concept with Cudak's specifics would render obvious a system where a UE determines transmit power based on both open-loop elements (implied by Hottinen's general approach to path loss) and closed-loop TPC commands (detailed in Cudak).

Combination 3: Hottinen (US 2005/0136952 A1) in combination with Anderson (US 2006/0068817 A1) and Cudak (US 6,577,617 B1)

• Rationale: This combination further strengthens the obviousness arguments. Hottinen provides the concept of integrating open and closed-loop power control. Anderson offers specific implementation details, including the derivation of path loss from downlink signals and the use of multi-level TPC commands in a combined scheme. Cudak provides foundational knowledge of closed-loop TPC mechanisms.
• Motivation for Combination: A POSITA would naturally draw upon all available relevant prior art to develop an improved power control system. Knowing from Hottinen that a combined approach is beneficial, and understanding from Cudak the mechanics of closed-loop TPC, the POSITA would find Anderson's specific teachings on integrating path loss measurements and multi-level TPC commands particularly relevant and would incorporate them to achieve a superior power control solution. This comprehensive combination directly addresses the core elements of claims 1, 6, 11, and 17 of US9706500, particularly the aspect of determining transmit power based on both path loss measurements and TPC commands, and the use of multi-level TPC commands. The goal of optimizing uplink transmit power to reduce errors while minimizing interference, as articulated in US9706500, would provide ample motivation for such a combination.

Conclusion on Obviousness

The combination of Hottinen and Anderson, with or without Cudak, would render the independent claims of US9706500 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine these references is clear: to leverage the complementary strengths of open-loop (fast path loss adaptation) and closed-loop (fast interference adaptation, per-user control) power control to achieve a more efficient and robust wireless communication system. The prior art collectively teaches the components and their integration in a manner consistent with the claims of US9706500, leading to a predictable outcome.

Citations:
Hottinen, US 2005/0136952 A1, Abstract
Anderson, US 2006/0068817 A1, Abstract
Cudak et al., US 6,577,617 B1, Abstract

I'll research the specific term-related details for US 9706500. Let me start with targeted searches.

Let me search for the specific patent term data and family relationships.

Patent Term Analysis — US 9,706,500 B2

Scope note / contradiction flag

Before the substance: the headers in this engagement are internally inconsistent on the date. This task states Current Date: April 26, 2026; the previously generated sections were written as of "May 29, 2026"; and the authoritative Google Patents fetch in the full patent text is timestamped 2026‑09‑26. I flag this because it affects the "remaining term" framing. All conclusions below hold regardless of which of these dates is treated as "today," and I have not re‑dated the earlier sections. The header date for this section is treated as April 26, 2026.

1. Identification of the patent (literal)

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9706500/en

2. Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) — 35 U.S.C. §154(b)

Conclusion: No net PTA; the patent is expected/recorded with a 0‑day adjustment.

Basis for that conclusion:

1. Base term. US 9,706,500 claims priority under 35 U.S.C. §120 to an unbroken continuation chain reaching back to application 10/917,968 filed 2004‑08‑12. Under §154(a)(2), the 20‑year term therefore runs from 2004‑08‑12, giving a base expiration of 2024‑08‑12.
2. B‑delay is impossible here. B‑delay accrues only after three years of pendency of this application. Application 15/229,906 was filed 2016‑08‑05 and issued 2017‑07‑11 — a pendency of roughly 341 days, far short of three years. B‑delay = 0 days.
3. C‑delay = 0. No appeal or interference/derivation proceeding occurred in the prosecution of the '500 application.
4. A‑delay = 0 in substance. The '500 was a continuation that was allowed without reopening prosecution, so none of the 14‑month / 4‑month A‑delay clocks (37 C.F.R. §1.702(a)(1)–(6)) produced an adjustment.
5. Corroborating datum. Google Patents' "Anticipated expiration" of 2024‑08‑12 equals exactly 20 years from the 2004‑08‑12 priority date — i.e., the 20‑year base with zero added term, which is what a 0‑day PTA produces.

Confidence / caveat: I was unable to retrieve the literal text of the front‑page term Notice for the '500 (the string "Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is extended or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by __ days"). The 0‑day conclusion is an inference from the pendency arithmetic and the Google Patents expiration field, not from a direct reading of the printed Notice. If you need this nailed down, the authoritative source is the issued front page / PatentCenter "Patent Term Adjustment" panel for 15/229,906. (I did not fabricate a day count.)

Note on the family: the original parent, US 8,897,828 (application 10/917,968, issued 2014‑11‑25), itself carries the standard §154(b) disclaimer notice on its face (visible in its IPR exhibit: "Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is extended or adjusted under 35…"). I could not capture the day count from the available text, so I do not state one. That parent's PTA is a separate adjustment and does not flow to the '500, whose term is anchored to the same 2004‑08‑12 date but which earned no adjustment of its own. The practical effect is that the original '828 can outlive the later continuations.

3. Patent Term Extension (PTE) — 35 U.S.C. §156

Conclusion: Not applicable; there is no PTE.

§156 extensions are available only to patents whose term is consumed by regulatory review of a drug, device, food additive, or color additive. US 9,706,500 is a wireless/CDMA power‑control patent (H04W52/xx classifications) covering no FDA‑regulated product. No §156 application or grant exists, and none is possible for this subject matter. Any "extension" discussion for this patent is limited to the §154(b) PTA covered above.

4. Continuation applications

US 9,706,500 is itself a continuation and sits in the middle of a large continuation chain. It issued from 15/229,906, which is a continuation of 14/713,719 (per the "CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION" section of the full text).

Ancestry (line of continuations leading to the '500):

Sibling (same family, related by the cross‑reference, not a parent of the '500):

• 13/726,976, filed 2012‑12‑26, issued as US 8,983,522. The '500 specification expressly states: "This application is related to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/726,976 … which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,983,522."

Downstream continuations claiming priority through the '500 chain (Google Patents "Priority Applications (7)"):

• 16/410,614, filed 2019‑05‑13, issued as US 10,952,153
• 17/196,110, filed 2021‑03‑09, issued as US 11,134,448
• 17/465,030, filed 2021‑09‑02, issued as US 11,412,459
• 17/855,289, filed 2022‑06‑30, issued as US 11,523,351
• 17/975,193, filed 2022‑10‑27, issued as US 11,729,727

5. Divisional applications

Conclusion: None identified.

Every related U.S. application in this family is characterized as a continuation (not a divisional) — either in the '500 specification's cross‑reference paragraph or in the Google Patents relationship labels ("Continuation" / "Related Parent Applications"). There is no continuation‑in‑part and no divisional (i.e., no application filed under §121 responding to a restriction requirement) in the chain shown. If a true divisional exists, it would only surface in the PatentCenter "Continuity Data" tab for 15/229,906, which I could not open directly; based on all available evidence, the answer is no divisional.

6. Related family members (worldwide)

Google Patents lists a family ID of 35432078 with 11 U.S. family applications and counterpart filings in 10 countries. Beyond the U.S. members already listed above, the notable non‑U.S. family members are:

Note the family characteristic already flagged in the prior "NPE / troll‑pattern signals" section: this family has litigation (PTAB IPR2025‑00219 and two Texas Western District Court cases) and cascading same‑day assignments (2018‑12‑04). Family members routinely expire on the same 20‑year anniversary (2024‑08‑12 for the U.S. §120‑linked members), since terminal disclaimers are generally unnecessary when all members share the earliest priority date.

7. Projected expiration date

The patent has already expired. Consistently, the Google Patents legal status is "Expired – Fee Related," and the "Anticipated expiration" event is logged at 2024‑08‑12. Because the natural term ended 2024‑08‑12, and because the maintenance‑fee windows from grant (3.5 yrs ≈ Jan 2021; 7.5 yrs ≈ Jan 2025; 11.5 yrs ≈ Jan 2029) bracket that date, the "Fee Related" lapse aligns with the term expiry rather than suggesting a term cut short by an earlier lapsed fee. Unless a PTE/PTA certificate not reflected in the sources exists, the enforceable term of US 9,706,500 ended on 2024‑08‑12.

8. Practical / strategic read‑through

• Term insight: Even though the original '828 (filed 2004, issued 2014) may carry meaningful PTA from its decade‑long prosecution, the '500 and its downstream continuations did not earn added term and all expire on the 2004‑08‑12 + 20 = 2024‑08‑12 anchor. So the later continuations are the shorter‑lived members of the family — an unusual inversion caused by continuation practice combined with per‑application PTA.
• Litigation timing: The IPR2025‑00219 FWD (anticipated ~May/June 2026) and the 2024 Texas Western filings both post‑date the 2024‑08‑12 expiration — relevant to any damages window, which is confined to the pre‑expiration period, and to the practical value of the pending IPR (a claim cancelled in 2026 relates to an already‑expired patent, but invalidity judgments can still matter for past‑damages defenses and issue preclusion).
• Unverified items to check directly (I could not confirm from available sources, and will not guess): (a) the literal front‑page PTA Notice day count for the '500; (b) the PTA day count on the parent '828; (c) presence of any terminal disclaimer; (d) a PatentCenter "Continuity Data" confirmation that no divisional exists. These are best pulled from USPTO PatentCenter for applications 15/229,906 and 10/917,968: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/

Sources

• US 9,706,500 B2 full text and metadata (authoritative): https://patents.google.com/patent/US9706500/en
• US 8,897,828 B2 (parent, 10/917,968) and its term notice: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8897828 ; IPR exhibit https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2018-01773/
• PTA statutory/regulatory framework (35 U.S.C. §154(b); 37 C.F.R. §§1.702–1.705): MPEP 2700, https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-2700.pdf
• §156 PTE applicability (regulatory‑review patents only): corresponding MPEP/FDA materials.