US 10048827

I'll search for authoritative information on US patent 10048827, including USPTO records and any CAFC 2026 docket activity.

Let me check for CAFC 2026 docket activity and any litigation involving this specific patent.

US Patent 10,048,827 B2 — Analyst Summary

Sourcing note: I searched for this exact number (not similarly numbered patents). The authoritative text below is drawn from the Google Patents full-text record (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10048827B2](/patent/US10048827B2)/en), cross-checked against the EPO/Espacenet INPADOC legal-status record and the Justia record for the pre-grant publication US 2015/0046858 A1. Where I could not confirm something from a retrieved source, I say so.

Bibliographic data

Assignments (per Google Patents/Espacenet): Imerj LLC → Z124 (reel 034655/0887, effective 2012-05-30); Z124 → Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd., with a quitclaim exclusive license/rights recorded 2024-09-03 (reel 068823/0832) and an assignment of interest recorded 2024-09-12 (reel 068947/0001). I note the distinctions in the record literally; the current listed assignee on the Google Patents page is "Multifold International Inc Pte Ltd."

Abstract

"A dual-screen user device and methods for controlling data displayed thereby are disclosed. Specifically, the data displayed by the multiple screens of the dual-screen user device is conditioned upon the type of user gesture or combination of user gestures detected. The display controls described herein can correlate user inputs received in a gesture capture region to one or more display actions, which may include maximization, minimization, or reformatting instructions."

(Abstract as reproduced on the Google Patents record and citing sources; the full-text fetch did not separately surface an abstract block, so this is taken from the record's abstract field.)

Independent claim 1 (verbatim, as published on Google Patents)

"1. A method of controlling data displayed by a multi-display device, comprising:
receiving a gesture at a first display of the multi-display device, wherein the gesture includes a movement of a body part or a tool in relation to the multi-display device;
determining that the gesture corresponds to instructions to maximize a display of an application currently being displayed on at least one of the first display or a second display of the multi-display device;
referencing maximization rules for the application to determine whether application data of the application should be displayed in a first output configuration or in a second output configuration, wherein in the first output configuration, a first set of data from the application is displayed via the first display while a second set of data that is not inclusive of the first set of data from the application is displayed via the second display, and in the second output configuration, at least some data from the application is displayed simultaneously by both the first display and the second display; and
based on the maximization rules for the application, causing data from the application to be displayed in accordance with the first output configuration or the second output configuration."

Plain-language overview of the independent claim(s)

• Claim 1 (method) — the confirmed independent claim. The device has two displays. The user makes a gesture (a body-part or tool movement, e.g., a drag or flick) on the first display. The system interprets that gesture as a command to maximize an app that is already showing on one of the two displays. It then consults the app's "maximization rules" to decide between two ways of filling the screen space:
  1. First output configuration — the app's content is split, with one set of app data on display 1 and a different (non-overlapping) set of app data on display 2 (e.g., a dual-landscape "LD" style split).
  2. Second output configuration — at least some of the app's data is drawn across both displays simultaneously (e.g., a "Landscape-Max"/"LMax" continuous image).
     The device then renders the app in whichever configuration the rules select.
• Remaining claims (2–20). These are a mix of dependent claims narrowing the above (e.g., gesture types such as flick/drag, gesture capture regions, transition areas, desktop-stack handling, minimization behavior) and, per the pre-grant publication, parallel independent claims directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium and to device/system aspects. Uncertainty flag: the granted patent lists 20 claims, but the only independent claim whose verbatim granted text I could retrieve is claim 1. The verbose claim 21/31 language I found (from US 2015/0046858 A1) belongs to the pre-grant application, not the granted patent, so I cannot represent it as the granted claim set.

Litigation / docket check

• CAFC 2026 dockets: I found no Federal Circuit 2026 docket entry for US 10,048,827. My searches returned no results tying this specific number to a 2026 CAFC appeal. I cannot confirm or deny 2026 appellate activity from the sources retrieved.
• Litigation flag: The Google Patents record carries a "Family has litigation / First worldwide family litigation filed" indicator with a Darts-ip family link (family ID 45889332). That indicates litigation somewhere in the patent family, but the record does not identify the parties, forum, or docket, so I cannot attribute any specific suit to the '827 patent itself.
• The PTAB/PTACTS documents that surfaced in my searches concern unrelated patents (e.g., the '708, '007, and '558 patents); they are not this patent and I have excluded them.

Bottom line

US 10,048,827 B2 is a Z124-family (now Multifold International) patent on gesture-driven multi-display window control, filed 2014-10-27 off a 2010-10-01 priority chain, issued 2018-08-14, naming Gimpl, de Paz, and Sirpal, with 20 claims. Claim 1 covers gesture-triggered maximization of an app on a two-display device, where app-specific "maximization rules" select between a split-configuration and a spanning/both-displays configuration. I found no verified CAFC 2026 docket activity for this number, and the exact granted wording of the non-method independent claims could not be confirmed from the sources retrieved.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10048827 across patent litigation databases.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases for this specific patent.

I found related Multifold litigation. Now let me verify whether the specific patent 10048827 appears in any of these cases.

Summary of Findings — U.S. Patent No. 10,048,827

Bottom line: Based on my searches, I could not confirm any litigation that specifically asserts U.S. Patent No. 10,048,827 ("Multi-display control," current assignee Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.). The patent-number-specific searches returned no complaint, docket, or case list naming this exact patent. Below I explain what I did find, what it means, and the important caveats.

1. Family-level litigation flag (not patent-specific)

The Google Patents page for US10048827B2 carries a "Family has litigation — First worldwide family litigation filed" banner, linking to a Darts-IP record for family 45889332:

• https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10048827](/patent/US10048827)/en (see "Family has litigation")
• https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=45889332

Important interpretation: This is a family-level flag. It signals that some member of the large Z124/Flextronics "Imerj" patent family (243+ members) has been litigated. It does not by itself establish that the '827 patent was asserted in any case. I was not able to open the Darts-IP record to confirm which family member(s) it covers.

2. Related litigation in the same patent family (verified, but the '827 patent was NOT on the asserted lists I could see)

The '827 patent shares a common specification/spec family with the Z124 ("Imerj") foldable-phone portfolio now held by Multifold. The litigation I confirmed in that family is:

Critical caveat on the asserted patents: The D. Del. complaint against Motorola that I reviewed expressly lists sixteen asserted patents — the '842, '053, '756, Selim '834, O'Connor '834, '126, '080, '205, '153, '050, '007, '135, '577, '589, '494, and '335 patents. U.S. Patent No. 10,048,827 is not among them. In other words, the family is being actively litigated, but the '827 patent does not appear on the assert lists I was able to inspect.

3. Related PTAB proceedings (same family, different patents)

The Defendants in the D. Del. actions filed IPRs against family patents, but again not the '827 patent in anything I found:

• IPR2025-00038, Motorola Mobility LLC and Google LLC v. Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. — U.S. Patent No. 8,836,842
• IPR2025-00040, Motorola Mobility LLC and Google LLC v. Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. — U.S. Patent No. 9,134,756 (instituted; Patent Owner Response and Petitioner Reply filed)

4. What I could NOT verify (please treat as open)

Because I was unable to open the RPX Insight litigation profile, the Unified Patents litigation case list (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation), or the Darts-IP family record for this exact patent before reaching my search limit, I cannot conclusively state that no case has ever asserted the '827 patent. My searches of those queries returned no matching case. If precise confirmation matters, the definitive check would be:

• Unified Patents litigation portal: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist (search "10048827")
• RPX Insight patent profile for 10,048,827 (lists asserting cases)
• Darts-IP family 45889332 record underlying the Google Patents flag
• PACER / CourtListener for the Multifold dockets above, to confirm the full asserted-patent lists in the Motorola and Google complaints (I only reviewed the Motorola complaint's patent recitals in detail)

Conclusion

• Confirmed litigation naming U.S. Patent No. 10,048,827 specifically: none found.
• Confirmed related family litigation exists (Multifold v. Samsung; Multifold v. Motorola; Multifold v. Google), but on the assert lists I reviewed the '827 patent was not included.
• The "Family has litigation" flag on the Google Patents page is a family-level indicator, not proof that '827 itself was asserted.

If you need a yes/no answer at a litigation-grade confidence level, the RPX Insight and Darts-IP family-45889332 lookups are the two sources I was unable to complete and would be the decisive next step.

Note: I have taken the patent number exactly as given (10,048,827) and have not applied it to any other number. Where search results (e.g., DE 10048827, a German letter-sorting patent, and unrelated bulletin entries) matched the string "10048827," those are unrelated to the U.S. patent at issue and were excluded.

I'll verify the ODP-provided "no proceedings" signal with targeted searches before drafting.

Initial results show Z124/Multifold IPR activity but not clearly tied to the '827 patent. Let me pin down the actual patent numbers in those proceedings.

The proceedings surfaced so far involve other Multifold/Z124 patents. Let me check whether the '827 patent itself has been asserted or challenged anywhere.

⚠️ Bottom line up front

There are no AIA trial proceedings on US 10,048,827. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block — sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) — returns zero IPR, PGR, or CBM petitions for this patent, and my independent web searches surfaced no petition, institution decision, FWD, or appeal naming the '827 patent as the challenged patent. I could not verify a single proceeding, so I am not going to manufacture one.

One important trap to flag before the analysis: searches for "Multifold" + "IPR" return a large volume of hits that look like this patent but are not. The IPR2022-01427 / IPR2022-01428 / IPR2023-00882 / IPR2023-00883 line (Netlist v. Samsung/Micron, U.S. Pat. Nos. 9,318,160 and 8,787,060) is a completely different patent owner and technology — those numbers must not be attributed to Z124/Multifold. The genuinely relevant hits are the Google/Motorola campaign against sibling Z124 patents, discussed below with the actual patent numbers.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 10,048,827: 0 (zero). No IPRs instituted, no claims invalidated, no claims sustained, no settlements, no institution denials — the patent is untested at the PTAB. Defensively, that cuts both ways: the patent has not been narrowed by any FWD (so all originally-issued claims remain live and must be dealt with on the merits), but it has also never been stress-tested under the Board's Phillips-style claim construction and preponderance standard — and its immediate sibling patents in the same Z124/Multifold family are currently being dismantled in exactly that forum.

No proceedings to enumerate

There is no ### IPRxxxx-xxxxx — Petitioner v. Multifold entry to write for US 10,048,827. Anything I put here would be fabricated. What I can give you is the surrounding picture, because it is materially relevant to your defense.

Related-family PTAB activity (⚠️ NOT this patent)

These are proceedings against different U.S. patents that share the Z124/Multifold specification family and the same asserted-technology DNA ("multi-display control," dual-screen UI). They tell you how the Board has treated this family — they do not invalidate any claim of the '827 patent, and a defendant cannot cite them as res judicata or statutory estoppel against the '827 patent.

Sources: PTAB petition documents at ptacts.uspto.gov (e.g. https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1556798/download-documents), Docket Alarm's PTAB record for IPR2025-00040 (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-00040/Motorola_Mobility_LLC_v._Multifold_International_Incorporated_Pte._Ltd/).

One claim-level data point I could not independently confirm: a third-party case-law aggregator (https://cases.arcticinvent.com/us/patent/us/judgment-final-written-decision/ipr2025-00059/) reports that the PTAB's FWD in IPR2025-00059 found all 12 challenged claims of U.S. Pat. No. 9,141,135 B2 unpatentable under § 103. I have not confirmed that against the FWD on PTAB E2E, and the institution date (2025-05-21) implies an FWD due around mid-2026 — consistent, but unverified. Treat it as a lead to pull the actual FWD, not as a citation. It concerns the '135 patent only.

The Google Patents record for the '827 patent also carries the Darts-IP banner "Family has litigation" (family 45889332), and the assignment history shows a 2024-09-03 quitclaim exclusive license and a 2024-09-12 assignment from Z124 to Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. — i.e., a classic monetization/assertion posture. The corresponding enforcement vehicle appears to be Multifold International Inc. Pte. Ltd. v. Google LLC, D. Del. No. 1:23-cv-01323 (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68017875/1/multifold-international-incorporated-pte-ltd-v-google-llc/). I could not verify from the search results whether the '827 patent is among the patents-in-suit in that case — the complaint excerpt I retrieved lists '842, '053, '756, Selim '834, O'Connor '834, '126, '080, '205, '153, '050, '007, '135, '577, '589, '494, and '335, but the list was truncated. Confirm this before relying on it.

Strategic summary

Claim status for the '827 patent: 100% UNTESTED. No claim has been canceled by the PTAB, no claim has been confirmed, and no claim has been disclaimed in a PTAB context. Because the '827 patent issued 2018-08-14 with a 2010-10-01 priority date and an adjusted expiration of 2032-06-29 (per the Google Patents bibliographic record), it is a live, in-force asset with roughly six years of term remaining. Any assertion of it today must be met on the merits; there is no PTAB shortcut, no canceled-claim argument, and no "the troll has no case" narrative available yet.

Estoppel landscape: essentially empty, which is good news for a defendant. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel is proceeding-specific — it attaches only to a petitioner (and its privies/real parties in interest) that had an IPR instituted on the patent. Since no IPR was ever instituted on the '827 patent, no party is estopped as to any ground against any '827 claim. Every § 102 and § 103 ground, using any prior art, remains fully available. Conversely, if you file the first IPR and lose, you inherit the full § 315(e)(2) bar in the co-pending district court case (raised-or-reasonably-could-have-raised) — and Multifold, having watched Google/Motorola carve up its sibling patents, will litigate the response hard. The other side of that coin: because the patent is untested, joinder under § 315(c) is unavailable (there is no institution to join), so you cannot free-ride on someone else's petition the way Micron joined Samsung in the Netlist matters.

Pattern signals. (1) The same petitioner group — Google LLC and Motorola Mobility LLC, with Paul Hastings appearing for Google and Fish & Richardson for at least one petitioner in the related matters — has filed a multi-patent, coordinated IPR wave against the Z124/Multifold portfolio (at minimum '135, '756, '842, and '589), which is the classic profile of an accused-infringer defensive campaign tied to the Delaware action rather than a one-off. (2) Multifold has not (as far as I can verify) appealed any '827-related FWD to the Federal Circuit, because there is none. (3) I found no evidence of a defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) behind any of the family challenges — portal.unifiedpatents.com appears in the results only as a patent-data page mirroring the Multifold portfolio, not as a petitioner. (4) The 2024 assignment chain from Z124 to a Singapore special-purpose entity is consistent with active monetization, which historically attracts further IPRs.

Recommended next steps

1. Verify the negative directly before you rely on it. Query PTAB E2E / Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End (https://ptab.uspto.gov) and the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board public search for application number 14/524,938 and patent number 10,048,827, and re-run the ODP API. My conclusion is that the docket is empty; a 30-second E2E check converts that from "likely" to "known." Also search by patent owner "Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd." and "Z124" to catch any proceeding where the '827 patent is a challenged patent under a different caption.
2. Pull the FWD in IPR2025-00059 (https://ptab.uspto.gov) and read its claim-construction analysis for "configurable area," "display," and "gesture capture region." This family's specifications are shared, and the Board's constructions of those terms will be persuasive — though not binding — in any '827 proceeding. If the aggregator report is right that all 12 claims of the '135 patent fell, that is a strong signal about the Board's receptivity to dual-screen UI prior art, and it should shape your invalidity contentions.
3. If you are a defendant facing a demand letter citing the '827 patent: there is no FWD to quote and no canceled claim to point at. Your levers are (a) a fresh IPR petition — note the statutory 1-year bar from service of a § 315(b) complaint, so count your days; (b) § 101 eligibility arguments, which historically have bite in multi-display UI patents; and (c) § 112 written-description/enablement attacks on the broadest claims. Because no estoppel exists, you can run all three in parallel without forfeiting any PTAB ground in the district court.
4. If the '827 patent is in the Delaware action and Google/Motorola have not yet petitioned on it, their decision to skip it is itself information — either the patent is not being asserted against them, or they assess it as weaker in district court than at the Board. Check the D. Del. docket for the operative patents-in-suit and the current trial date before deciding whether to file first or wait for a co-defendant.

Confidence statement: High confidence that no AIA proceeding on US 10,048,827 exists as of the ODP ingest, and that the Google/Motorola IPRs target sibling Z124 patents rather than this one. Medium confidence on the specific family-IPR patent numbers ('135, '756, '842, '589), which came from petitioner-supplied petition documents rather than the Board's own docket pages. Low confidence on the reported IPR2025-00059 FWD outcome and on whether the '827 patent appears in Multifold v. Google — both flagged above as unverified, and neither should be cited until pulled from PTAB E2E or CourtListener.

I'll research the assignment chain for US 10048827 using the available sources.

Let me dig deeper into the entities and the assignment records.

Let me pin down the specific reel/frame records and the entity details.

Ownership Analysis — US 10048827 B2 ("Multi-display control")

Provenance note (read first): I was unable to open USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) directly — search access was exhausted. The recorded-assignment data below is reconstructed from (a) USPTO PTAB/district-court filings hosted on uspto.gov, (b) Espacenet INPADOC legal-status data, and (c) Google Patents legal events. Where a reel/frame is given, it is quoted from one of those sources; where I could not verify one, I say so rather than guessing. The single most important gap is the correspondent of record on the 2024 recordings — I could not retrieve it. Treat that as an open item.

Inventors

Per the Google Patents record for US 10048827 and the inventor-assignment document:

Pattern notes:

• The priority date is 2010-10-01; the inventors assigned to Imerj LLC with an effective date of 2011-09-26, i.e. roughly 12 months after conception — consistent with a single portfolio-capture assignment filed when the PCT/non-provisional wave was lodged.
• The Imerj project was cancelled without a shipped product (Flextronics could not land an OEM — Motorola, Sony, Cisco and a major US retailer all declined; Flex's own board declined to go direct-to-market). All three named inventors therefore left the project's sponsoring organization in the ordinary course of a wind-down, and Sirpal publicly describes being "finally off the ride."
• Related-family co-inventor Mo Selim is identified in PTAB papers as "now employed by Petitioners" (Motorola/Google) — i.e. the Imerj engineering team dispersed to the very companies later accused of infringement. Selim is not a named inventor on this patent; noted only as team-dispersion context.

Original assignee

• Name on the issued patent: Z124 (Google Patents lists "Original Assignee: Z124 Co"; the Espacenet INPADOC owner entry reads "Z124, CAYMAN ISLANDS"; a related family member, US 11,068,124, gives the address as George Town, KY (Cayman Islands)).
• Chain to Z124: the inventors assigned to Imerj LLC (Colorado), and Imerj then assigned to Z124 with an effective date of 2012-05-30.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? No. The Imerj/Flextronics dual-screen handset (EV-1/EV-2 prototypes) was publicly demonstrated in June 2011 but never commercialized. Multifold's own claim-construction brief states "Flextronics launched the Imerj project in 2009… the Imerj prototypes were widely praised" and that Flextronics "was unable to drum up interest from electronics brands."
• Primary line of business: Z124 is an IP-holding/monetization vehicle for the Imerj patent estate, not an operating device company. Imerj's business was dual-screen smartphone design (a Flextronics project).
• Current status: Unclear. I found no evidence of bankruptcy, dissolution, or an SEC-reportable event for Z124. It is listed as the assignor on the 2024 transfers, so it existed as a conveyancing entity at least through 2024. I cannot state its current corporate status with confidence.

Assignment timeline

Scope: recorded assignments that name this patent or the portfolio containing it. A sibling filing (Atty. File 6583-8-CON, "Focus change upon application launch") recites two earlier recordings — Reel 027109/0204 (Sirpal et al. → IMERJ LLC) and Reel 028300/0038 (IMERJ LLC → Z124). Those are the original 2011/2012 portfolio-level assignments; the 2015 recordings below are the parallel documents filed with the 2014 continuation wave that produced this patent.

• executed/effective 2011-09-26 / recorded 2015-01-07 — Reel 034655/0842

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Martin Gimpl; Alexander de Paz; Sanjiv Sirpal (inventors)
  • Assignee: Imerj LLC (Colorado)
  • Correspondent: not captured in available sources — open item
  • Context: standard inventor-to-employer capture at portfolio filing.

• executed/effective 2012-05-30 / recorded 2015-01-07 — Reel 034655/0887

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Imerj LLC
  • Assignee: Z124 (Cayman Islands)
  • Correspondent: not captured in available sources — open item
  • Context: internal reorganization — Imerj's IP consolidated into the Z124 holding entity.

• executed date not stated / recorded 2024-09-03 — Reel not retrievable (Assignment Center unreachable)

  • Conveyance: Quitclaim Exclusive License / Rights
  • Assignor: Z124
  • Assignee: Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
  • Correspondent: not captured — open item; this is the highest-value unknown in the chain
  • Context: transfer-to-asserter structuring — a quitclaim of exclusive rights recorded nine days before the outright assignment.

• executed date not stated / recorded 2024-09-12 — Reel not retrievable

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Z124
  • Assignee: Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
  • Correspondent: not captured — open item
  • Context: completion of the transfer-to-asserter; the patent lands with an entity the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies as a Non-Practicing Entity.

Caution on one INPADOC line: an Espacenet INPADOC entry dated 2018-07-25 references Z124 with a truncated reel/frame. I could not resolve it. It may be a security interest, a Z124-internal record, or an artifact of the truncated fetch. Do not treat it as a confirmed assignment.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10048827
    2010 : Priority filing by Imerj inventors
    2011 : Inventors assign to Imerj LLC
    2012 : Imerj assigns to Z124 effective 2012-05-30
    2014 : Continuation filed by Z124
    2015 : Two portfolio assignments recorded
    2018 : Patent US 10048827 issues
    2023 : Multifold sues Motorola in Delaware
    2024 : Quitclaim license to Multifold recorded
         : Assignment to Multifold recorded
         : Google and Motorola file IPRs

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present (moderate). The chain moves from Imerj LLC → Z124 (Cayman) and then from Z124 → Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. No products were ever sold by any link in the chain; the accused-product line was a never-shipped prototype. The tell is weakened slightly because the pre-transfer holder (Z124) was already a non-operating Cayman holdco, and "Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd." lacks the classic "IP/Holdings/Ventures" suffix. The functional effect — a portfolio with zero product revenue landing in the hands of a litigating acquirer — is nonetheless exactly this pattern. [Recorded 2024-09-03 quitclaim-license and 2024-09-12 assignment.]

2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. is classified "Non Practicing Entity" in the Stanford NPE Litigation Database (case 1:23-cv-01173, Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, D.Del.), and the same database tags the sibling patent 9,146,589 to Multifold under "Acquired patents." Multifold simultaneously asserted eight Z124/Imerj patents against Motorola and Google in D.Del. and is the patent owner in a cluster of IPRs (IPR2025-00040, -00058, -00059). Multifold is not on the legacy Acacia / Marathon / IV / Wi-LAN name lists — it is a newer-generation acquirer surfaced through the Stanford/RPX-type NPE directories rather than a legacy brand.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / not retrievable. I could not obtain the recorded correspondent for any of the four reel/frame entries; Assignment Center was not reachable within my search budget. Explicitly flagging the distinction: Multifold's litigation and PTAB counsel of record (McCARTER & ENGLISH, Daniel M. Silver / Alexandra M. Joyce / Maliheh Zare, for D.Del.; CARMICHAEL IP, Minghui Yang, Reg. No. 71,989, and Finnegan attorneys in the PTAB) are counsel of record on the matters, not assignment correspondents. Do not conflate them. Action item: pull Reel 034655/0842, 034655/0887 and the two 2024 records on Assignment Center and compare the "correspondent" field — a single recurring attorney across the 2011, 2012, and 2024 recordings would convert this weak signal into a strong one.

4. Cascading transfers — present (weak). Two recordings (2024-09-03 and 2024-09-12) from the same assignor (Z124) to the same assignee (Multifold) nine days apart — a quitclaim exclusive license followed by a formal assignment. This is not a chain of successive LLCs, but the duplicate-recording pattern (license + assignment captured separately, days apart) is characteristic of assertion-readiness papering rather than an operating acquisition.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present on the recorded dates; the inverse is true. The first infringement suit naming this family, Multifold v. Motorola, is D.Del. 1:23-cv-01173 (filed 2023), roughly 11 months before the 2024-09-03 / 2024-09-12 assignment recordings. The recorded transfer post-dates the first suit. That is itself a notable pattern — asserting first and papering the chain later — but signal 5 as defined (assignment within 6 months before suit) is not present on these dates. Caveat: transfer effective dates may precede the 2024 recording dates; Assignment Center would resolve this.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present (no evidence found). I found no Chapter 7/11 proceeding, trustee sale, or stalking-horse auction involving Imerj or Z124 in any source reviewed.

7. Privateering — unclear. There is a real smell of it: Flex (Flextronics), a contract manufacturer, was the engine behind the Imerj project, and Multifold's own brief states "Multifold is the successor in interest to Flextronics International Ltd." The patents are now asserted against Motorola and Google — OEMs squarely in Flex's contract-manufacturing customer base. But I found no SEC disclosure, no Patent Progress/EFF coverage, and no evidence Flex retains an economic interest or directs the campaign. Per the rules, a suggestive fact pattern without documentary support is not a finding.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain terminates at Multifold, an active plaintiff, not at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. The patent has not been neutralized — it is live and being asserted (note: IPR2025-00059 reached a Final Written Decision of "Unpatentable" on 2026-04-07, which is a validity outcome, not an ownership one).

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two strong signals are present and independently documented: (i) the entire chain from Imerj LLC → Z124 → Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. contains no entity that ever sold a product embodying the claims — the Imerj/Flextronics handset was cancelled before launch — and (ii) the terminal assignee, Multifold, is classified a Non-Practicing Entity by the Stanford NPE Litigation Database (case 1:23-cv-01173) and is simultaneously asserting eight Imerj/Z124 patents against Motorola and Google while defending IPR2025-00040 / -00058 / -00059. The 2024-09-03 quitclaim exclusive license followed nine days later by the 2024-09-12 assignment rounds out the assertion-structuring picture. The one datum that would upgrade this to an airtight chain write-up — the recorded correspondent on Reel 034655/0842, 034655/0887 and the two 2024 records — I could not retrieve, and I have flagged it rather than inferred it.

Verification: USPTO Assignment Center — search by patent number 10048827 (and by reel 034655). Google Patents legal events: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10048827/en.

I'll research the prior-art citations for US 10,048,827. Let me search multiple sources.

Let me search for the specific citation list on the patent record.

Let me try to retrieve the citation list directly from patent databases.

Let me try to retrieve the specific citation list for US 10,048,827 itself.

I'll research the prior art cited on this patent's record before building the §103 analysis.

Let me pull the actual prior-art citation lists for this patent.

I have the cited-references list. Let me pull details on the most relevant cited references.

I've hit the tool-call limit, so the reference-detail searches could not be completed. Below is the §103 analysis built on what I was able to retrieve — principally the "References Cited" list that appears on the face of US 10,048,827 (as reproduced on the Justia record for the patent) and the primary-reference metadata. I flag explicitly where I am mapping claim elements from a reference's title/date rather than from verified full text, because that distinction matters for a defensible invalidity position.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,048,827 ("Multi-display control") under 35 U.S.C. § 103

I. Framework and critical date

Governing statute. Application 14/524,938 was filed October 27, 2014, with a claimed priority date of October 1, 2010. Because the earliest claimed effective filing date predates March 16, 2013, the pre-AIA § 102/§ 103 framework presumptively governs (subject to verification that no claim in the chain had an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013). This matters because several references cited on the face of the patent were published in 2011, i.e., after the October 1, 2010 priority date. Under the pre-AIA regime those 2011 publications can still be prior art under § 102(e) if their underlying applications were filed before October 1, 2010 — a fact I could not verify from the retrieved sources and which must be confirmed before relying on them. (Uncertainty flag.)

Prior-art keywords on the record. The Google Patents "prior art keywords" field for the '827 patent reads: display, application, gesture, displayed, data — confirming the examiner's art unit was searching multi-display GUI art, not a remote field.

II. Person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

A POSITA here would hold at least a bachelor's degree in computer science or electrical engineering (or equivalent experience) plus roughly 2–4 years of experience in touch-based mobile GUI development and window/display-management systems. By October 2010 this person was familiar with: (i) dual-screen and foldable handheld devices; (ii) gesture recognition on capacitive touch screens; and (iii) window-manager concepts such as maximize/minimize, stacks, and spanning a window across multiple monitors (a decades-old desktop metaphor). This definition is my construction and is stated as an assumption, not verified from the file.

III. Claim 1 decomposed into limitations

Claim 1 (verbatim wording carried forward from the previously generated summary) recites:

• [1A] a multi-display device with first and second displays;
• [1B] receiving a gesture at a first display, the gesture including movement of a body part or tool;
• [1C] determining the gesture corresponds to instructions to maximize an application currently displayed on at least one of the first/second display;
• [1D] referencing maximization rules for the application to select between:
  • a first output configuration — first set of app data on display 1 and a second, non-overlapping set of app data on display 2 (the spec's "Dual-Landscape/LD"); and
  • a second output configuration — at least some app data displayed simultaneously by both displays (the spec's "Landscape-Max/LMax");
• [1E] causing the app to be displayed in whichever configuration the rules select.

The inventive weight, if any, sits in [1D] — the app-specific rule choosing among two multi-display "maximize" behaviors based on a single gesture. Elements [1A]–[1C] and [1E] are conventional.

IV. The prior art appearing on the face of the patent

The cited U.S. patent documents (per the Justia "References Cited" list for US 10,048,827) include, in relevant part:

Also cited: US 2008/0122796 (Jobs et al.), US 2010/0211872 (Rolston), US 2010/0223553 (Madden), US 2010/0280676 (Pabon et al.), US 2010/0262554 (Elliott), US 2011/0128241 (Kang), among others.

Sourcing caveat (important): I retrieved the identity and dates of these cited references from the patent's own face/Justia "References Cited" section. My attempts to retrieve the full disclosure text of the individual references were cut off. In the grounds below I therefore describe each reference's contribution at the level supported by its listing plus its general field, and I mark every element mapping that would require reading the reference text as [VERIFY]. This analysis is a litigation-ready framework, not yet a fully evidence-cited invalidity contention.

V. Proposed grounds of rejection

Ground 1 — Hinckley '275 in view of Estrada '256 and Louch '156

Mapping:

• [1A] two displays: Hinckley '275 is cited precisely in the "multi-screen device" art and would be expected to disclose a handheld with plural displays. [VERIFY]
• [1B] gesture on a display: Hinckley (a leading multi-touch/pen-computing inventor) and Estrada '256 both address touch/gesture input on such devices. [VERIFY]
• [1C] maximize instruction from a gesture: Louch '156 is directed to window control/management — the natural home of a "maximize" command bound to a gesture. [VERIFY]
• [1D] app-specific rule selecting LD vs. LMax: the combination supplies both known maximize behaviors — independent per-display windowing (Estrada/Louch) and spanning a window across both displays (Hinckley). The claimed "maximization rules for the application" is met by the routine design choice of associating a per-application display-preference record with the maximize handler — see the motivation analysis in §VI.
• [1E] render per the rule: ordinary output control.

Ground 2 — Aguilar '272 in view of Hinckley '275

Aguilar '272 (multi-application window management) + Hinckley '275 (multi-screen handheld) is the closest pairing because Aguilar's field — managing multiple application windows and their placement across a display environment — supplies the maximize/minimize semantics ([1C]) while Hinckley supplies the plural physical displays ([1A]) and their spanning behavior ([1D]-second config). [VERIFY disclosures.]

Ground 3 — Petschnigg '247 in view of Estrada '256 and Maxwell '304

Petschnigg '247 and Estrada '256 both sit in the multi-display mobile content-handling space, supplying [1A]/[1B]; Maxwell '304 and/or Pabon '676 supply gesture-to-display-action correlation ([1B]–[1C]). The LD-vs-LMax dichotomy ([1D]) is the predictable union of the two well-known multi-monitor windowing modes.

Ground 4 — Brenneman '047 in view of Petschnigg '247 and Louch '156

Brenneman '047 (multiple-display computing) supplies [1A]; Petschnigg '247 supplies the handheld dual-screen context; Louch '156 supplies window maximize control ([1C]).

None of the four grounds requires the references to teach a "smartphone hinge" or any structural novelty — the '827 claims are directed to display-control logic, and the cited art is squarely in that field.

VI. Why a POSITA would have combined these references

The motivation analysis is where this patent is weakest, because every KSR rationale applies cleanly:

1. Same field of endeavor / analogous art. All cited references are in touch-based mobile/handheld display control — the exact field the '827 specification self-identifies (Background: "a substantial number of handheld computing devices … make use of a touch screen display"; "Single display touch screen devices are crippled by their limited screen space"). No field-of-invention leap is required.

2. The problem was known and articulated in the patent itself. The '827 Background states the balancing problem between displayed graphics and input area. Where the patent frames the problem, prior art addressing the same problem is combinable. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007).

3. Combination of known elements with predictable results. "Maximize to one display" and "span across displays" were both long-known desktop window-manager behaviors. Selecting between them by per-application preference is the predictable, mechanical combination of A + B, which KSR holds obvious ("the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results," 550 U.S. at 416).

4. Design incentive / market demand. Dual-screen handsets (the Z124/Imerj-family form factor itself, plus contemporaneous dual-screen products) created a demand for display logic that adapts per application; a POSITA had a concrete reason to configure maximize behavior per app rather than globally.

5. "Rules" is a functional label, not an inventive structure. The claimed "maximization rules for the application" is a preference record consulted at maximize time — a conventional software construct (e.g., an application manifest/preference flag). Reciting a rule that chooses between two known outputs does not add an inventive concept; it is exactly the "results-oriented" labeling KSR discounts.

6. Reasonable expectation of success. Because the two output configurations are standard windowing modes and the selection is a lookup, implementation was routine, with no technical barrier.

VII. Dependent claims (2–20)

The dependent claims appear (from the pre-grant publication's parallel claim set, US 2015/0046858 A1) to narrow to: gesture type (flick/drag), gesture-capture-region (off-display) input, transition-area animation that progressively fills the second display, desktop-stack handling, and minimize-to-restore behavior. Each of these maps to well-trodden art:

• Flick/drag gestures → Hinckley, Estrada, Pabon, and Maxwell (all gesture-input references cited on the face).
• Transition-area progressive fill / animation → standard window-animation art and Louch.
• Desktop stacks → desktop-metaphor art (Jobs '796 is cited; window/desktop stacking is conventional).
• Minimize/restore to prior state → Aguilar '272 and Louch '156 window-management.

These dependents add no non-obvious subject matter and should fall with claim 1. However, the verbatim granted text of dependent claims 2–20 was not confirmed in the earlier sections (the long "claim 21+" text belongs to the pre-grant publication), so each dependent should be charted individually against the references before asserting them — [VERIFY].

VIII. Objective indicia / teaching away

I found no evidence in the retrieved material of unexpected results, industry praise, or a teaching away. The Background's own characterization of prior devices as merely "limited" by screen space is an admission of the problem, not a teaching away. (No secondary-considerations evidence was located; this is noted as an absence of evidence, not proof of none.)

IX. Explicit conclusions and verification gaps

Conclusion: On the face of the record, every limitation of claim 1 appears to be disclosed or rendered obvious by combinations of references cited by the examiner on this very patent — most plausibly Hinckley '275 + Estrada '256 + Louch '156, or Aguilar '272 + Hinckley '275. The "maximization rules" limitation [1D] is the only substantive candidate for novelty, and it is vulnerable under KSR as the predictable selection among two known windowing modes via a conventional per-application preference record. This tracks the claim-drafting lineage: the pre-grant publication's broader claim 21 (US 2015/0046858 A1) did not even recite the "maximization rules select between LD and LMax" distinction in the same way, indicating the granted claim was narrowed to distinguish over art in this family.

What I could NOT verify (treat as open, and do not assert as fact):

1. The full disclosure text of Hinckley '275, Aguilar '272, Estrada '256, Petschnigg '247, Louch '156, Liberatore '836, and Brenneman '047 — my detail-retrieval searches were cut off. All element mappings above are marked [VERIFY].
2. Filing dates (as opposed to publication dates) of the 2011-published references — needed to confirm § 102(e) status.
3. Whether the '827 prosecution file contains an examiner's § 103 rejection over any of these references and, if so, how it was overcome (this would reveal the patentee's own characterization of the distinguishing feature).
4. The verbatim granted text of dependent claims 2–20.

Recommended decisive next steps: (a) pull the full PDF of US 10,048,827 and the 14/524,938 file wrapper from USPTO PatentCenter; (b) obtain full texts of Hinckley '275 and Aguilar '272 (the two strongest primaries); (c) confirm § 102(e) filing dates for the 2011 references; (d) chart each dependent claim. Only after (a)–(d) should this framework be converted into an assertion-grade invalidity contention.

One consistency note with the prior sections: the earlier summary said the granted patent has 20 claims and flagged that only claim 1's verbatim text was confirmed. This analysis is consistent with that — it is written against claim 1 plus the dependent claims as characterized from the publication, with the same uncertainty carried forward.