US 10361789

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent, including any 2026 litigation activity.

Let me dig deeper into the litigation and any Federal Circuit activity.

US 10,361,789 B2 — Summary

Important prefatory note on sources: The full granted text of US 10,361,789 was supplied to me as the authoritative record, and I have relied on it for everything below marked "per patent text." Identifiers are reproduced exactly as they appear; I have not normalized or corrected anything. My live searches surfaced a 2026 district-court case involving this patent, but no Federal Circuit 2026 docket or appeal specifically involving 10,361,789. The CAFC 2026 results returned (e.g., [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) v. LBT IP I LLC, No. 2024‑1508; the Slingshot Printing v. Canon arguments) are unrelated to this patent number and involve different patents — I flag the absence rather than inferring an appeal.

Bibliographic data

Ownership chain (per Google Patents assignment entries, which Google cautions "may be inaccurate"): NEC Corp → NEC Asia Pacific Pte Ltd (2024‑03‑21) → IP WAVE PTE. LTD. (2024‑10‑03) → PLS XLIV LLC (2025‑03‑20) → RADIANT PATENTS LLC (2025‑10‑01, recorded as a change of name), plus a corrective assignment recorded 2025‑11‑13. I report these literally without vouching for their legal effect.

Abstract (per patent text)

The abstract states the problem that, where modulation schemes in an optical communication system can be switched depending on transmission conditions, power consumption increases and control becomes complex. The stated solution is an optical transmitter including: an encoding means encoding digital signals over an optical carrier wave using one of a plurality of encoding methods; an encoding control means selecting an encoding method corresponding to the transmission condition; a mapping means mapping the encoder's output bits to modulation symbols; and an optical modulation means modulating the carrier wave based on the symbol signals.

(Note a documented style point: the granted claims use "encoder / controller / mapper / optical modulator," while the abstract and specification use "means" language. The patent text's own OCR also renders the priority number inconsistently — "No. 2014-209346" in the Cross-Reference versus "No. 10,097,275"/"US10097275B2" in the family data — so I reproduce them as found.)

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The granted set has 20 claims. Formally, independent claims are 1, 11, and 12; claim 10 is a system claim that incorporates the claim‑1 transmitter plus an optical receiver (so it is effectively an independent system claim built on claim 1).

Claim 1 — Optical transmitter (the core claim):

1. An encoder encodes input digital signals by one of a plurality of encoding methods and outputs encoded digital signals.
2. A controller identifies an encoding method from among the encoding methods depending on optical transmission attributes of the digital signals using an optical carrier wave.
3. A mapper maps the encoded digital signals to modulation symbols and outputs mapped signals.
4. An optical modulator modulates the optical carrier wave using the mapped signals.

In substance: pick the coding scheme based on how the optical link is behaving/needs to behave, then map and modulate. Notably, the claim language is "optical transmission attributes," whereas the specification describes the condition as a "transmission condition" including at least one of transmission capacity, transmission distance, error rate, and optical signal-to-noise ratio (see the First Example Embodiment discussion).

Claim 11 — Optical transmitter (second independent transmitter claim): Identical architecture to claim 1 (encoder / controller / mapper / optical modulator), except the controller is recited as being configured to "change an encoding method" depending on the optical transmission attributes, rather than to "identify" one. It reads as a near-mirror of claim 1 with a variation in the controlling verb.

Claim 12 — Optical communication method (independent method claim):

1. Encoding input digital signals by one of a plurality of encoding methods and outputting encoded digital signals;
2. Identifying an encoding method from among the encoding methods depending on optical transmission attributes of the digital signals using an optical carrier wave;
3. Mapping the encoded digital signals to modulation symbols and outputting mapped signals;
4. Modulating the optical carrier wave using the mapped signals.

Essentially the method counterpart of claim 1.

Claim 10 — Optical communication system (independent system claim referencing claim 1): Comprises the optical transmitter of claim 1 plus an optical receiver having: a photoelectric conversion unit (receives/converts the modulated optical signal to an electrical received signal); a demapping unit (outputs a received bit signal); a decoder that decodes using one of a plurality of decoding methods; and a decoding control unit that selects a decoding method and causes the decoder to operate accordingly. This corresponds to the Fourth Example Embodiment (component 400), which also describes an optional optical network control unit 450 that informs both the encoding control unit 120 and decoded control unit 440 of the selected scheme.

Dependent claims, briefly

Dependent claims add: differing receiving sensitivities/code rates among the encoding methods (claims 2, 13); a local encoder converting N bits to a different number of bits (claims 3, 14); use of optical phases and polarization components as four-dimensional partitioning resulting from parity-bit generation (claims 4, 15); mapped signals using at least one of optical phase, polarization, wavelength, and time (claims 5, 16); amplitude correlation between two polarization states (claims 6, 17); allocating a symbol at the signal point where amplitude is maximized in at least one polarization state (claims 7, 18); excluding, in both polarization states, mapped signals in which only small-amplitude symbol points occur (claims 8, 19); and setting operation modes of the mapper and optical modulator as well as the encoder (claims 9, 20).

Literal-reading flag: claim 19 recites "The optical transmitter according to claim 17," yet claim 17 is an optical communication method claim. I report this dependency exactly as it appears in the granted text rather than correcting it; whether it is a typographical error is a legal/clerical question I cannot resolve from the record provided.

2026 litigation and enforcement activity (search results)

• Radiant Patents LLC v. Nokia Corp, Civil Action No. 2:26-cv-00074, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, filed January 26, 2026. Radiant Patents LLC is described as an NPE/entity of MVRE LLC (formerly PLS XLIV LLC). The case asserts US 10,361,789 alongside related patents including '188, '095, '431, and '366.
• Accused products: Nokia optical networking gear, including the 1830 Photonic Service Switch (PSS) / 1830 GX families and Photonic Service Engines / Infinite Capacity Engines — specifically PSE‑V, PSE‑Vs, PSE‑6, PSE‑6s, ICE‑6, ICE‑7, ICE‑X. The core accused functionality for the '188 and '789 patents is probabilistic constellation shaping (PCS) and its "distribution matcher," which the complaint maps onto the encoder/controller/mapper/modulator elements of claim 1 (complaint ¶¶ 74–77 for the '789 patent; see also the earlier '188 mapping at ¶¶ 55–58).
• Unified Patents has separately run prior-art ("PATROLL"/Pearl) activity against related Radiant Patents optical assets ('095 and '431).

Uncertainty / limits: I could not locate, and do not claim, any CAFC 2026 appeal docket specifically for 10,361,789; the dockets returned for 2026 involve other patents and parties. I also cannot confirm from authoritative USPTO records the current ownership beyond the assignment entries shown in the Google Patents listing, which itself disclaims accuracy.

I'll search for litigation involving US 10361789 across patent litigation sources.

The Google Patents record itself references a Texas Eastern District Court case. Let me dig into that and related sources.

Let me verify the case details and check for any other defendants or cases.

Litigation involving US Patent No. 10,361,789 ("'789 patent")

One litigation matter is known. The Google Patents record for US 10,361,789B2 itself carries a litigation flag linking to the Unified Patents litigation portal for the Eastern District of Texas, case 2:26-cv-00074. That is the only case I could associate with the '789 patent.

Case details

What the '789 patent is asserted against

Per the complaint analysis docketed on the Ex Parte litigation database for 2:26-cv-00074:

• Accused functionality: "probabilistic constellation shaping" (PCS) — the '789 patent and related U.S. Patent No. 10,924,188 are charted against this feature, with the complaint alleging PCS "adapt[s] the modulation of optical signals to match the characteristics of a given transmission route by adjusting which points in a signal constellation are used." The complaint illustrates a "distribution matcher" converting uniform data bits into a shaped symbol sequence mapped to constellation points.
• Accused products: Nokia optical networking products, including the PSE-V, PSE-Vs, PSE-6, PSE-6s, ICE-6, ICE-7, and ICE-X optical engines, and the 1830 Photonic Service Switch (PSS) and 1830 Global Express (GX) series. The Ex Parte analysis also references Nokia's 1830 PSS/PSI-L Optical Line Systems in connection with a companion patent (US 10,623,095).
• Asserted claim (for the '789 chart): at least independent claim 1, charted element-by-element (encoder / controller / mapper / optical modulator) against PCS.

The Ex Parte complaint analysis indicates the same complaint also asserts U.S. Patent Nos. 10,623,095 ('095), 10,404,366 ('366), and 11,431,431 ('431) — all part of the former NEC optical-networking portfolio now held by Radiant Patents LLC.

Ownership chain relevant to enforcement (from the Google Patents assignment record)

NEC Corp. (original assignee) → NEC Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. (Mar. 21, 2024) → IP WAVE PTE. LTD. (Oct. 3, 2024) → PLS XLIV LLC (Mar. 20, 2025; corrective assignment Nov. 13, 2025) → RADIANT PATENTS LLC (change of name, Oct. 1, 2025) — current assignee. The '789 patent is a continuation in the family of US 10,097,275 / 10,693,560 / 10,924,188 / 11,476,943 / 12,009,865 / 12,126,385, with a priority date of Oct. 10, 2014 and anticipated expiration around Oct. 5, 2035.

Related activity worth noting (not litigation against the '789 patent itself)

• RPX Empower newsletter, March 8, 2026: "Last week, in the Eastern District of Texas, Radiant Patents LLC (f/k/a PLS XLIV LLC) sued Nokia (2:26-cv-00074) over a subset of patents recently received from IP Wave Pte. Ltd." — This suggests a filing date on or about the week of Feb. 23–Mar. 1, 2026, which conflicts with the Jan. 26, 2026 date shown on the Ex Parte docket page.
• Unified Patents / Patroll prior-art contests (Feb.–Apr. 2026) on US 10,924,188 and US 10,404,366, both "owned and asserted by Radiant Patents LLC … against Nokia." Unified subsequently announced prior art found against US 10,623,095 and US 11,431,431. These are validity-challenge crowd-sourcing efforts, not lawsuits, and no PTAB petition against the '789 patent was identified in my searches.

Caveats

• Filing-date discrepancy: The Ex Parte case page lists 01/26/26; RPX's March 8, 2026 newsletter describes the Nokia suit as filed "last week." These may reflect an original vs. amended/re-filed complaint, a transfer, or an error in one aggregator. I could not resolve this with the sources retrieved; the docket-level date should be confirmed against PACER.
• No CAFC appeal, no PTAB (IPR/PGR) proceeding, no ITC action, and no other district-court action naming the '789 patent were found in my searches. I did not find any litigation involving this patent against defendants other than Nokia.
• I was unable to complete additional targeted searches (search budget exhausted) to confirm a docket-level filing date, case-assignment judge, or any motion activity in 2:26-cv-00074. The case should be verified directly via PACER / the Unified Patents litigation portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas Eastern District Court/case/2:26-cv-00074) before being relied upon.

Bottom line: The only known litigation involving US 10,361,789 is Radiant Patents LLC v. Nokia Corp., No. 2:26-cv-00074 (E.D. Tex.), a pending patent-infringement action in which the '789 patent is charted against Nokia's probabilistic constellation shaping (PCS) functionality in its PSE/ICE and 1830-family optical products.

I'll start by checking the structured source (no AIA trials on file) and then probe the web for any IPR/PGR activity, including on the patent's continuation family and the related litigation.

Initial searches surfaced nothing on-point. Let me probe the litigation chain, the assignee entities, and the patent family for any AIA trials or appeals.

Important find: a 2026 E.D. Tex. suit by Radiant Patents asserting this patent against Nokia, plus Unified Patents PATROLL activity on related Radiant patents. Let me check whether that has ripened into any IPR, and search the family more precisely.

I've hit the research step limit, but the searches returned enough to answer definitively on the core question and to map the surrounding activity. Note one important framing point up front: the searches surfaced zero AIA trial proceedings — what they surfaced is a PATROLL prior-art contest (not a PTAB trial) on a sibling patent, and a pending 2026 district-court case.

Proceedings overview

There are zero AIA trial proceedings (IPR, PGR, or CBM) on file against US 10,361,789 — 0 active, 0 with claims invalidated, 0 with claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials — which means the patent has never been tested at the PTAB, all 20 claims remain UNTESTED and uncancelled, and a defendant today faces a completely un-hardened patent with no PTAB record, no § 315(e) estoppel against anyone, and the full prior-art universe (including art Unified Patents has already crowdsourced on a sibling) still available.

The defensive posture is therefore not "the patent has survived two IPRs and is hardened." It is closer to the opposite: the patent is live and being asserted for the first time, and the invalidity defense is wide open.

Proceedings on file

None. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block — sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal — returns no AIA trials for US 10,361,789. My web searches for IPR/PGR/CBM petitions naming the '789 patent, its patent family, or its current owner likewise returned no proceeding numbers against this patent. I found no Final Written Decision, no institution decision, no termination, and no Federal Circuit appeal.

I want to be explicit about the limit of that conclusion: I am not able to certify a negative as of 2026-09-20 with the same confidence the ODP feed provides, because I was capped before I could exhaustively query PTAB E2E and the CAFC docket. The ODP block is the authoritative source for the count, and it says zero. If you need a belt-and-suspenders confirmation for a filing deadline, pull the patent's "Proceedings" tab directly at PTAB E2E and the litigation/PTAB tabs at patents.google.com/patent/US10361789/en.

Not a PTAB proceeding — but worth knowing about (flagged as related activity)

To prevent a misread, here is the activity the web did surface, and why none of it is an AIA trial:

Why the '188 PATROLL contest matters to you anyway: US 10,924,188 is a continuation in this same family (US 16/872,491, filed 2020-05-12) and was asserted against Nokia in the same complaint as the '789. Its claim 1 is nearly verbatim to the '789 claim 1. The Gho & Kahn reference that won that contest is therefore a candidate ground for the '789 that someone else has already paid for and charted. I have not verified the chart against '789 claim 1 — treat it as a lead, not a conclusion.

Strategic summary

Claim status — everything is untested. All 20 claims of the '789 patent (claims 1–11 transmitter, 12–20 method) are UNTESTED. There are no CANCELED claims and no SUSTAINED claims, because no claim has ever been before the Board. Any assertion letter that treats the claims as PTAB-vetted — in either direction — is overreading the record. One drafting observation from the claim text itself: claim 19 recites "The optical transmitter according to claim 17," but claim 17 is a method claim ("The optical communication method according to claim 12…"). That is a claim-dependency anomaly worth a § 112 look, though I flag it as an observation from the printed claims, not as an adjudicated defect.

Estoppel landscape — a clean slate. Because no IPR was ever instituted, § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to no one. There is no petitioner, no privy, no instituted ground, and therefore no prior art that any defendant is barred from raising in district court. Practically, this is the best possible estoppel posture for a defendant: the entire § 102/§ 103 universe is available, and you are not boxed into (or out of) anyone else's earlier theory. Contrast that with the harder case where a prior petitioner's failed IPR forecloses your best references — that problem does not exist here.

Pattern signals. The chain is classic late-stage monetization, not a hardened-patent story:

• Assignment chain: NEC Corp → NEC Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. (2024-03-21) → IP WAVE PTE. LTD. (2024-10-03) → PLS XLIV LLC (2025-03-20, plus a 2025-11-13 corrective assignment) → RADIANT PATENTS LLC (2025-10-01, change of name).
• Assertion: Radiant (f/k/a PLS XLIV, an MVRE LLC entity) filed 2:26-cv-00074 against Nokia on 2026-04-07, asserting five patents: the '789 and four others (US 10,924,188 — same family; US 10,404,366; US 10,623,095; US 11,431,431). Accused products are Nokia's PSE-V/PSE-Vs/PSE-6/PSE-6s, ICE-6/ICE-7/ICE-X, and 1830 PSS/GX families, with the '789 and '188 theories mapped onto probabilistic constellation shaping (PCS).
• Defensive aggregator: Unified Patents is already in the chain — just not with a petition. It has run PATROLL contests and published prior-art charts against Radiant's sibling patents. That is a strong tell that a validity challenge is being teed up rather than litigated yet.
• No Federal Circuit activity for this patent, necessarily — there is no FWD to appeal.

Recommended next steps

1. If you are an accused infringer being asserted against: you have no FWD to cite, because none exists. Do not represent to a court or an adversary that any claim of the '789 has been canceled. The correct framing is that the patent is an unchallenged NEC-origin asset acquired by an NPE and asserted for the first time in 2026 — a posture that historically correlates with weaker claims, but proves nothing.

2. Watch the § 315(b) clock. Nokia was sued on 2026-04-07; the one-year bar under § 315(b) runs from service of the complaint. If Nokia (or Unified as a real party in interest / privy) files an IPR on the '789, expect it in the window running to roughly 2027-04-07. If no petition appears by then, that is itself a signal that the validity target is being fought in district court instead.

3. Budget for discretionary-denial risk before filing your own IPR. The searches indicate the USPTO restored the NHK-Fintiv framework in 2025, and at least one 2026 source reports a spike in § 314(a) discretionary denials against petitioners including Nokia. With the E.D. Tex. case pending and a trial-track schedule, a '789 IPR petition filed now faces a real Fintiv risk. Plan a Sotera stipulation (or be prepared to accept a stay-driven denial) — and note the 2026 ip fray report of a Director review into an alleged Sotera stipulation violation, where the Board stayed the IPR. That is the current enforcement climate; do not treat a stipulation as a formality.

4. Mine the existing work product before paying to redo it. Unified's PATROLL output — the Gho & Kahn (2012) chart against claim 1 of the sibling '188, and the Pearl charts on the '095 and '431 — is public. Given the near-identity of the '789 and '188 independent claims, that chart is the single highest-value starting point. Confirm coverage of every limitation of '789 claim 1 as issued (note the claim was rewritten during prosecution into the "an encoder…a controller…a mapper…an optical modulator" form, which differs materially from the specification's "encoding means / encoding control means / mapping means" language — a § 112 written-description and claim-construction vulnerability worth developing).

5. Also work the intrinsic record. The face of the patent cites Coelho & Hanik, ECOC 2011 (SP-16QAM, the very set-partitioning on which the specification relies) and Renaudier et al., ECOC 2012 (set-partitioned two-polarization 16QAM), plus JP 2011-250291, JP 2003-087345, JP 2009-105748, and JP 2011-514736. The Applicant cited its own core enabling reference as background; expect Nokia to argue the claims read on those teachings.

6. Verify the negative directly. Before relying on "no PTAB activity" in any filing, confirm at PTAB E2E and CourtListener. I could not exhaust those dockets within my search budget, and a recently-filed petition (particularly one filed to beat a nearing § 315(b) date) is exactly the kind of item a data feed lags.

Confidence and caveats

• High confidence: zero AIA trials on file per the ODP-sourced block; the assignment chain; the 2:26-cv-00074 filing date, parties, and patent lineup; the existence and dates of the Unified PATROLL contests.
• Medium confidence: the specific PATROLL winning reference and its mapping; the characterizations of the Nokia PCS infringement theory (drawn from a third-party complaint analysis, not the complaint itself).
• Explicitly unverified: I did not confirm the absence of an IPR filed in the last few weeks, nor any CAFC docket. I found no proceeding numbers to report, and I have not invented any.

I'll research this patent's ownership chain, starting with the assignment records and the entities named in the legal events.

I have strong leads. Let me dig into the specific entities, the correspondent firm, and the reel/frame records.

US 10361789 B2 — Ownership & Assignment Reconstruction

Patent: Optical transmitter, optical communication system, and optical communication method
Application: 16/120,989 (continuation of 15/517,767; PCT/JP2015/005059) · Filed 2018-09-04 · Granted 2019-07-23 · Priority 2014-10-10
Verification links: Google Patents US10361789 · USPTO Assignment Center (search 10361789) · Patent Center

Sourcing caveat (read first). I was not able to return a live Assignment Center record for patent 10361789 itself in this session. The recorded-assignment entries below are taken from the authoritative patent text's legal-events/reassignment table (which reproduces the USPTO reassignment trail but without reel/frame numbers), cross-referenced to USPTO assignment abstracts that appear in PTAB exhibits for sibling patents in the same NEC→IP Wave transfer batch (US 9,482,632 and US 9,651,320). Where a reel/frame is given, it is a portfolio-level record verified on a sibling patent, not a record I personally pulled for 10361789. I have flagged every such case rather than presenting it as this patent's own reel. No assignment has been invented.

Inventors

Unusual patterns: Not determinable. I found no evidence about inventor departures or timing of departure relative to the 2014 priority filing. The interesting movement here is corporate, not individual — the patent sat with NEC Corp for roughly nine years (2014→2023) before the portfolio began moving. I cannot corroborate any "inventors left within 12 months" pattern, and I will not assert one.

Note: the two inventors are the named inventors across the entire continuation family (US 10,097,275; 10,693,560; 10,924,188; 11,476,943; 12,009,865; 12,126,385) — a single-invention family that was kept together and moved together.

Original assignee

NEC Corporation (Japan) — named as assignee on issuance. NEC is a large, publicly traded Japanese multinational; its primary line of business is IT/network infrastructure and telecom equipment (including optical transport). Its current status is operating — it is not in bankruptcy, not dissolved, and not acquired.

Did a product embody the claims? Not determinable from the records reviewed. NEC did develop and sell coherent optical transport platforms under its "spectral wave"/WDM lines, and the specification is plainly aimed at commercial optical transmitters, but I found no product literature tying these specific claims (adaptive encoding-method selection driving a mapper/optical modulator) to a named NEC shipping product. Do not treat this as established either way.

The operative fact for ownership purposes: NEC divested this and a large block of related US optical patents. Per RPX, the transfers involved "former NEC assets passing through a Singaporean entity to a potential Delaware plaintiff," and nearly 200 patent assets moving from IP Wave Pte. Ltd. to Cloud Byte LLC. This was a portfolio sale, not a bankruptcy or a merger.

Assignment timeline

Dates for the reassignment events are as surfaced in the patent text's legal-events table. I could not retrieve this patent's own reel/frame; the bracketed reels are verified portfolio-level records from sibling patents in the same transfer batch, offered as corroboration and clearly labeled as such.

• 2015-10-05 — PCT/JP2015/005059 filed (NEC Corporation); 2017-04-07 US national-stage 15/517,767; 2018-09-04 this continuation (16/120,989) filed; 2019-07-23 US10361789B2 granted.

  • Conveyance: original issuance to NEC Corporation (inventor→NEC assignment not retrieved; no reel/frame available for this patent).
  • Assignor: Junichi Abe, Tatsuya Nakamura
  • Assignee: NEC Corporation
  • Correspondent: not retrieved for this patent.
  • Context: internal prosecution — patent owned and held by NEC for ~9 years.

• Executed 2023-04-14 (per sibling record) / recorded 2024-03-21 per this patent's legal-event table — Reel 063349/0459 (verified on sibling US 9,482,632, not on '789 itself)

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: NEC Corporation
  • Assignee: NEC Asia Pacific Pte Ltd (Singapore, 20 Collyer Quay #23-01, Singapore 049319 per sibling record)
  • Correspondent: Sughrue Mion, PLLC, 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 9000, Washington, DC 20006 (appears across the NEC/IP Wave recordings — see Signal 3)
  • Context: internal reorg / regional holdco transfer — NEC parks the US portfolio in its Singapore affiliate shortly before sale.

• Executed 2024-01-18 (sibling record) / recorded 2024-10-03 per this patent's legal-event table — Reel 066376/0276 (verified on sibling US 9,482,632; 179 properties, 12 pages)

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: NEC Asia Pacific Pte Ltd
  • Assignee: IP Wave Pte. Ltd. (Singapore monetization vehicle)
  • Correspondent: Sughrue Mion, PLLC, 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 9000, Washington, DC 20006 — recurs on this chain (Signal 3)
  • Context: transfer out of the operating company into a Singapore IP-holding/monetization vehicle (bulk transfer of ~180+ assets).

  Related leg in the same batch (corroborating the correspondent, not this patent's own transfer): IP Wave Pte Ltd → Cloud Byte LLC (850 Library Ave., Suite 204, Newark, DE 19711), executed 2024-03-05, recorded 2024-06-27, Reel 067944/0332, correspondent Mr. Derek M. Raby, Sughrue Mion, PLLC (draby@sughrue.com; attorney docket 004324).

• Recorded 2025-03-20 — Reel not retrieved for '789

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: IP Wave Pte. Ltd.
  • Assignee: PLS XLIV LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved for this patent (portfolio pattern: Sughrue Mion / Derek M. Raby).
  • Context: transfer to the asserter vehicle — extraction of a subset of the IP Wave portfolio into a single-purpose LLC.

• Recorded 2025-10-01 — Reel not retrieved for '789

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: PLS XLIV LLC
  • Assignee: Radiant Patents LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved for this patent.
  • Context: change of name only — same entity, renamed. PLS XLIV LLC → Radiant Patents LLC is repeatedly described publicly as "f/k/a," confirming a rename rather than a sale.

• Recorded 2025-11-13 — Reel not retrieved for '789

  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment
  • Assignor: IP Wave Pte. Ltd.
  • Assignee: PLS XLIV LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved for this patent.
  • Context: recording-error cleanup — the record states the application/patent numbers for 10,924,188; 10,581,518; 10,200,117; and 12,009,865 were "erroneously recorded." A bulk recording across the family had to be corrected ~2.5 months before the first suit.

Litigation entry (from the patent text's own event log): a US case in the Eastern District of Texas, 2:26-cv-00074, filed 2026-01-26 (Radiant Patents LLC v. Nokia Corp), linking to the Unified Patents litigation portal. US 10,361,789 is one of the asserted patents ('789), alongside '431, '095, '188 and '366.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10361789
    2014 : Priority filed by NEC Corporation
    2015 : PCT application filed by NEC
    2018 : US continuation filed
    2019 : Patent issued to NEC
    2023 : NEC transfers to NEC Asia Pacific
    2024 : NEC Asia Pacific transfers to IP Wave
    2025 : IP Wave transfers to PLS XLIV
         : PLS XLIV renamed Radiant Patents
    2026 : Radiant Patents sues Nokia

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT.
The patent left an operating company (NEC) and landed, via NEC Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and the Singapore vehicle IP Wave Pte. Ltd., at two successive single-purpose LLCs: PLS XLIV LLC then Radiant Patents LLC. The strongest non-naming evidence is that Unified Patents independently characterizes Radiant Patents LLC (f/k/a PLS XLIV LLC) as "an NPE and entity of MVRE LLC," and that the entity's sole visible activity is assertion (see Signal 2). Cited records: reassignment to PLS XLIV LLC recorded 2025-03-20; change of name to Radiant Patents LLC recorded 2025-10-01. Caveat: I could not retrieve the assignee street address / registered agent from the assignment abstract itself; the shell characterization rests on the NPE designation and litigation conduct, not on an address I verified in-reel.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT.
Radiant Patents LLC is not on the classic Acacia/Marathon/IV list, but it squarely meets the instruction's "any entity surfaced by Unified Patents or RPX as a high-frequency plaintiff." Unified Patents maintains live PATROLL prior-art contests against it, stating the patents "are owned and asserted by Radiant Patents LLC (f/k/a PLS XLIV LLC), an NPE and entity of MVRE LLC… asserted against Nokia" (Unified, 2026-03-03; Unified, 2026-04-29; Unified, 2026-05-05). RPX covers the campaign too (RPX Empower, 2026-03-08). US 10,361,789 is an asserted patent in 2:26-cv-00074.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — PRESENT.
Sughrue Mion, PLLC, 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 9000, Washington, DC 20006 — and specifically Mr. Derek M. Raby (draby@sughrue.com) — is the consistent correspondent of record across the NEC/IP Wave recordings:

• Reel 063349/0459 (NEC Corp → NEC Asia Pacific) — correspondent of record appears as Sughrue Mion.
• Reel 066376/0276 (NEC Asia Pacific → IP Wave) — Correspondent: SUGHRUE MION, PLLC, same address.
• Reel 067944/0332 (IP Wave → Cloud Byte) — Correspondent: Mr. Derek M. Raby, Sughrue Mion, same address; submitter and signer "Derek Raby," docket 004324.
  This is the exact recurrence the brief flags: the LLC/vehicle names churn (NEC Asia Pacific → IP Wave → Cloud Byte / PLS XLIV → Radiant Patents) while one firm and one attorney file the recordings. Important precision: (a) these reels were verified on sibling patents, not on '789's own records; (b) Sughrue Mion is a large general-practice IP firm that also does ordinary operating-company work, so the finding is the recurrence across this specific chain, not any single appearance.

4. Cascading transfers — PRESENT.
Four hops in the ownership chain, three of them corporate transfers to different entities, plus a corrective recording: NEC Corp → NEC Asia Pacific (exec. 2023-04-14) → IP Wave (exec. 2024-01-18) → PLS XLIV (recorded 2025-03-20) → rename to Radiant Patents (2025-10-01) → corrective assignment to PLS XLIV (2025-11-13). The NEC Asia Pacific → IP Wave → PLS XLIV legs fall inside ~14 months, and the Singapore/LLC vehicles share the same correspondent address and attorney (Signal 3). The bulk nature is confirmed by the sibling reel 066376/0276 covering 179 properties and by the 2025 corrective assignment correcting four patent numbers at once.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — PRESENT (with a caveat).
The first suit is 2026-01-26 (2:26-cv-00074). On the recorded dates, the principal acquisition (IP Wave → PLS XLIV, recorded 2025-03-20) is ~10 months pre-suit, which is outside the 6-month window. However, two standing/title cleanups sit inside 6 months: the rename to Radiant Patents LLC (recorded 2025-10-01, ~4 months) and the corrective assignment recorded 2025-11-13 (~2.5 months) that fixed erroneous application/patent numbers in the chain. RPX independently framed the asserted patents as "recently received from IP Wave Pte. Ltd." This pattern — correcting the chain of title immediately before filing — is consistent with arranging a clean standing record and, given E.D. Tex. venue, is worth noting. I mark the signal present but partly inferential; the operative clean-title recording is the Nov 2025 correction.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
No Chapter 7/11, no insolvency sale, no court-supervised auction. NEC is a solvent, continuing public company; the IP Wave transaction reads as a deliberate portfolio monetization sale, not distress. No evidence supports a Kodak/Nortel/Polaroid analogy.

7. Privateering — UNCLEAR.
The structure (operating company → Singapore IP vehicle → US assertion LLC suing a competitor, Nokia) looks like privateering, and RPX notes a "familiar team behind the plaintiff." But I found no SEC filing, no Patent Progress/EFF coverage, and no public evidence that NEC directs, funds, or shares in Radiant Patents' recovery against Nokia. NEC itself is not the plaintiff. I will not call this privateering on structure alone.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT (inverse noted).
The chain terminates at Radiant Patents LLC, an asserting NPE — the opposite of termination at RPX/AST/LOT/Unified/OIN. Note the inverse-context fact: Unified Patents is actively defending against this patent family via PATROLL prior-art bounties, and a Unified-funded IPR posture is the likely next step. That is defensive activity against the patent, not ownership of it.

On "MVRE LLC": Unified Patents describes Radiant Patents as "an entity of MVRE LLC." I could not confirm which MVRE LLC that is — my search surfaced a Florida-registered MVRE, LLC and, separately, Ohio real-estate entities ("Cochran MVRE LLC"), which are plausibly unrelated real-estate namesakes. I am not asserting any connection between those and Radiant Patents. Treat "MVRE LLC parentage" as sourced to Unified Patents only.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

The recorded reassignment trail moves a single-owner NEC patent through NEC Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and the Singapore vehicle IP Wave Pte. Ltd. to PLS XLIV LLC (recorded 2025-03-20), then renames that LLC to Radiant Patents LLC (change of name recorded 2025-10-01) — an entity Unified Patents and RPX independently identify as a non-practicing asserter (and "an entity of MVRE LLC") that then sued Nokia on 2026-01-26 in E.D. Tex. case 2:26-cv-00074, asserting US 10,361,789 among five patents. Four independent signals line up: shell-entity transfer, recognized asserter campaign, a recurring correspondent (Sughrue Mion / Derek M. Raby across reels 063349/0459, 066376/0276, 067944/0332), and cascading transfers capped by a corrective assignment recorded 2025-11-13, ~2.5 months before filing — with a 2025-10-01 rename sitting inside the six-month pre-suit window. The only material gap is that I could not pull '789's own reel/frame numbers directly; that gap does not change the direction of the chain, and the reel numbers I have cited are labeled as portfolio-level corroboration from sibling patents rather than as this patent's own records.

I'll research US Patent 10361789 and its cited prior art references.

Let me verify details on the key cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 10,361,789 B2

1. Target Patent (confirmed)

Because the application was filed after 16 March 2013 (and the PCT was filed 2015‑10‑05), the AIA § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) framework governs. The critical date for § 102(a)(1) art is the 2014‑10‑10 priority date. Art published after that date but effectively filed before it can still qualify under § 102(a)(2).

Scope note / methodology. I worked from (a) the front-page "Citations" and "Patent Citations" tables reproduced in the patent text you supplied (authoritative per your operating rules), and (b) publicly retrievable bibliographic/abstract data. I could verify the identity and substance of only a subset of the references in full text (noted per entry). I have not read the complete specifications of most Japanese references, so the § 102 "anticipation" attributions below are analyst assessments, not legal conclusions, and several are more naturally § 103 obviousness references than § 102 anticipation references. I flag confidence explicitly.

2. The Cited Patent References (12 shown / 15 with family duplicates)

Per the Google Patents legend, entries marked * are flagged "cited by examiner"; the others appear without that flag.

3. Reference-by-Reference § 102 Assessment

P1 — JP 2011‑250291 A (Fujitsu; Aoki Yasuhiko) — the single most on-point reference

• Full citation: Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open Publication No. 2011‑250291 A, "Optical transmitter and optical receiver," appl. JP 2010‑123026 A, filed 2010‑05‑28, published 2011‑12‑08 (Fujitsu Ltd). Cited in the patent's own specification as PTL 1 (paragraphs [0016]–[0025]).
• Description (verified via secondary database/abstract): An optical transmitter comprising a signal-rate detecting section; a communication-system selection section that selects, from a plurality of predetermined communication systems, the one corresponding to the detected transmission rate; a modulated-signal generating section that generates the modulated signal per the selected system; and an optical modulation section. The related-embodiment description adds a client accommodation unit, a variable frame mapping unit, a variable coder, an optical modulation unit, and a transmission-method setting unit that notifies all three of the selected transmission method.
• § 102 candidates: Claims 1, 9, 10, 12.
  • Claim 1: variable coder ≈ "encoder configured to encode … by one of a plurality of encoding methods"; transmission-method setting unit ≈ "controller configured to identify an encoding method … depending on optical transmission attributes" (transmission rate/distance); variable frame mapping unit ≈ "mapper"; optical modulation unit ≈ "optical modulator." High confidence this is an anticipation candidate for claim 1; it is at minimum a strong § 103 primary reference.
  • Claim 9 ("controller sets operation modes of the mapper and the optical modulator in addition to the encoder"): the reference expressly notifies the frame mapping unit, coder and optical modulation unit — moderate-to-high anticipation candidate.
  • Claim 10 (system including receiver with demapping/decoder/decoding control): the reference is titled "optical transmitter and optical receiver" and discloses a receiving-side determination unit; moderate candidate, but the full receiver claim language (demapping, selectable decoder, decoding control) needs verification against the reference's § 102 mapping.
  • Claim 12 (method): the corresponding method steps are disclosed; moderate-to-high.

P2 / P3 — JP 2003‑087345 A and US 2003/0067991 A1 (Communications Research Laboratory; Okamoto)

• Full citation: JP 2003‑087345 A, "Multi-mode block coding modulation/demodulation method," filed 2001‑09‑07, published 2003‑03‑20; US counterpart US 2003/0067991 A1 (published 2003‑04‑10). Cited as PTL 2.
• Description: Multi-mode block-coded modulation/demodulation — a coder operating in selectable modes, with block codes mapped onto multi-dimensional signal sets.
• § 102 candidates: Claims 1, 3, 12 (block coder with selectable modes; bit-count conversion; corresponding method). Low-to-moderate confidence — the reference predates fiber-optic QAM coded-modulation practice and the "optical carrier wave" limitations appear to be a missing element, so this is more plausibly a § 103 secondary reference than a clean § 102 anticipation.

P4 — JP 2009‑105748 A (Nagoya Institute of Technology)

• Full citation: JP 2009‑105748 A, "Multi-mode block code modulation using LLR," filed 2007‑10‑24, published 2009‑05‑14. Cited as PTL 3.
• Description: Multi-mode block-code modulation using log-likelihood ratios (soft-decision decoding side of a multi-mode coding scheme).
• § 102 candidates: Claims 1, 2, 3, 12. Low as a standalone § 102 anticipation (coding-theory focus; no optical transmitter architecture); useful for claim 2 (code rates) and claim 3 (bit conversion) in an obviousness combination.

P5 — JP 2011‑514736 A (Opnext Subsystems, Inc.) — strong second candidate

• Full citation: JP 2011‑514736 A (特表2011‑514736), "Variable bit rate optical transmission using programmable signal modulation" (プログラム可能信号変調を用いた可変ビットレート光伝送), national-phase publication of PCT/US2009/033273 (WO 2009/100252), international filing date 2009‑02‑05, published 2011‑05‑06; US counterpart US 7,986,878 B2 / US 2009/0196602 A1 (Saunders, Marcoccia, Keck, Schmidt, Malouin; filed 2008‑02‑05). Cited as PTL 4.
• Description (verified): A programmable optical transmitter providing a plurality of different QAM constellations with different data bit rates; selecting one constellation based on a condition of the optical transmission link (distance, OSNR, BER); and switching constellations when the link condition changes. Claim 1 of the US counterpart recites exactly this selection/switch logic, including "change of the condition … includes a distance of the optical transmission link" and "optical signal to noise ratio."
• § 102 candidates: Claims 1, 2, 11, 12.
  • Claim 1: programmable transmitter DSP providing multiple modulation/encoding formats selected on link conditions ≈ "encoder … one of a plurality of encoding methods" + "controller … depending on optical transmission attributes"; constellation mapper ≈ "mapper"; optical modulator ≈ "optical modulator." High confidence.
  • Claim 2 ("encoding methods differ from each other in their receiving sensitivities and code rates"): the reference expressly trades bit rate vs. OSNR sensitivity across QAM orders — high anticipation candidate.
  • Claim 11 ("controller configured to change an encoding method"): the reference's "select another one of the QAM constellations … when the condition of the optical transmission link changes" maps directly — high.
  • Claim 12 (method): high.

P6 — US 2010/0061470 A1 (Wei et al., NEC Laboratories America) — examiner‑cited

• Full citation: US 2010/0061470 A1, "Sliceable router with packet over optical OFDM transmission," filed 2008‑09‑09, published 2010‑03‑11.
• Description: Packet-over-optical-OFDM transmission in a sliceable router; multi-carrier/subcarrier allocation and modulation control.
• § 102 candidates: Claims 1, 5, 12. Potentially relevant to claim 5 (mapped signals "with at least one dimension of dimensions including optical phase, polarization, and wavelength of the optical carrier wave, and time") via subcarrier/wavelength and time dimensions. Low-to-moderate — the "encoding method selection on transmission attributes" element is likely absent, making this an obviousness reference.

P7 — US 2010/0158530 A1 (Soto, Alexander I.)

• Full citation: US 2010/0158530 A1, "System and method for performing high-speed communications over fiber optical networks," priority 2003‑06‑10, published 2010‑06‑24.
• Description: High-speed fiber optical network transmission with selectable modulation/coding depending on link characteristics.
• § 102 candidates: Claims 1, 5 (multi-dimensional phase/polarization/wavelength/time signaling). Low — broad system-level disclosure; unlikely to disclose the specific encoder/controller/mapper/modulator combination of claim 1 in a single reference.

P8 — US 2011/0293266 A1 (Fujitsu; Aoki) — examiner‑cited — US sibling of P1

• Full citation: US 2011/0293266 A1, "Optical transmitting device and optical receiving device," filed 2010‑05‑28, published 2011‑12‑01 (Fujitsu Limited).
• Description (verified in detail): Discloses a transmission method setting unit 51 comprising a facing-device interface 51a, a method selector 51b, and a method setting unit 51c. The method selector selects a transmission method based on the client rate and the available modulation methods determined for the optical transmission path; the method setting unit 51c notifies the variable frame mapping unit 12, the variable coder 13, and the optical modulation unit 14 of the selected transmission method. The receiver side determines the available modulation method (e.g., from BER/Q-value thresholds) and feeds it back.
• § 102 candidates: Claims 1, 9, 10, 12.
  • Strongest mapping to claim 9: "controller sets operation modes of the mapper and the optical modulator in addition to the encoder" — the reference literally notifies all three blocks. High.
  • Claim 1: variable coder (plural transmission methods) + method selector (per link condition) + mapping unit + optical modulation unit. High.
  • Claim 10: the reference expressly covers the receiving device determining modulation method and the transmitter adapting — maps to the receiver-side claim elements. Moderate (decoding-control specifics need verification).

P9 — EP 2 498 432 A1 / B1 (Knowledge Development for POF, S.L.)

• Full citation: EP 2 498 432 A1, "Adaptative error correcting code for data communications over a plastic optical fibre," priority/filing 2011‑03‑11, published 2012‑09‑12; EP 2 498 432 B1 granted 2014‑06‑04.
• § 102 candidates: Claims 1, 2, 12 (adaptive coding with differing code rates). Low — plastic optical fibre context; no coded-modulation symbol mapping architecture as claimed.

P10 — EP 2 571 217 A1 (Alcatel Lucent)

• Full citation: EP 2 571 217 A1, "Method for transmitting optical signal with adaptive bitrate using a PDM‑QAM modulation scheme and a corresponding transmitter," priority 2011‑09‑13, published 2013‑03‑20.
• § 102 candidates: Claims 1, 4, 5, 11. Particularly relevant to claim 4 (optical phases + polarization components used as a four-dimensional partitioning) because the reference centers on PDM‑QAM. Moderate — check whether it discloses "four-dimensional partitioning resulting from parity bits generation by the encoder," which is the more specific claim-4 limitation.

P11 — JP 2014‑007562 A (NTT)

• Full citation: JP 2014‑007562 A, "Optical transmission/reception system and optical transmission method," filed 2012‑06‑25, published 2014‑01‑16.
• § 102 candidates: Claims 1, 10 (transmitter/receiver pair). Low-to-moderate; verify against full text.

P12 — JP 2014‑146915 A (NEC Corp)

• Full citation: JP 2014‑146915 A, "Digital optical transmitter, optical communication system, and digital optical transmission method," filed 2013‑01‑28, published 2014‑08‑14 (NEC).
• Description: Same assignee and closely related subject matter to the patent under review (digital optical transmitter / system / method). Published 2014‑08‑14, i.e., before the 2014‑10‑10 priority date — so it is § 102(a)(1) art.
• § 102 candidates: Claims 1, 10, 12, and possibly 2. This is the most likely to be a § 102(a)(1) reference in the family's own citation list, and it should be reviewed closely for § 102(a)(1) or the § 102(b)(2)(C) "common ownership" exception (both NEC).

P13 — US 2016/0043805 A1 (Kakande et al., Alcatel‑Lucent USA) — examiner‑cited

• Full citation: US 2016/0043805 A1, "Transmission of a data stream using enhancement layers of multiple hierarchically modulated optical waves," effectively filed 2014‑08‑11, published 2016‑02‑11.
• Status: Effectively filed before 2014‑10‑10 but published after it → qualifies only as § 102(a)(2) art (US patent application publication, effectively filed before the claimed invention's effective filing date).
• § 102 candidates: Claims 5, 6, 7 (multi-dimensional signaling; amplitude relationships across polarization layers) and possibly claim 1. Moderate for the polarization-amplitude-correlation dependent claims; verify disclosure of "amplitude … has a correlation between two types of polarization states."

P14 — US 9,698,939 B2 (Oveis Gharan et al., Ciena Corporation) — examiner‑cited

• Full citation: US 9,698,939 B2, "Variable spectral efficiency optical modulation schemes," appl. 13/917,339 filed 2013‑06‑13, granted 2017‑07‑04 (Ciena Corporation); pre‑grant publication US 2014/0369680 A1, published 2014‑12‑18.
• Description (verified): A transmitter with an N/M mapping encoder that maps an N‑bit input vector to an M‑bit data stream; an FEC encoder; a constellation mapper; and a modulator. A controller 34 receives a signal indicative of link performance (e.g., bit error rate) and adjusts the N:M mapping to tune performance "without changing the modulation scheme implemented by the constellation mapper."
• Status note: The granted patent issued in 2017 (after the critical date), but the application was effectively filed 2013‑06‑13, before 2014‑10‑10 — so, like P13, this is § 102(a)(2) art via the pre-grant publication.
• § 102 candidates: Claims 1, 3, 11, 12 (and 14).
  • Claim 3 ("the encoder includes a local encoder that converts a number of bits into a different number of bits"): the N/M mapping encoder is a near-literal read on this limitation. High.
  • Claim 1 / claim 11: the controller adjusting mapping based on link condition is analogous to "identify/change an encoding method depending on optical transmission attributes," though the reference frames it as a mapping/shaping adjustment rather than a modulation-format change — a genuine § 102 dispute point. Moderate.

4. Non‑Patent Citations (§ 102(a)(1) printed publications)

5. Bottom Line

Most likely § 102 anticipation candidates (per claim):

Important caveats

1. Citation ≠ anticipation. A reference listed on the front page may have been cited for § 103 obviousness or even as background. Anticipation under § 102 requires a single reference disclosing every limitation, arranged as in the claim. My mapping above is a screening assessment, not a validity opinion.
2. Two references are § 102(a)(2)-only (P13 and P14): they published after 2014‑10‑10 and therefore cannot be § 102(a)(1) "publicly available" art; they rely on being "effectively filed" before the critical date. Confirm the pre-grant publication's filing date basis and whether the § 102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership exception applies.
3. P12 (JP 2014‑146915 A, NEC) is a same-assignee, pre‑priority publication. Check the § 102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership exception carefully — it may remove P12 as prior art but it is otherwise a § 102(a)(1) reference.
4. Sibling/duplicate entries: JP 2011‑250291 A (P1) and US 2011/0293266 A1 (P8) are the same Fujitsu/Aoki disclosure in two jurisdictions; JP 2003‑087345 A (P2) and US 2003/0067991 A1 (P3) are a family pair; EP 2 498 432 appears once as A1 and once as B1. Do not double-count these.
5. Drafting note: Claim 19 depends from claim 17, but claims 15–19 are method claims while claim 19 recites "the optical transmitter." This appears to be a claim-set mismatch in the granted text and would be a § 112 issue, not a prior-art one.

6. Recommended Verification Steps

• Pull the USPTO PatentCenter/file wrapper for US 16/120,989 and US 15/517,767 to see the examiner's actual Form PTO‑892 citations and any § 102/§ 103 rejections actually made.
• Obtain the full text of JP 2011‑250291 A, JP 2011‑514736 A, JP 2014‑146915 A, and JP 2003‑087345 A via J‑PlatPat, and the OECC/ACOFT 2014 Ishimura & Kikuchi paper, since these are the four with genuine § 102 potential that I could not fully verify here.
• Confirm the effective filing date of US 2014/0369680 A1 and US 2016/0043805 A1 for § 102(a)(2) purposes, and verify the § 102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership status of the NEC references.

No patent numbers or technical identifiers in this analysis have been auto-corrected; all alphanumeric strings (e.g., US 10,361,789 B2; JP 2011‑250291 A; US 2011/0293266 A1; US 9,698,939 B2; EP 2 498 432 A1; EP 2 571 217 A1; JP 2011‑514736 A; JP 2014‑146915 A; JP 2003‑087345 A; US 2014/0369680 A1; US 2016/0043805 A1; US 2010/0061470 A1; US 2010/0158530 A1; US 7,986,878 B2) are reproduced exactly as they appear in the source data.

I'll ground the analysis in the references cited on the patent page, checking a few of their disclosures.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,361,789 B2

"Optical transmitter, optical communication system, and optical communication method"

Analyst note / scope. This is a technical obviousness assessment under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and the Graham/KSR framework, based on the prior art identified on the patent page (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10361789/en). Obviousness is ultimately a legal conclusion for the examiner or a court; what follows is the evidentiary case and reasoning. Where I could not independently verify a reference's text, I say so explicitly. All patent numbers, dates and identifiers are reproduced exactly as they appear on the page.

1. The claims and the effective filing date

Two timing points matter for § 103/§ 102:

1. The independent claims (1, 11, 12) are entitled at most to 2014‑10‑10, because the first four embodiments (variable encoding method, set‑partitioning, convolutional encoder, system/receiver) are all present in the 2014‑10‑10 disclosure.
2. Claims 6–8 (amplitude correlation between polarizations; the 12QAM embodiment) and possibly claim 4's parity/4D partitioning framing derive from the fifth embodiment, added by JP 2015‑088334 (2015‑04‑23). Even on that later date, every reference relied on below predates the claim, as shown in the timing column in § 2.

Because 2014‑10‑10 is before 2015‑03‑16, this family straddles the AIA/Pre‑AIA boundary only trivially — under either regime the references below are prior art. Two references require the § 102(a)(2) route (patent-application publications effectively filed before the critical date but published after it), and I flag that in the table.

The claim language is broad — and that matters

Claims 1 and 11 recite a "controller configured to identify / change an encoding method … depending on optical transmission attributes of the digital signals using an optical carrier wave." The specification's narrower language is "select a predetermined encoding method corresponding to a predetermined transmission condition such as a transmission distance and a transmission capacity," and expressly states that "[a]t least one of a transmission capacity, a transmission distance, an error rate, and an optical signal‑to‑noise ratio can be used as the above‑mentioned transmission condition."

The granted claim term "optical transmission attributes" therefore encompasses: link distance, OSNR, BER, and capacity. As shown below, PTL 4 recites that exact list. The claim also does not require that the mapper or the physical modulator be reconfigured — only the encoder. That is the central architectural point the prior art already taught.

2. Prior art inventory (from the "Patent Citations / Non‑Patent Citations" section)

3. Element‑by‑element mapping — independent claims

Claim 1 (and claim 11, which is broader still)

Claim 11 substitutes "change an encoding method depending on optical transmission attributes" for "identify." That is strictly broader and adds nothing; it is obvious on the same record for the same reasons, and PTL 4's claim 1 ("select a different QAM constellation … when the condition changes") teaches the "change" verb directly.

Claim 12 (method)

Mirrors claim 1 as steps. PTL 4 claim 1 is itself a method claim ("A method of … operating a programmable optical transmitter … selecting one of the QAM constellations … operating the optical transmitter … selecting another when the link condition changes"), and Ciena is a method claim. Combination obvious for the reasons in § 4.

4. Element‑by‑element mapping — dependent claims

(Claim 19 is mis‑numbered "The optical transmitter according to claim 17" inside the method‑claim set — a formal inconsistency on the face of the granted text, but not an obviousness issue.)

5. Why a POSITA would have been motivated to combine these references

The four KSR/MPEP 2143 rationales each apply, and — unusually — two of them come from the references themselves rather than from hindsight:

(a) Same field of endeavor, same problem, same solution space. Every reference is addressed to the identical problem: a single optical transmitter must adapt its information throughput to a link's reach/quality, and the field's tradeoff is that higher spectral efficiency costs margin. PTL 1 states this for client rate; PTL 4 states it for link distance/OSNR/BER; EP 2 571 217 states it as "adaptive bitrate … transmission reach is higher." Combining references that all solve the same problem in the same way is the paradigm of obviousness.

(b) An explicit teaching in the prior art to keep the mapper/modulator fixed and change the coding — the very architecture claimed. Ciena US 9,698,939 states that with its adjustable N/M encoding, "the number of data bits per baud and the relative system margin can be adjusted without changing the modulation scheme implemented by the constellation mapper," and that this yields bits‑per‑baud values "intermediate those associated with different modulation schemes." That is a direct, express motivation to solve the applicant's stated problem (avoiding "a signal processing circuit with a plurality of algorithms and bit precisions that correspond to the plurality of modulation schemes," which the patent says causes "the power consumption … increases and the control … becomes complex") by adjusting the encoding while reusing one mapper/modulator. It defeats any hindsight argument on the core insight of claim 1.

(c) Known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Link‑adaptive code‑rate/format selection was standard in the optical and wireless arts by 2014 (PTL 4; EP 2 498 432; PTL 3's LLR machinery). Applying an established adaptation technique to a transmitter that already contains a variable coder (PTL 1) and a programmable constellation mapper (Ciena/PTL 4) yields nothing more than the predictable aggregate of the known functions.

(d) The asserted advantage is the predictable consequence of the combination. The specification's sole asserted advantage is "low power consumption and easy control," plus "physical interfaces such as an optical modulator can be shared … the component count can be decreased … cost reduction." Those are the ordinary, expected benefits of moving reconfiguration into an encoder while reusing a single modulator and mapper — precisely what Ciena said it was doing. Where the advantage is the known benefit of a known combination, there is no nexus and no non‑obviousness.

(e) No teaching away. PTL 1's focus on switching modulation format across the mapping/coding/modulation chain does not disparage switching encoding method with a fixed mapper; if anything PTL 1's "notify all three units" architecture is a superset that subsumes the claimed one.

(f) Nature of the remaining differences — design choices and optimization. The differences that remain (which convolutional code parameters; which subsets; whether the mapper is also reconfigured) are exactly the kind of "design incentive[s], market pressure[s]" and finite‑set optimization choices that KSR holds obvious ("obvious to try"). The patent itself concedes the set‑partitioning formats (SP8‑/SP4‑/SP32‑/SP128‑PM‑16QAM) are known from NPL 1 and NPL 2, and concedes that the constraint‑length/code‑rate/generating‑polynomial parameters are ordinary convolutional‑code parameters.

6. Proposed combinations (ranked)

Combination A — primary challenge to claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12

PTL 1 (JP 2011‑250291) in view of PTL 4 (JP 2011‑514736 / US 7,986,878), optionally with Ciena US 9,698,939.

• PTL 1 supplies the architecture: encoder/coder whose operation is set by a controller; a mapper and an optical modulator whose operation modes are set by the same controller (claim 9 verbatim).
• PTL 4 supplies the optical transmission attributes (distance, OSNR, BER, per‑wavelength bit rate) and the programmable‑constellation/LUT implementation, plus the receiver of claims 16–18.
• Ciena supplies the encoding‑centric reconfiguration (adjustable N→M encoding; adjust without changing the modulation scheme) and the four/eight‑dimensional mapper output (claims 3, 5).
  Timing caveat: Ciena is available only as § 102(a)(2) art (effective filing 2013‑06‑13; pre‑grant publication 2014‑12‑18). PTL 1 and PTL 4 are § 102(a)(1)/(b) art on any date.

Combination B — challenge to claim 1/12 with a Japanese‑language primary

PTL 2 (JP 2003‑087345, multi‑mode block coded modulation) in view of PTL 4, with PTL 3 (JP 2009‑105748, LLR) and/or EP 2 498 432 for the decoding/receiver side (claim 10). PTL 2 supplies the concept of a single system operating in plural coding modes; PTL 4 supplies the optical‑link‑condition triggers; PTL 3/EP 2 498 432 supply matched demapping/decoding. (I could not verify PTL 2/PTL 3 full text; treat this combination as secondary until the texts are obtained.)

Combination C — the strongest challenge to claims 6, 7, 8 (and 4)

EP 2 571 217 A1 (Alcatel‑Lucent) in view of Ciena US 9,698,939 and NPL 2 (Renaudier et al., ECOC 2012).

• EP 2 571 217 supplies: 4‑D (I/Q × two polarization) treatment; the express correlation between the two coded/polarization states; a selectable subset of symbol states producing different bits/symbol (8/7/6/5) — i.e., selectable code rate vs. reach; and control‑plane selection of the scheme "according to a desired bitrate." That is claim 6, and it is the same physical construction (four DACs, nested MZ modulators, PBC) that the patent's FIG. 8‑13D system uses.
• Ciena supplies parity‑bit generation feeding the 4‑D mapper (claim 4's "resulting from parity bits generation").
• NPL 2 supplies the 4‑D set‑partitioning and the known SP‑format family.
• For claims 7 and 8, the residual argument is textual (EP 2 571 217 phrases the criterion as maximum Euclidean distance rather than "amplitude maximized in ≥1 polarization" / "excluding small‑small"). Expect the patentee to press this. The rebuttal is that the two formulations select the same subset of the same 4‑D constellation, that maximizing minimum distance in a PDM constellation requires excluding the combinations that place small‑amplitude points in both polarizations, and that the specification offers no evidence of a difference in result. If the patentee can show the amplitude‑correlation construction achieves an unexpected gain not obtained by the EP 2 571 217 selections, that becomes the only credible secondary‑considerations argument in the case.

Combination D — claim 10 (system)

PTL 4 (receiver claims 16–18) + PTL 3 (LLR demapping/decoding) + EP 2 498 432 (adaptive decoding) — plus, for the "concurrently inform encoder and decoder" element that the patent's own fourth embodiment recites, PTL 1's controller notifying multiple units and PTL 4's feedback mechanism. Optional: US 2011/0293266 A1 (Fujitsu, optical receiving device) and JP 2014‑007562 A (NTT).

7. Single‑reference (anticipation‑adjacent) risk worth pleading in the alternative

• Claim 1 read on Ciena US 9,698,939 alone: N/M encoder with adjustable mapping (= one of a plurality of encoding methods) + FEC encoder → constellation mapper → modulator, with controller 34 adjusting the mapping based on a link‑performance (BER) signal. This is an uncomfortably close read of the whole claim, not merely of the elements. If validly prior art as of the critical date (the § 102(a)(2) question — pre‑grant publication 2014‑12‑18 is after 2014‑10‑10, so anticipate‑type reliance is limited to what the application as filed describes, but that is exactly what is quoted above), this is a § 102 argument, not merely § 103.
• Claims 6/8 read on EP 2 571 217 alone: correlation between the two polarization coded states, with the selected subset determined by desired bits per symbol, is the express subject matter of EP 2 571 217's claim 1. The gap for full anticipation is the "encoder … by one of a plurality of encoding methods" framing — EP 2 571 217 recites mapping means and modulation means, not an "encoder." That gap is easily closed by PTL 2, Ciena, or EP 2 498 432.
• Claim 9 read on PTL 1 alone, and claims 3/5 read on Ciena alone, are close to verbatim.

8. Rebuttal considerations the patentee will raise — and why they are weak here

1. "The references are non‑analogous / from different sub‑fields." Unavailing. PTL 1, PTL 4, EP 2 571 217, Ciena and the patent are all optical transmitters selecting a modulation/coding configuration based on link or service conditions. Same field, same problem.
2. "Hindsight — no reference suggests changing encoding rather than modulation format." This is the strongest possible argument and it is squarely refuted by Ciena's express statement that rate/margin can be adjusted "without changing the modulation scheme implemented by the constellation mapper." That is the claimed insight, in the prior art's own words.
3. "Unexpected results — power and complexity reduction." The specification asserts the result but supplies no comparative data; and the result is the predictable consequence of reducing the number of distinct signal‑processing paths and sharing one modulator. KSR and MPEP 2145 require a nexus to the claimed combination, which requires evidence of unexpectedness relative to the closest prior art (Ciena already claimed the same architectural benefit).
4. "Long‑felt need." PTL 4 (2009/2011), EP 2 571 217 (2013) and Ciena (2013) show the need was recognized and being solved well before the 2014‑10‑10 priority date.
5. Textual gap on claims 7/8 (see Combination C) — the only argument with real traction, and it is narrow; a claim‑construction dispute about "amplitude maximized in at least one polarization state" versus "largest Euclidean distance" in a 4‑D constellation, sharpened by the fact that the specification itself derives claims 7/8 from the same minimum‑distance reasoning that EP 2 571 217 recites.
6. Litigation context. The page shows a pending Texas E.D. Tex. case (2:26‑cv‑00074) and current ownership by Radiant Patents LLC following a chain of assignments (NEC → NEC Asia Pacific → IP WAVE → PLS XLIV → Radiant Patents). A real IPR or invalidity contention would need: full texts/expert translations of PTL 1–3 and JP 2014‑146915, a certified translation of JP 2011‑514736, and the file wrapper of US 15/517,767 to see how these references were overcome during prosecution (the granted claim set here is drafted differently from the specification's language — "controller configured to identify an encoding method … depending on optical transmission attributes" — which suggests the claim scope was reshaped, so the reexamination/reexam‑like record and any prior art statements should be reviewed).

9. Confidence and verification status

Bottom line. Claims 1, 11 and 12 appear obvious over PTL 1 + PTL 4 (+ Ciena US 9,698,939), with Ciena alone presenting a serious § 102(a)(2) anticipation question against claim 1. Claims 2–5, 9, 13–16 and 20 follow from the same combination with no independent inventive weight. Claims 6 and 8 read directly on EP 2 571 217, and claim 10 is the routine receiver counterpart of a link‑adaptive transmitter taught by PTL 4 + PTL 3/EP 2 498 432. The narrowest genuine fight is over claims 7 and 8 and their "amplitude maximized in at least one polarization state" formulation, where EP 2 571 217's "largest Euclidean distance" selection is substantively the same construction but is phrased differently.