US 10129590

Here is a concise summary of US patent 10129590:

US Patent 10129590

• Title: Display apparatus and video processing apparatus
• Assignee: Maxell Ltd
• Inventors: Toshiyuki Kurita, Hitoaki Owashi
• Filing Date: July 13, 2016
• Issue Date: November 13, 2018
• Abstract: The patent describes a display apparatus and a video processing apparatus that enable high-quality video display from portable devices while simultaneously communicating with the Internet or a home network. The core technique involves a control unit that prioritizes the radio communication unit handling video information by assigning it a higher transmission rate compared to the radio communication unit connected to a network. This ensures continuous high-picture-quality video delivery and network communication.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1 (Display Apparatus): This claim describes a display device that has two wireless communication parts. The first part receives video from an external video device, and the second part connects to a network (like the internet). A special control unit in the display device manages how these two wireless parts connect. This control unit prioritizes the video receiving part, ensuring it gets a higher transmission speed than the network connection part.
• Independent Claim 11 (Video Processing Apparatus): This claim describes a video processing device (like a camera or smartphone) that also has two wireless communication parts. The first part sends video to an external display device, and the second part connects to a network. Similar to the display apparatus, a control unit in this video processing device manages the connections, giving higher priority and a faster transmission rate to the part sending video to the external display compared to the network connection part.
• Independent Claim 15 (Video Processing Method): This claim outlines a method for processing video that involves receiving video wirelessly from another device using a first communication unit and connecting wirelessly to a network using a second communication unit. The method includes a step of controlling these connections, where the video reception is prioritized by assigning it a higher transmission rate than the network connection.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
US Patent 10129590 is associated with a case filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, identified by case number 26-1111. This case falls within the 2026 dockets for the Federal Circuit. While specific details of this case's schedule within 2026 were not directly present in the live search snippets for CAFC scheduled cases, the patent's own litigation history confirms its presence in the CAFC.

The search results from Unified Patents indicate several litigation cases related to US Patent 10129590. I will extract the details for each case. The provided information directly on the Google Patents page for US10129590 also lists litigation cases, which appears to be sourced from Unified Patents. I'll consolidate and present the information.

Here is a summary of the known litigation involving US patent 10129590, as of April 26, 2026:

1. International Trade Commission (ITC) Case: 337-TA-1324

• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet, but typically the patent owner (Maxell Ltd in this case) would be the complainant in an ITC action.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Jurisdiction: International Trade Commission (ITC)
• Case Number: 337-TA-1324
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Outcome/Current Status: Litigation - Critical

2. International Trade Commission (ITC) Case: 337-TA-1312

• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet, but typically the patent owner (Maxell Ltd in this case) would be the complainant in an ITC action.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Jurisdiction: International Trade Commission (ITC)
• Case Number: 337-TA-1312
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

3. International Trade Commission (ITC) Case: 337-TA-1215

• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet, but typically the patent owner (Maxell Ltd in this case) would be the complainant in an ITC action.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Jurisdiction: International Trade Commission (ITC)
• Case Number: 337-TA-1215
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

4. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Case: 26-1111

• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Case Number: 26-1111
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

5. Texas Eastern District Court Case: 5:25-cv-00034

• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
• Case Number: 5:25-cv-00034
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

6. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Case: IPR2024-00907

• Plaintiff(s): Petitioner: Unified Patents, LLC.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet, but typically the patent owner (Maxell Ltd) would be the patent owner in an IPR.
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Case Number: IPR2024-00907
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Outcome/Current Status: Final Written Decision

7. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Case: IPR2021-00400

• Plaintiff(s): Petitioner: Unified Patents, LLC.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet, but typically the patent owner (Maxell Ltd) would be the patent owner in an IPR.
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Case Number: IPR2021-00400
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Outcome/Current Status: Settlement

8. Texas Western District Court Case: 6:22-cv-00334

• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court
• Case Number: 6:22-cv-00334
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

9. Texas Eastern District Court Case: 5:23-cv-00092

• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
• Case Number: 5:23-cv-00092
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 10,129,590. This proceeding reached a Final Written Decision, meaning the patent owner, Maxell, Ltd., successfully defended some or all of the challenged claims, or claims were found unpatentable. The bottom-line defensive posture for a defendant is that the outcome of this IPR will dictate the availability of certain prior art invalidity defenses.

IPR2024-00907 — [Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.) Ltd et al. v. Maxell, Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-05-31
• Status: Final Written Decision — The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has issued a conclusive ruling on the patentability of the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Information not found in the provided search results.
• Petition grounds: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. challenged claims 1, 4-5, 8-12, and 14-25 of U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590. The petition alleged obviousness, citing a Nokia N93 guide as prior art, based on combining simultaneous radio use with over-the-air (OTA) updates.
• Institution decision: The search results indicate a Final Written Decision was issued, which implies that the petition was instituted. However, the specific date and detailed reasoning for the institution decision were not found in the provided search results.
• Final Written Decision (issued): The specific claim-level outcomes (which claims were canceled or held patentable) and the panel's reasoning for IPR2024-00907 are not detailed in the provided search results. The status indicates a Final Written Decision was reached by 2026-04-27.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable; the proceeding reached a Final Written Decision rather than settling before a decision.
• Appeal: Information regarding an appeal to the Federal Circuit for this specific IPR was not found in the provided search results.
• Defensive value: The impact of this proceeding on a defendant depends entirely on the specific outcome of the Final Written Decision regarding claims 1, 4-5, 8-12, and 14-25. If these claims were canceled, any infringement theory relying on them would be significantly weakened. If they were sustained, it strengthens the patent owner's position against challenges based on the art and grounds raised in this IPR.

Strategic summary

Based on the available information, US Patent 10,129,590 has been subjected to one Inter Partes Review, IPR2024-00907, filed by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. This proceeding has concluded with a Final Written Decision by April 27, 2026. However, the specific details of the FWD—namely, which of the challenged claims (1, 4-5, 8-12, 14-25) were found unpatentable or patentable—are not provided in the current dataset. Therefore, it is impossible to definitively state which claims are now CANCELED versus SUSTAINED. All claims not challenged in IPR2024-00907 (i.e., those outside of 1, 4-5, 8-12, 14-25, and any claims beyond 25) remain UNTESTED by this PTAB proceeding.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, if IPR2024-00907 resulted in a final written decision finding any claims unpatentable, Samsung (and any privies) would be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting in other venues any ground that they raised or reasonably could have raised in the IPR concerning those claims. Without the detailed FWD, it's impossible to know the precise scope of this estoppel. For other potential defendants, prior-art grounds not addressed in IPR2024-00907 remain available, provided they are not otherwise barred by other factors. There is no pattern of multiple IPRs from the same petitioner or aggressive appeals readily apparent from the single proceeding listed.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US10129590, the critical next step is to obtain and thoroughly review the Final Written Decision for IPR2024-00907. This document will explicitly state which, if any, of claims 1, 4-5, 8-12, and 14-25 were canceled or sustained. The specific disposition of these claims will directly inform any defensive strategy.

The Final Written Decision for IPR2024-00907 would be available on the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) (or its predecessor, PTAB E2E). You would typically search for the IPR number "IPR2024-00907" to locate the decision.
Since no other PTAB proceedings are listed, and IPR2024-00907 has concluded, there are no active trial-stage milestones pending for this patent in PTAB.

Inventors

• Toshiyuki Kurita (Maxell Ltd)
• Hitoaki Owashi (Maxell Ltd)

Original assignee

Maxell Ltd. is a Japanese manufacturer of consumer electronics products, including batteries, optical media, and functional materials. They have historically shipped products embodying display and video processing technologies. Maxell Ltd. is currently operating.

Assignment timeline

There are no recorded assignment records for US10129590 in the USPTO Assignment Center.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10129590
    2007 : Priority date
    2008 : Filed by Hitachi Maxell Ltd
    2016 : Application filed by Maxell Ltd
    2018 : Assigned to MAXELL, LTD.
    2018 : Published and granted
    2021 : Assigned to MAXELL HOLDINGS, LTD.
    2021 : Assigned to MAXELL, LTD. (Change of Name)
    2028 : Adjusted expiration

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear
4. Cascading transfers — not present
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present
7. Privateering — unclear
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present

Verdict

Insufficient data. While the Google Patents legal events show an assignment history and reassignments, the USPTO Assignment Center has no publicly recorded assignment records for US10129590. Therefore, a comprehensive analysis of NPE/troll patterns based on recorded assignments is not possible.

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 10129590, I will first access the patent document from the USPTO database to view its cited references. Then, for each cited patent, I will gather the requested details and assess its potential relevance to the claims of US10129590.

Since I cannot directly search the USPTO database or view the complete list of cited references from the provided text, I will use the information available on the Google Patents page for US10129590, which lists "Prior art keywords" and "Prior art date" and provides a full text description that includes a reference to JP-A-2007-202115. I will then analyze the provided text to identify specific claims and evaluate how JP-A-2007-202115 might anticipate them.

Most Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 10129590

Based on the provided patent text, a key prior art reference explicitly mentioned in the "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION" and "SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION" sections is:

• JP-A-2007-202115

Full Citation: JP-A-2007-202115.

Publication/Filing Date: The patent text states that US10129590 claims priority to Japanese Patent Application No. 2007-306750, filed on November 28, 2007. Given that JP-A-2007-202115 is cited as prior art in a Japanese application from 2007, its publication or filing date would precede November 28, 2007. The precise publication/filing date is not available in the provided text.

Brief Description: JP-A-2007-202115 describes a conventional technique where digitized video and audio signals are multiplexed for transmission. The background section of US10129590 highlights this as a method employed to prevent picture quality deterioration and protect copyright, often utilizing digital connections like High Definition Digital Multimedia Interface (HDMI) where baseband and audio signals are time-division multiplexed and encrypted through HDCP for transmission.

Which Claim(s) it Potentially Anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102:

The patent US10129590 aims to overcome limitations of existing technologies, including those described in JP-A-2007-202115. The core innovation of US10129590, as stated in the "Summary of the Invention," is to provide a technique for displaying high-quality videos from portable video processing apparatuses while simultaneously communicating with the internet and/or a home network, with higher priority given to video transmission. This suggests that JP-A-2007-202115, while dealing with digital video and audio signal transmission, does not address the specific problem of concurrent high-priority video display and network communication, particularly in a wireless context with explicit transmission rate assignment.

Therefore, JP-A-2007-202115 would not directly anticipate the claims of US10129590 that relate to:

• A display apparatus or video processing apparatus having two distinct radio communication units: a first for video information and a second for network connection.
• A connection assignment control unit that prioritizes the first radio communication unit's connection for video information over the second radio communication unit's connection to a network.
• Control of transmission rates such that the video communication transmission rate is higher than the network communication transmission rate.

The independent claims of US10129590, which define its core inventions, would likely be directed to these novel aspects. Without the full text of the claims, it's difficult to be precise, but based on the "Summary of the Invention," claims related to these specific features of dual radio communication with prioritized and differentiated transmission rate assignment would not be anticipated by JP-A-2007-202115.

Specifically, the "Summary of the Invention" for US10129590 outlines a display apparatus and a video processing apparatus each including:

• a first radio communication unit capable of receiving/transmitting video information by radio from/to an external apparatus.
• a second radio communication unit capable of connecting by radio to a network.
• a connection assignment control unit for controlling assignment of connection by radio transmission for each of the first and second radio communication units.
• where the control unit assigns connection of the first radio communication unit with higher priority and controls the assignment of the transmission rate such that the transmission rate between the first radio communication unit and the external video processing/display apparatus is more than the transmission rate between the second radio communication unit and the network.

These elements, particularly the dual radio communication with prioritized and rate-controlled assignment, represent the advancements over prior art like JP-A-2007-202115.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103

A patent claim is considered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains." The analysis involves determining the scope and content of the prior art, identifying differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, and ascertaining the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. A "person having ordinary skill in the art" (PHOSITA) is a hypothetical individual who possesses ordinary skill, ordinary creativity, and ordinary knowledge in the relevant technical field at the pertinent time, but is not an inventor or a genius. The PHOSITA is presumed to have full knowledge of all relevant prior art.

The effective filing date of US10129590 is November 28, 2007 (priority date of Japanese Patent Application No. 2007-306750).

Prior Art References Identified in US10129590:

The patent US10129590 explicitly cites one prior art reference in its background:

• JP-A-2007-202115: This reference describes a conventional technique in which digitized video and audio signals are multiplexed for transmission.

The patent also generally discusses High Definition Digital Multimedia Interface (HDMI) as an example of an interface for digital transmission, noting that with HDMI, "the base band signal and the audio signal of high definition are time-division multiplexed and the resultant signal is encrypted through HDCP for transmission thereof."

The Problem US10129590 Seeks to Solve:

The patent states that HDMI, "developed on assumption of uses for connections between apparatuses installed in a house of a family, consideration has not been given to connections with the internet and a network in the family or a home network while viewing high-quality videos." The objective is to "provide a technique wherein while presenting on a display apparatus videos of high picture quality obtained from portable video processing apparatuses such as a camera and a cellular phone, it is possible to communicate with the internet and/or a home network."

Analysis of Obviousness:

To establish obviousness, one must demonstrate a motivation for a PHOSITA to combine existing prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success.

Proposed Combination of Prior Art: JP-A-2007-202115 in view of general knowledge of wireless networking and the problem statement in US10129590.

1. JP-A-2007-202115: This reference, as acknowledged by US10129590, discloses the multiplexing and digital transmission of video and audio signals. This addresses the core aspect of handling high-quality digital video and audio.
2. General Knowledge of Wireless Networking: By the priority date of US10129590 (November 28, 2007), wireless networking technologies (e.g., Wi-Fi, Bluetooth) were well-established for connecting devices to the Internet and home networks. It was common knowledge in the art that devices could have multiple wireless communication capabilities.
3. Problem Statement in US10129590: The patent itself clearly identifies the gap in the prior art as the lack of consideration for "connections with the internet and a network in the family or a home network while viewing high-quality videos" when using interfaces like HDMI.

Motivation to Combine:

A PHOSITA, aware of JP-A-2007-202115's teaching of digital video transmission and the widespread availability of wireless networking, would have been motivated to combine these technologies to address the problem explicitly stated in US10129590. The motivation would stem from the desire to enhance the functionality of video display and processing apparatuses by enabling simultaneous high-quality video streaming and network access.

Specifically, a PHOSITA seeking to integrate network connectivity with high-quality video display, as described in the problem statement, would find it obvious to:

• Incorporate a second radio communication unit for network connectivity: Given the prevalence of wireless communication for network access by 2007, adding a module for this purpose would be a straightforward engineering choice.
• Prioritize video transmission: The challenge of maintaining "high picture quality" for video while simultaneously engaging in network communication would immediately suggest to a PHOSITA the need for a mechanism to manage bandwidth or transmission rates. Prioritizing the more bandwidth-intensive video stream (first radio communication unit) over the network communication (second radio communication unit) is a logical and predictable solution to ensure continuous high-quality video display within limited radio resources. The patent itself highlights the potential for network speed to "slightly lower" if the video band is expanded, but dismisses it as rarely influencing system operation because network information is less frequently exchanged. This indicates that a PHOSITA would recognize the trade-off and prioritize video.

Why the Claims would be Obvious:

• Independent Claim 1 (Display Apparatus): The display apparatus claims a first radio communication unit for receiving video and a second for network connection, with a control unit prioritizing the first. This combination directly addresses the identified problem by integrating known wireless communication methods and applying a logical resource allocation strategy for optimal user experience. The prioritization of video communication would be an obvious design choice for a PHOSITA to ensure uninterrupted high-quality display.
• Independent Claim 11 (Video Processing Apparatus): Similarly, for a video processing apparatus, transmitting high-quality video and simultaneously connecting to a network via separate wireless units, with priority given to video transmission, would be obvious for the same reasons as the display apparatus. The challenge of sending high-quality video while maintaining network access would prompt a PHOSITA to implement such a prioritization scheme.
• Independent Claim 15 (Video Processing Method): The method claims receiving video wirelessly and connecting to a network wirelessly, with the video reception being prioritized by a higher transmission rate. This method mirrors the functional components of the apparatus claims and would be an obvious operational strategy for a PHOSITA managing two concurrent wireless communication tasks with differing bandwidth requirements.

Conclusion:

Based on the explicit problem statement within US10129590 and the common knowledge of wireless networking existing at the time of the invention's priority date, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the digital multiplexing and transmission techniques exemplified by JP-A-2007-202115 with standard wireless networking capabilities. The further step of prioritizing the high-quality video communication link over the network communication link to maintain video quality, as described in the claims, would be a logical and obvious design choice for a PHOSITA addressing the stated problem of simultaneous high-quality video display and network access.