US 10201283

I'll run targeted searches against public patent databases and litigation dockets for this exact number.

Search results summary — US 10,201,283 (patent number 10201283)

I searched for the literal number 10201283 (US 10,201,283 B2) and filtered out the many near-miss hits (e.g., US 10,517,484; US 10,874,304; US 10,201,283 vs. Apple's unrelated "…483" patents such as US 11,474,483 in Apple v. Masimo). Everything below is tied to US 10,201,283 specifically.

Bibliographic data

Uncertainty flag on dates: Google Patents lists "Anticipated expiration 2033‑12‑17," whereas Patents‑Review.com lists an "adjusted expiration" of 2038‑07‑08. I cannot reconcile these two third-party figures here; the true term depends on the earliest §120/§121 benefit claim and any PTA/terminal disclaimer, which I could not verify from an authoritative USPTO document in this session.

Abstract (verbatim, as published)

"A smart phone or tablet includes pulsed laser diodes generating light with near-infrared wavelengths between 700‑2500 nanometers. First lenses direct light from the laser diodes to tissue. An array of pulsed laser diodes generates light with near-infrared wavelengths between 700‑2500 nanometers. Second lenses form light from the array into spots directed on the tissue. An infrared camera synchronized to the laser diodes and the array generates data based on light reflected from the tissue. The smart phone or tablet generates a two-dimensional or three-dimensional image using the data from the infrared camera. The smart phone or tablet includes a wireless receiver, a wireless transmitter, a display, a voice input module, and a speaker."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

I could fully confirm claim 1 from a claims database (RPX Insight). Its substance, in plain language:

• Claim 1 — A smart phone or tablet that contains:
  1. one or more laser diodes that are pulsed and emit at least some light in the near-infrared, 700 nm–2500 nm;
  2. first lens(es) that take that light and aim it at tissue comprising skin;
  3. an array of laser diodes emitting in the same 700–2500 nm NIR band;
  4. second lens(es) that receive the array's light and form it into a plurality of spots projected onto the tissue;
  5. an infrared camera synchronized to both the laser diode(s) and the array, which receives light reflected off the tissue and produces data;
  6. the camera capturing a first signal while all laser diodes are off and a second signal while at least some are on (the "on" signal including reflected tissue light) — i.e., an on/off change-detection scheme;
  7. the phone/tablet constructing a 2D or 3D image from the difference of the first and second signals, and using that image in part to identify features corresponding to the skin; and
  8. the device also including a wireless receiver, wireless transmitter, display, voice input module, and speaker.

The specification is broad and covers glucose, ketones (3‑hydroxybutyrate), HbA1c, triglycerides, cholesterol and other blood constituents, measured non-invasively in the SWIR (notably ~1500–1850 nm and ~2050–2500 nm), with teeth, nails, skin and varicose‑vein/lenslet‑array delivery as alternative optical interfaces.

Uncertainty flag on the full claim set: In this session I could not retrieve the complete, authoritative claim listing (total claim count, and the text of any independent claims in addition to claim 1). Sources indicate the patent has multiple independent "smart phone or tablet" claims in the family (sibling continuations such as US 2019/0150748 A1 have independents at 1, 7 and 15), but I cannot state the '283 patent's independent-claim count with confidence and am not asserting it.

Litigation / PTAB / CAFC status

Confirmed, and specific to this patent number: None of the proceedings I found names US 10,201,283 as the challenged or asserted patent.

• Family-level litigation flag: The Google Patents record carries a Darts‑IP "First worldwide family litigation filed" indicator (family 51021943). That is a family-level signal, not proof that the '283 patent itself was asserted.
• Related Omni MedSci litigation found: Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Nos. 2:18‑cv‑00134‑RWS and 2:18‑cv‑00429‑RWS (E.D. Tex.), and 4:19‑cv‑05924 (N.D. Cal.). The asserted patents in those cases were the '533, '040, '286, '698, '546, '299 and '113 patents — not the '283. The '283 is identified only as a related/child patent in those petitions' "related patents" lists.
• PTAB proceedings (none targeting the '283): Apple's IPR2019‑00910/913/914/915/916/917 and IPR2021‑00453 (the '484 IPR) do not name the '283. Samsung's 2025 filings (IPR2025‑01249 through ‑01254; PGR2025‑00063 and PGR2025‑00064) target US 9,055,868, 9,651,533, 10,874,304, 11,160,455, 12,193,790 and 12,268,475 — again, not the '283. PGR2025‑00063 (Samsung v. Omni MedSci) shows a Board Director Discretionary Decision: Deny dated 12/1/2025 and a status of "Discretionary Denial."
• Federal Circuit 2026 dockets: The live Omni MedSci appeals I found are Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., No. 23‑1034 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2024, affirmed-in-part/vacated-in-part/remanded re US 10,517,484) and the follow-on Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 25‑1646 (Fed. Cir.), concerning the Board's Feb. 14, 2025 remand decision on the '484 patent — still pending. I also surfaced a Law360 item dated May 19, 2026 reporting that the PTAB will no longer conduct an IPR into an Omni MedSci wearable device patent because a separate PGR will proceed. Neither of these is US 10,201,283.

Explicit statement of uncertainty: I found no CAFC 2026 docket and no USPTO IPR/PGR/reissue proceeding that specifically identifies US 10,201,283. I cannot rule out that such a proceeding exists in a record I did not retrieve; I have no authoritative basis to assert one, and I am not going to attribute the '484, '533, '304, '455, '790, '868 or '475 proceedings to the '283. If your question presupposed a 2026 CAFC appeal of this exact patent, that presupposition is not supported by the search results I obtained.

Sources consulted: Google Patents (US10201283B2), Patents‑Review.com (application 16/029,611), RPX Insight patent page for US 10,201,283 B2 (claim 1 text), FreePatentsOnline (US 2018/0317776 A1), Docket Alarm PTAB dockets (PGR2025‑00063; IPR2025‑01249), PTAB petition exhibits (Samsung/WHOOP petitions listing related Omni patents), Apple's IPR2021‑00453 petition exhibit list, and Law360 IP docket summaries.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 10,201,283. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me dig deeper on the specific patent and litigation.

I have found related litigation context. Now let me focus specifically on whether US 10,201,283 itself was asserted, and check the recent cases.

Answer

I did not find any litigation that directly asserts U.S. Patent 10,201,283. Based on my searches, the '283 patent does not appear as an asserted patent in any infringement complaint, IPR/PGR petition, or appeal that I could locate. Instead, it appears repeatedly as a related patent / continuation parent in the extensive litigation over the Omni MedSci (Mohammed N. Islam) patent family.

What I did confirm about the '283 patent itself

• Owner/assignee: Omni MedSci, Inc.; inventor Mohammed N. Islam; application US 16/029,611, filed 2018-07-08; granted 2019-02-12; priority date 2012-12-31.
• Google Patents shows a "Family has litigation" flag (Darts‑ip family 51021943), which is family-level, not patent-level, and does not indicate that the '283 itself was asserted.
  • Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10201283/en
• In the Omni MedSci family tree, the '283 is cited as a parent continuation of later patents (e.g., "16272069 is a CON of 16029611 07/08/2018 PAT 10201283").
  • Source: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/[PTAB](/ptab)/PGR2025-00063/SAMSUNG_ELECTRONICS_CO._LTD._v._OMNI_MEDSCI_INC/docs/10-14-2025-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2030-...pdf
• It is listed only as a "related" patent in mandatory notices and petitions — e.g., in Apple's IPR2021‑00453 petition (list of patents related to the '484 patent) and IPR2019‑00912 (related to the '698 patent), and in the WHOOP IPR2025‑01583 mandatory notice.
  • Sources: https://knobbemedical.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Petition-for-Inter-Partes-Review.pdf ; https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-01583/WHOOP_Inc._v._Omni_MedSci_Inc/docs/10-17-2025-Patent_Owner/...

Related family litigation (NOT asserting the '283 — provided for context only)

These cases involve sibling/child patents in the same family (e.g., '533, '040, '286, '698, '546, '484, '455, '790, '475, '304). I list them because the '283 is a member of that family, but I could not verify that any of them asserts the '283:

Related PTAB proceedings (not asserting the '283): IPR2019‑00910 through ‑00917; IPR2020‑00029; IPR2020‑00175; IPR2021‑00453; IPR2025‑01249 to ‑01254; PGR2025‑00063; PGR2025‑00064; IPR2025‑01583. Appeals: Fed. Cir. Nos. 20‑1715, 21‑1229, 23‑1034 (Apple v. Omni, decided 6/21/2024), 25‑1646.

Caveats

• I searched litigation-focused sources (CourtListener, Docket Alarm, Unified Patents/Justia references, PACER Monitor summaries, PTAB records). I could not retrieve complete asserted-patent lists for the 2025–2026 cases within my search budget, so it is possible (but unconfirmed) that the '283 was added to a more recent complaint.
• No case was found in which U.S. Patent 10,201,283 is identified as a patent-in-suit.
• Per your instruction, I have not auto-corrected any patent numbers; all identifiers are reproduced as found.

Bottom line: No litigation specifically asserting US 10,201,283 was identified. If you need certainty, I'd recommend pulling the actual complaints in the 2024–2026 Omni MedSci cases (2:24-cv-01070, 1:25-cv-00140, 2:25-cv-00483, 2:26-cv-00470, 7:26-cv-00226) to confirm the full asserted-patent lists.

I'll start by verifying the structured "no proceedings" signal against public sources.

The structured data shows no proceedings on the '283 patent. Let me probe harder for family-related and direct filings.

PTAB proceedings overview

US 10,201,283 — 0 AIA trial proceedings on file. The structured PTAB block in this prompt (sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal) returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding naming US 10,201,283 as the challenged patent (breakdown: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied). I ran independent web searches and found no petition, institution decision, FWD, or appeal directed at the '283 patent itself. Per your stated default, that is the answer to the question asked.

Bottom-line defensive posture: The '283 patent is unswept, not hardened. Nobody has tested it — so you get the full IPR toolbox (no § 315(e) estoppel, no adverse claim-construction record, no claim-cancellation collateral estoppel). But you also get no free win: unlike its siblings, no claims of '283 have been canceled. The real risk is that the same prior art which killed every challenged claim of the '533 and '484 patents (which share the '283 specification and much of its claim language) is sitting unused against '283 — meaning an IPR on '283 is likely winnable if you file it, but you have to file it.

⚠️ Evidentiary caveat: my searches are one-pass and ODP ingestion lags filings. I cannot rule out a very recently filed '283 petition that is not yet indexed. Do not treat "zero" as certified until you re-check PTAB E2E by patent number directly.

Direct proceedings on US 10,201,283

None. There is no ### IPR202x-xxxxx — Petitioner v. Omni MedSci, Inc. section to write for this patent, because no such proceeding exists. I am deliberately not generating placeholder sections — inventing a proceeding number would be the worst possible failure mode here.

Adjacent family proceedings (NOT against '283 — context only)

These are included because they define your real strategic position. Every one of them is against a different patent number. None of them tolls or bars anything as to '283.

IPR2021-00453 — Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,517,484)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Status: Claim scope invalidated at the Board; on appeal. This is the single most important precedent for anyone attacking '283.
• Relationship to '283: The '484 is a continuation-chain descendant of the '283. Omni's own file histories (submitted as Exhibits 2029/2030 in PGR2025-00063) recite: "16272069 is a CON of 16029611 07/08/2018 PAT 10201283" and "16506885 is a CON of 16272069" (16/506,885 issued as US 10,517,484). They share the specification.
• Final Written Decision: Paper No. 22 (2022-08-03) held claims 1, 2, 7, and 15–23 unpatentable as obvious, but found Petitioner had not shown claims 3–6 and 8–14 unpatentable.
• Appeal: Apple appealed the surviving claims. Fed. Cir. No. 23-1034, 2024 WL 3084509 (2024-06-21) reversed and remanded for the Board to consider an alternative obviousness argument.
• On remand: Paper No. 26 (2025-02-14) held claims 3–6 and 8–14 unpatentable as obvious. Net effect: all claims of the '484 patent have been held unpatentable by the Board.
• Further appeal: Omni appealed the remand decision as to claims 3–6 and 8–14; Fed. Cir. No. 25-1646, still pending as of the sources reviewed.
• Defensive value for a '283 defendant: The '484 FWD and remand FWD are the roadmap. Petitioners in the pending Samsung/IPR2025 family expressly argued the Board "found unpatentable limitations identical or substantially identical to those in the Claims based on Lisogurski, Tran, and Carlson." The same Lisogurski-based § 103 theory is the obvious starting point for a '283 petition.

IPR2019-00916 — Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,651,533)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Final Written Decision: Paper No. 39 (2020-10-14) — all challenged claims (claims 5, 7–10, 13, and 15–17) unpatentable as obvious.
• Appeal: Fed. Cir. No. 21-1229, 2022 WL 2062168 (2022-06-08) — affirmed.
• Note the limits: the '533 IPR did not reach claims 11 and 12 of the '533 — the only '533 claims Omni now asserts in litigation. That is exactly the "unswept claim" problem, and it applies with full force to '283.

The 2025 Samsung / WHOOP wave (all different patents)

Named petitioners across the wave: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Fossil Group, Inc.; Fossil Stores I, Inc.; Fossil Partners, L.P.; Oura Health Oy; OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.; Ouraring, Inc.; Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd.

The Director (John A. Squires) is personally driving these orders. The key holding, per Law360 (2026-05-08) and the IPR2025-01253 vacation order: WHOOP "persuasively show[ed]... that the '790 patent is an AIA patent" — i.e., a member of the '283 family was found to have an effective filing date after the AIA cutoff, making it PGR-eligible and not IPR-eligible. Samsung had taken the opposite position (that the family is pre-AIA, Dec. 31, 2012 priority) and lost that fight. That ruling is family-specific but it is live, adverse precedent about the '283 family's priority claims.

Strategic summary

Claim status of '283. Zero claims of US 10,201,283 are canceled, sustained, or even tested — the patent has never been before the Board on its own claims. Cancellation has, however, run through the family: all challenged claims of the '533 (claims 5, 7–10, 13, 15–17, affirmed) and, after remand, all claims of the '484. Notably, both Omni's current campaigns and the prior Apple campaigns have avoided asserting '283 — it appears in the infringement-contentions tables and P.R. 4-1/4-2 exchanges for the superseding continuations but not as an asserted patent in Omni v. Apple, Omni v. Samsung (2:24-cv-01070, E.D. Tex.), or Omni v. WHOOP (1:25-cv-00140, D. Del.). I cannot tell you why Omni has kept it in reserve, and I would not assume it is harmless.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR has been brought on '283, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is zero as to '283. Samsung's estoppel from IPR2025-01251 attaches to the '304 patent, not the '283; Apple's from IPR2019-00916 and IPR2021-00453 attaches to the '533 and '484, not the '283. Practically: a '283 defendant may run any § 102/§ 103 ground on any patent or printed publication, without estoppel exposure — and may even reuse art that Apple or Samsung already deployed, since estoppel is patent-by-patent. The two constraints you do face are (a) § 325(d) discretion — the Board may lean on the fact that Lisogurski, LeBoeuf, Tran, and Carlson were cited in family IDSs, though petitioners have successfully argued no rejections issued on them; and (b) the Revvo / Tesla discretionary-denial line the parties are actively briefing, plus the General Plastic-style squeeze if you file parallel IPR + PGR (watch how the Director treated Samsung's parallel filings — he vacated an instituted IPR rather than let both run).

Pattern signals. Same petitioner, multiple IPRs: yes — Apple filed IPR2019-00910 through -00916 against this family, and Samsung filed six petitions (01249–01254) plus two PGRs in one day. Aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner: yes — Omni appealed IPR2021-00453 twice (No. 23-1034, decided against it; No. 25-1646, pending). Defensive aggregator: no evidence found of Unified Patents or a similar entity in this chain — the petitioners are all commercial adversaries plus WHOOP. Notably absent: any petitioner has ever challenged '283. The one attempt on a family member that drew a discretionary denial was the '868 patent (IPR2025-01249), and the '868 is the one patent in the campaign with a 2002 priority date — the oldest, and the one where Omni's assertions look most vulnerable on § 102(a) art rather than the Lisogurski obviousness theory.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant being asserted '283 right now: the honest answer is that you have no PTAB win to point to — there is no FWD to cite and no canceled claim to hide behind. Do not let anyone on your team argue "the PTAB already invalidated this family" without distinguishing patent numbers; the Delaware court in Omni v. WHOOP was explicit that the '533 IPR "did not address claims 11 or 12 of the '533 patent, the only two claims of that patent that are asserted in this case" — Omni has been careful to assert claims the Board has never touched. Expect the same claim-selection discipline with '283.

File the IPR (or coordinate with a co-defendant who will). The concrete, high-value play is a § 103 petition on '283 built on Lisogurski alone and in view of Carlson (Grounds 1 and 2 of IPR2025-01250; Grounds in IPR2021-00453), reusing the Anthony-declaration architecture and the '484 FWD/remand-FWD findings — but you must build your own record, because

• the '484 FWD is not binding precedent, and
• any estoppel Apple has does not transfer to you.

Note the statutory posture: Omni asserts the family is entitled to a 2012-12-31 priority date, which makes '283 a pre-AIA patent → IPR-eligible, PGR-ineligible (see the ranking in IPR2025-01254, Paper 6, on § 311(c) vs. § 321(c)). PGR is separately time-barred — '283 issued 2019-02-12, so the 9-month § 321(c) window closed around 2019-11-12. IPR and ex parte reexamination are your only routes (the '868 precedent shows the Board will accept EPR where it discretionarily denies IPR).

Timing. For a fresh IPR, the § 311(b) one-year bar runs from service of a § 271 complaint on you; run that date immediately. Once instituted, you are on the statutory clock — FWD due within 12 months of institution (§ 316(a)(11)), with a § 315(b)-style POPR at ~3 months and institution decision at ~6 months.

Re-verify before you rely on this. Pull PTAB E2E and search by patent number 10,201,283, and cross-check the family numbers above on CourtListener (Fed. Cir. Nos. 21-1229, 23-1034, 25-1646). My searches surfaced no '283 petition, but ODP ingestion in this block is dated and I did not exhaust every docket query.

Sources consulted: US 10,201,283 on Google Patents; IPR2025-01253 Director Review order vacating institution; IPR2025-01253 sua sponte Director Review order; Omni v. WHOOP D. Del. stay opinion (D.I. 101); Omni v. WHOOP first stay opinion, D.I. 61; IPR2025-01250 POPR and exhibits (Docket Alarm); Law360 PTAB case page — WHOOP, Inc. post-grant review.

I'll research the assignment/ownership record for US 10,201,283, starting with the USPTO Assignment Center index and cross-referencing with other sources.

Let me search for the specific USPTO assignment records and reel/frame numbers for this patent family.

Let me search for the specific assignment reel/frame records and Google Patents legal events.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 10,201,283 B2

"Near-infrared laser diodes used in imaging applications" (Omni MedSci, Inc.)

Data-access caveat up front. I was unable to query assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov directly within this session, so I could not pull the verbatim reel/frame images for application 16/029,611. What follows reconstructs the chain from (a) the Google Patents legal-events record, (b) the official file histories entered as PTAB exhibits (Samsung's PGR2025-00063, Exhibits 2029/2030), (c) the Federal Circuit's standing decision in Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 7 F.4th 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2021), and (d) a recorded family assignment document surfaced in IPR2025-00839 (Omni Ex. 2004). Where I could not retrieve a reel/frame, I say so rather than inventing one. Verify the reel/frame directly at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ by searching Patent Number 10201283.

Inventors

Pattern notes (not the classic fire-sale profile, but two unusual features worth flagging):

1. Dual-hat inventor/assignee with a contested employer. Unlike a mass-departure scenario, there is a single inventor who is simultaneously a sitting UM professor and the founder of the assignee. The 2012 provisional applications were filed during a UM-approved unpaid leave of absence to start Omni MedSci; the non-provisionals followed after his 2013 return to UM. UM's Office of Technology Transfer (OTT) denied Dr. Islam's request to confirm his ownership, asserting that university funds were indirectly used — creating a clouded-chain-of-title risk that Omni had to litigate all the way to the Federal Circuit. This is a title-integrity red flag, not an NPE red flag.

2. Single-inventor, founder-controlled portfolio. Every patent in this ~100-member family appears to name Islam alone and to remain with Islam-controlled entities. There is no team attrition signal and no evidence of inventors departing the original assignee.

Original assignee

Omni MedSci, Inc. — named as original and current assignee on the face of the issued patent.

• Address of record: 1718 Newport Creek Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48103 (also the address recorded on related family entities).
• Origin/business: founded by Dr. Islam (described in Omni MedSci v. Apple briefing as "a new Biomedical Laser Company"). It functions as the family's patent-holding and assertion vehicle.
• Products embodying the claims: I found no evidence that Omni MedSci ships a commercial smart phone or tablet — or any device — practicing the '283 claims (pulsed NIR laser diodes + synchronized IR camera in a phone/tablet form factor). The claims are, on their face, directed at products made by Apple/Samsung-type manufacturers, not by Omni.
• Current status: operating as a patent-holding/assertion entity — not acquired, not dissolved, not in bankruptcy. It is an active serial plaintiff (Apple 2018/2019/2020; Samsung, Fossil, Oura, OnePlus 2024–2026; Whoop 2025).

Assignment timeline

For US 10,201,283 / application 16/029,611 specifically, the recorded chain is essentially a single conveyance from the inventor to his own company; there are no post-issuance assignments of the '283 to any third party. No Assignment-Center record moved the '283 to a licensing LLC, and none terminates the chain at a defensive aggregator.

Confirmed event on the '283 chain

• 2013-12-17 (executed) / recorded at the USPTO (recording date not retrieved this session) — Reel/Frame not retrieved
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Mohammed N. Islam
  • Assignee: Omni MedSci, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not verifiable for this document from the sources retrieved. The recurring family correspondent of record is Brooks Kushman P.C., 1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor, Southfield, MI 48075-1238 (later updated to 150 W 2nd St., Suite 400N, Royal Oak, MI 48067), Customer No. 109543; contact tgood@brookshushman.com. Flag: Brooks Kushman is the prosecution firm for the entire family — an assignment recorded by the same firm that prosecuted the patent is ordinary operating-company behavior, not the classic NPE-conveyancing tell. Treat any recurrence of this firm as prosecution recurrence, not a troll signal.
  • Context: Formation of the assignee — the inventor assigned his SWIR/NIR patent family to his own newly formed startup. Per the Federal Circuit and multiple firm summaries: "On December 17, 2013, Dr. Islam assigned his patent rights to Omni MedSci; the assignments were recorded at the USPTO," and one "of those patents is an ancestor of the patents at issue."

Family-context event — NOT on the '283 chain (do not attribute to the '283)

• 2013-11-22 (executed) / recorded 2014-01-10 — Reel 031941 / Frame 0970 (Omni Ex. 2004, IPR2025-00839)
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Cheetah Omni LLC (a Texas corporation, place of business 1718 Newport Creek Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48103)
  • Assignee: Omni Continuum, LLC (a Michigan corporation, same address)
  • Correspondent: Brooks Kushman P.C., 1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor, Southfield, MI 48075 — submitter David S. Bir (tgood@brookshushman.com)
  • Property numbers: applications 10/757,341, 10/812,608, 12/206,432 — these are NOT the '283 or its ancestors.
  • Context: internal reorg among Islam-controlled entities (Cheetah Omni LLC → Omni Continuum LLC). It illustrates a multi-LLC, single-address structure (Cheetah Omni LLC, Omni Continuum LLC, and Omni MedSci all tied to 1718 Newport Creek Drive), but that structure is not part of the '283's recorded chain.

Continuation lineage (informational, from the file histories — not assignments)

From Omni MedSci Exhibit 2029/2030 (Samsung PGR2025-00063), application 16/029,611 (the '283) traces back as:
16/029,611 (filed 2018-07-08, issued '283) ← CON of 15/888,052 (issued 10,136,819) ← CON of 15/711,907 (issued 9,897,584) ← DIV of 15/357,225 (issued 9,797,876), with ultimate priority to provisional 61/747,477 (2012-12-31).

⚠️ Contradiction flag vs. the previously generated sections. The earlier "Patent summary" section states the "immediate parent chain includes 15/888,052 → 15/212,549." The official file-history excerpts instead show 16/029,611's immediate parent is 15/888,052, whose parent is 15/711,907. Google Patents separately lists a "Priority claimed from US 15/212,549" event (filed 2016-07-18), so 15/212,549 may sit somewhere in the ancestor tree, but the file history does not show it as the '283's immediate parent. I could not reconcile these in this session; treat the parent-chain attribution in the earlier section as unverified.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10201283
    2012 : Provisionals filed during UM leave
    2013 : Islam assigns rights to Omni MedSci
         : UM contests patent ownership
    2018 : Continuation filed by Omni MedSci
         : Omni sues Apple for infringement
    2019 : Patent issues as US 10201283
    2021 : Federal Circuit affirms Omni ownership

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Note on scope: The eight signals below are scored against the recorded assignment chain of the '283. The chain is short — inventor → his own company — so the classic NPE chain tells are absent. Two signals (assertion conduct, inventor-of-record) live outside the chain and are discussed in the verdict.

Cross-checks performed: Google Patents legal events (US10201283B2) — no assignment post-issuance; PTAB exhibits 2029/2030 (Samsung PGR2025-00063) file histories — confirm the continuation lineage and the Brooks Kushman correspondence address; the Omni MedSci v. Apple Fed. Cir. opinion and firm summaries — confirm the 2013-12-17 assignment; IPR2025-00839 Omni Ex. 2004 — the Reel 031941/0970 document. No SEC 10-K/8-K cross-reference applies (assignee is private).

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

Justification. The recorded assignment chain of US 10,201,283 is clean — a single 2013-12-17 conveyance from inventor Mohammed N. Islam to his own company, Omni MedSci, Inc., with no shell-entity transfer, no cascading LLCs, no pre-litigation reassignment, and no defensive-aggregator terminus (all eight chain signals "not present"). Confidence is therefore only moderate, and it rests on the assignee's conduct rather than on chain mechanics: Omni MedSci is a non-practicing patent holder (no product practicing the claimed "smart phone or tablet" technology identified) that has filed repeated infringement suits against manufacturers who do make such products — Apple (2:18-cv-00134/429, 4:19-cv-05924, 4:20-cv-00563, 7:26-cv-00226), Samsung/Fossil/Oura/OnePlus (2:24-cv-01070, 2:25-cv-00483), Whoop (1:25-cv-00140), and Fossil (2:26-cv-00470). That non-practicing-but-serial-assertion profile supports an NPE characterization absent the classic shell/cascade evidence. The one material title-integrity issue — UM's contested ownership, resolved in Omni's favor by the Federal Circuit in 2021 — is a chain-of-title risk, not an NPE signal.

Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ — enter 10201283 under "Patent Number." A complementary view is available at https://patents.google.com/patent/US10201283/en under "Legal Events / Assignments."

Bottom line / recommendation. If you need the reel/frame for the Dec-17-2013 Islam→Omni MedSci assignment and confirmation of whether any confirmatory assignment was recorded against 16/029,611 itself, that requires a direct Assignment-Center pull or a paid assignment-document order. Pull the actual complaint exhibits in Omni MedSci v. Samsung (2:24-cv-01070) and Omni MedSci v. Apple (7:26-cv-00226) to see whether the '283 has been added to any 2025–2026 asserted-patent list; my earlier litigation review found no case naming the '283 as a patent-in-suit, and nothing in this assignment research contradicts that.

I'll research the prior-art references cited against US 10,201,283. Let me run several targeted searches.

Note on dates: your task header says "April 26, 2026," while the system context for this session says 2026‑09‑28; I'll flag that inconsistency rather than silently reconcile it. Either way, everything below is tied to the literal number 10201283 (US 10,201,283 B2).

Let me try to pull the actual "(56) References Cited" list for this specific patent from patent databases.

Bottom line up front

I could not retrieve the authoritative "(56) References Cited" list printed on the face of US 10,201,283 B2, and I am therefore not going to fabricate a list of cited patents or assign § 102 anticipation to references I have not actually seen attributed to this patent. Below I explain exactly what I searched, what I could confirm, what I could not, and the smallest set of sources that will close the gap.

Two consistency flags before the substance:

• Date inconsistency (new). Your task header says "Current Date: April 26, 2026." This session's system context says 2026‑09‑28, and the earlier-generated sections were built against a 2026‑09‑28 fetch of Google Patents. I am not silently picking one; treat the analysis date as ambiguous.
• No contradiction with the earlier sections. My searches reproduce the same bibliographic data already generated (app. 16/029,611; filed 2018‑07‑08; issued 2019‑02‑12; inventor Islam; assignee Omni MedSci; priority 2012‑12‑31 via 15/212,549). Nothing here contradicts the prior sections.

1. What the task asked vs. what is retrievable

The task requests: "Look at each patent citation for 10201283 … provide full citation, publication/filing date, brief description, and which claim(s) it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102."

That requires the patent's backward citations — the references listed under "References Cited" on the front page and/or the "Patent Literature" cited in the description. I attempted to retrieve that list and failed for the reasons below. Reporting a § 102 anticipation opinion on references I have not verified as cited on this patent would be fabrication, which your rules prohibit.

Why the list was not retrievable in this session

Explicit statement of uncertainty: I do not know, with confidence, which references are listed on the face of US 10,201,283 B2. Anything below is offered as context and candidate art, not as a confirmed § 56 citation list for this patent number, and I label it as such.

2. What I can confirm about the citation landscape

These are verified facts relevant to where the '283's citations would live:

1. The '283 is a continuation in a deep chain, so its citation list is likely largely inherited from its parents rather than newly generated. Confirmed chain links (from FreePatentsOnline family cross-references, reproduced literally):
   • 16/029,611 ("the '283") is a continuation of 15/888,052 (now US 10,136,819), which is a continuation of 15/212,549 (filed 2016‑07‑18; Google Patents shows "Priority claimed from US15/212,549 → US9885698B2").
   • Google Patents also shows the '283's priority date as assumed 2012‑12‑31.
   • The '283's child is 16/272,069 (pub. US 2019/0167114 A1) — the previously generated summary and my searches agree.
2. The PCT root of the family is PCT/US2013/075767 (filed Dec 17, 2013), claiming benefit of U.S. provisional 61/747,485 (filed Dec 31, 2012). That PCT's International Search Report would be the earliest examiner-selected art for this subject matter, and continuity means much of it would flow into the '283's § 56 list.
   • Source (reproduced in a sibling's cross-reference section): https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2024/0000317.html
3. The family's litigation/PTAB record supplies the art that examiners and the Board actually treated as material to sibling patents — useful as candidates, not as the '283's own citations (see § 4).
4. No proceeding names the '283 (consistent with the earlier-generated litigation section): IPR2019‑00910/‑00913/‑009914/‑009915/‑009916/‑009917, IPR2021‑00453, IPR2025‑01249 through ‑01254, PGR2025‑00063/00064, IPR2025‑01583/01584/01585, PGR2026‑00003 all target siblings ('533, '698, '484, '868, '304, '455, '790, '475). The '283 appears only in "related patents"/mandatory-notice lists (e.g., IPR2019‑00912 exhibit 2016; IPR2025‑01583 mandatory notice).

3. The § 102 framework that any cited reference must defeat

So the eventual analysis is grounded, here is what an anticipating reference would have to disclose for claim 1 (the one independent I could earlier confirm in substance), evaluated against the '283's critical date of Dec 31, 2012 (or Dec 17, 2013 at the latest, for the PCT):

A reference that lacks the pulsed laser-diode array and/or the on/off differential IR-camera imaging will not anticipate claim 1 under § 102 even if it discloses NIR tissue spectroscopy.

4. Candidate references from the family record — NOT confirmed as '283 citations

These are the references that the PTAB/Apple actually applied against sibling Omni patents. They are the most likely residents of a "most relevant prior art" discussion for this family, but I have no verification they are cited on the '283's face:

Sources for the above (family/IPR context only):

• https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/PGR2025-00063/SAMSUNG_ELECTRONICS_CO._LTD._v._OMNI_MEDSCI_INC/10-14-2025-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2016-... (lists US 10,201,283 only as related; discusses Valencell‑093/‑099, Carlson, Hanna)
• https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558539](/patent/1558539)/download-documents... (exhibits 1028 Carlson, 1027 Lisogurski)

I am not asserting any § 102 anticipation by these references of claim 1 of the '283. In particular, Valencell‑093/‑099 and Carlson are LED-based, not pulsed-laser-diode-array + IR-camera systems, so on their face they would more plausibly be § 103 fodder than § 102 anticipators.

5. What to pull to actually complete this task

To produce a defensible, non-fabricated § 102 table, retrieve these (in priority order):

1. US 10,201,283 B2 front page, PDF, at patentimages.storage.googleapis.com (or the USPTO full‑text page) — the "(56) References Cited" block and "Foreign Patent Documents" block. This is the literal answer to "each patent citation for 10201283."
2. USPTO PatentCenter / Patent Full‑Text (patft) file wrapper for 16/029,611 — the actual IDS submissions, examiner Form 892 (Notice of References Cited), and any PTO‑892/1449 citations. This distinguishes applicant‑cited from examiner‑cited art.
3. PCT/US2013/075767 International Search Report (parent family) — the examiner‑selected art for the same disclosure.
4. Pre‑grant pub US 2018/0317776 A1 front page — same application, same citation block; a clean fallback if the patent PDF is unavailable.
5. If a § 102 opinion on the sibling claims is desired, the IPR2019‑00912 / IPR2021‑00453 papers, which is where the family's real § 102/§ 103 art was developed.

Honest summary

• Requested output (per‑reference § 102 table for US 10,201,283): not deliverable from the sources I obtained. The '283's own "(56) References Cited" list was not retrievable in this session.
• What I verified: bibliographic data, the continuation chain, the PCT root and provisional priority, and that the '283 is only a related patent (never the challenged/asserted patent) in the family's IPRs/PGRs and litigation.
• What I will not do: invent citations or attribute sibling‑patent prior art (Valencell, Carlson, Hanna, Lisogurski) to the '283's face without seeing them there.
• Flagged inconsistencies: the analysis‑date discrepancy (April 26 vs. 2026‑09‑28) and the already‑noted expiration discrepancy (2033‑12‑17 vs. 2038‑07‑08).

If you can supply the '283 front page PDF or the PatentCenter file‑wrapper contents for 16/029,611, I will build the full § 102 reference‑by‑reference table (citation, date, disclosure, and which claim(s) each reference would potentially anticipate) directly from those documents.

I'll research the prior art landscape for US 10,201,283 before building the obviousness analysis.

Let me pull the actual prior-art citations on the face of this patent and its siblings.

Let me identify the specific prior-art references cited against this family and the closest analog art.

I've hit my search budget, so I'll synthesize the §103 analysis from what I could verify in this session, with explicit flags where I'm relying on background knowledge rather than a retrieved document.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 10,201,283 B2 ("Near-infrared laser diodes used in imaging applications")

0. Bottom line up front

On the record I could verify, claim 1 (and the parallel independents 8 and 15) would have been prima facie obvious under §103 as a combination of (i) the well-developed 2005–2012 art of near-infrared (NIR) laser-diode tissue imaging/spectroscopy, (ii) the 2005–2012 art of portable/handheld computing platforms used as medical imaging devices, and (iii) the then-mature art of laser-diode illumination with a detector synchronized to the source and on/off (or phase) differencing to produce 2-D/3-D imagery. The strongest defense available to the patentee is not that the individual elements were unknown, but that the specific commercial-package recitation ("smart phone or tablet" containing an IR camera synchronized to pulsed NIR laser diodes forming a spot array) was not squarely in a single pre-2012-12-31 reference — and the §103 inquiry does not require that.

Confidence: high on the legal framework and the element mapping; moderate on the completeness of the prior-art set, because I was unable to retrieve the actual PTO-892 / IDS list on the face of the '283 in this session (see §7).

1. Framework and the critical date

The '283 is a 2018-filed continuation in the long Omni MedSci chain. Because it was filed after 16 March 2013, it is an AIA patent, and the operative prior-art date is the effective filing date of 31 December 2012 (claimed through the chain, per Google Patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10201283/en). Prior art therefore includes:

• §102(a)(1): anything publicly available (patents, printed publications, public use, on-sale) before 2012-12-31; and
• §102(a)(2): U.S. patents and published applications effectively filed before that date, subject to the §102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership exception (which is why the dozens of commonly-owned Omni MedSci continuations cannot be used against each other).

The §103 question is therefore: would a PHOSITA as of 2012-12-31 have had a reason to combine a NIR laser-diode tissue-imaging front end with a smartphone/tablet host and a synchronized IR camera? The answer is yes, for the reasons in §5 below.

Important structural vulnerability: the entire obviousness defense and the entire infringement case turn on whether the 31 December 2012 provisional (US 61/747,472, per the Google Patents priority node) actually provides §112 written-description support for "smart phone or tablet," "an array of laser diodes… forming a plurality of spots," and "an infrared camera synchronized to…." If it does not — and the 2012 disclosure's own emphasis (per the document's "Definitions" and summary text) is on supercontinuum/SC and SLD sources and on teeth/nails/skin as optical interfaces — then the effective date for those claims moves forward into 2013–2018, and the prior-art universe expands dramatically (e.g., the whole smartphone-NIR-imaging wave of 2013–2016). That, not the merits, is where I would expect a challenger to concentrate.

2. The claim at issue, decomposed

I confirmed the text of claim 1 from RPX Insight (https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/US20180317776A1, the pre-grant publication of this very application). Decomposed:

Flag on a contradiction with an earlier-generated section. The prior summary in this analysis states that claim 1 requires the image to be used "in part to identify features corresponding to the skin." The confirmed claim text I retrieved does not contain that limitation. I therefore treat the earlier characterization as an error — likely conflating a dependent claim or specification language (the spec's FIG. 9/10/11 skin-interference discussion) with claim 1. All analysis below uses the RPX-confirmed text. Independents at 8 and 15 are structurally identical; claim 15 adds only "wherein the plurality of spots are also formed at least in part by using an assembly in front of the array of laser diodes."

On claim 1j ("wireless receiver… speaker…"): this is a device-completeness recitation with no demonstrated functional interaction with the NIR/imaging elements. Under KSR and the "arrangement of old elements, each performing its known function" line of cases, these limitations carry little patentable weight; and every smartphone/tablet of record has them.

3. The prior art actually available (what I could verify)

Not prior art — do not cite. Several Omni MedSci documents surfaced in my searches and appear in citation lists, but they are later, commonly-owned family members, not prior art: "Near-infrared time-of-flight imaging using laser diodes with Bragg reflectors" (US 2020/0037883 A1 / US 10,660,526 B2, filed 2019-10-09) and "Imaging using near-infrared laser diodes with distributed Bragg reflectors" (US 10,441,176, filed 2019-01-07), both surfaced via https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/[1501463](/patent/1501463)/citations?tabFilter=patents. Likewise, the EndoChoice/Ethicon NIR surgical-visualization disclosures (US 2014/0160318 / US 9,516,239, filed 2013-07-26) post-date the priority date and are not available as art against the '283 (they appear in US 11,504,192 B2, https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/f0/7d/0e/43f0e94795e069/US11504192.pdf).

4. Ground 1 (primary): PA-2 + PA-1 + smartphone/tablet art

Proposed combination: Adu-Baffour (PA-2) as the base NIR laser-diode tissue-imaging device, in view of Fried/Jones (PA-1) for the NIR-source/tissue/camera architecture and the tooth as the low-artifact tissue target, and with the ordinary smartphone/tablet platform supplying 1a and 1j.

Mapping to claim 1:

• 1b — Adu-Baffour's 780 nm and 830 nm laser diodes and its explicit "modulated at different frequencies" teaching ⇒ "configured to be pulsed" and "NIR between 700 and 2500 nm."
• 1c — Source-to-tissue optics are inherent/obvious in PA-2's backscatter geometry; PA-1 teaches fiber/lens delivery to tissue.
• 1d — "Array of laser diodes": PA-2 already uses ≥2 laser diodes; PA-1 uses a fiber bundle; combining multiple emitters into an array for higher brightness/coverage was routine (the '283 spec itself concedes "high power laser diode assemblies" were known).
• 1e — Forming a plurality of spots with a lens assembly: PA-2's "spatial coding system" (multiple spatially distinct source locations) and PA-1's transillumination geometry both place light at multiple spatially separated tissue locations; a lenslet/spot array is the conventional way to do so.
• 1f, 1g — "Infrared camera synchronized": PA-2's photodetectors are effectively synchronized to the modulated diodes via bandpass filtering at each diode's modulation frequency — the functional equivalent of synchronization. PA-1 supplies the camera/FPA substitution.
• 1h — "First signal with lasers off; second with lasers on": this is the lock-in / chopped-source background-subtraction technique. The '283 specification itself describes this as a known technique ("the light source may be modulated, and then the detection system would be synchronized with the light source… change detection schemes… where the detection system captures the signal with the light source on and with the light source off"). An applicant's own characterization of a technique as known is strong evidence of obviousness.
• 1i — 2-D/3-D image from the difference: PA-2 produces a spatial map from a spatially coded multi-source measurement; producing a depth/3-D map by differencing on/off signals is the ordinary output of an active-illumination system.
• 1a, 1j — The smartphone/tablet is the host device; PA-2 itself describes a "portable tablet-like device… LCD touchscreen." Every modern smartphone/tablet includes the recited wireless receiver/transmitter, display, voice input and speaker.

Motivation to combine: (i) telemedicine/point-of-care market pressure to move benchtop NIR spectroscopy onto commodity mobile hardware; (ii) the known "eye-safe" window above ~1400 nm and the known water-transmission windows (the '283 spec asserts these as known facts); (iii) PA-2's own express design goal of "a cheaper, more portable and more user and patient friendly option"; (iv) predictable use of a known technique (lock-in/change detection) to improve a known problem (ambient/background rejection).

5. Ground 2 (primary): NIR 3-D/active-illumination art (PA-5) + tissue-spectroscopy art (PA-3/PA-6) + smartphone host

• PA-5 supplies each of 1b, 1d, 1e, 1f, 1g, 1h and 1i almost verbatim at the system level: array/modulated NIR (≈850 nm) laser diode sources, lenses shaping the illumination, a sensor synchronized to the source, on/off (phase-bucket) differencing, and generation of a 2-D/3-D mapping.
• PA-3/PA-6 supply the substitution of tissue (skin) as the target and the physiological rationale (glucose/Hb/HbA1c/ketone absorption features in the SWIR), plus the design incentive to identify skin/lesion features from the NIR image.
• The smartphone host is supplied by the art and by the '283's own admission that monitored data is "wirelessly communicat[ed]… to a handheld device such as a smart phone."

Motivation: substituting a biological tissue target for an inanimate object in an active NIR imaging system is an obvious design choice where the NIR spectrum of tissue was known to carry diagnostic information (PA-3, PA-6) and the sensor/illumination architecture is unchanged. KSR rationale: "combination of familiar elements according to known methods… yield[ing] no more than predictable results."

6. Ground 3 (secondary, and the best vehicle if the priority date moves)

If the "smart phone or tablet" and "IR camera synchronized" limitations are not supported by the 2012-12-31 provisional (see §1), then the effective date slips into 2013–2018 and the following become available:

• US 2014/0160318 A1 / US 9,516,239 (filed 2013-07-26) and US 2014/0160319 / US 9,743,016 — pulsed-illumination schemes with synchronized image sensors in light-deficient environments (cited within US 11,504,192 B2).
• US 10,376,148 B2 (PA-4) and its 2012–2013 provisional priority.
• The entire 2013–2016 literature/hardware wave of smartphone-attached NIR imaging (e.g., the 2014 DSCFO-style fiber-free laser-diode + camera probes, whose 2024 description of "synchronization between the camera and the laser diodes" via a microcontroller shows precisely the 1f/1g architecture).

Combining any of these with the '283's own admitted-known IR tissue spectroscopy (Akbari 2011; the WO 2005/013843 family) would make claims 1/8/15 difficult to distinguish.

7. Counterarguments, and where the patentee is strongest

1. "No single reference, and no explicit combination motivation." The patentee will argue the art of record shows (a) NIR spectroscopy without a camera and (b) ToF/LIDAR 3-D imaging of objects, not tissue, and that no reference telegraphs putting both in a phone. Rebuttal: §103 does not require a teaching in a single reference; PA-2 expressly frames the goal as a portable tablet-like NIR tissue imager, which supplies the "why."
2. "Smartphone as a non-analogous host." Weak: PA-2 expressly contemplates a tablet-like portable device for the same purpose.
3. "The specific spot-array + synchronized-camera + differencing in a phone was non-obvious." This is the patentee's best point, and it is likely why the examiner (Md. M. Rahman) allowed the case in 2018. It is a combination argument, not an element argument, and is answerable with the Ground 1/2 motivations.
4. Secondary considerations. I found no evidence of record in this session of unexpected results, licensing, or industry praise tied to the '283 claims as issued, and the asserted family litigation identified in the prior sections (§ litigation summary) centers on sibling patents, not the '283 — so there is no established, patent-specific nexus evidence I can point to. Absent a nexus, such evidence should carry little weight.
5. Priority/§112 attack (the real vulnerability). As noted in §1, if the 2012 provisional does not describe a "smart phone or tablet" carrying an IR camera synchronized to a laser-diode spot array, the far-richer 2013–2018 art becomes available and Ground 3 becomes decisive.

8. Verification caveats (read before relying on this)

• I could not retrieve the actual PTO-892 / IDS reference list printed on the face of the '283 in this session; my searches returned citation lists for other patents. The reference set in §3 is therefore drawn from (i) a verified PCT search report on the closely related UC application (WO 2005/013843 A3), (ii) the applicant's IDS as surfaced for a sibling (US 10,660,526 B2, PubChem), and (iii) its own pre-grant publication. It may be incomplete.
• PA-5 (Bamji/Canesta 3-D sensing) is stated from my background knowledge; I did not re-verify the specific numbers or text in this session. Verify before filing anything citing them.
• I did not independently verify the disclosures of US 5,570,182; US 5,818,587; US 6,135,774; US 6,201,880 B1; US 6,234,601 B1; US 4,468,197; or WO 94/20011 A2 — they are listed only because they appear in the ISR of WO 2005/013843 A3.
• Per the operating rules, all identifiers are reproduced literally; I have not auto-corrected any patent or application number.
• I have flagged the one internal contradiction with an earlier-generated section (the "identify features corresponding to the skin" limitation) in §2.

Net conclusion: Claims 1, 8 and 15 of US 10,201,283 are, on the verified record, vulnerable to a §103 challenge built from (a) portable NIR laser-diode tissue imaging (Adu-Baffour 2011; Fried/Jones WO 2005/013843), (b) synchronized-detector active NIR 3-D imaging with on/off differencing, and (c) the ordinary smartphone/tablet platform — with the patentee's best defense resting on combination-level non-obviousness and, residually, on the integrity of the 31 December 2012 priority claim.