Invalidity dossier
US 10430811
Transaction-specific customer survey system
Current assignee: Afterwords Inc
Added 10/6/2026, 12:02:00 AM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-v4-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview — US10430811B1
Title: "Transaction-specific customer survey system" (source as given).
Assignee/Applicant: Afterwords, Inc. (named as original and current assignee in the supplied text). Inventors: Steven A. Roberts and Drew Peloubet.
Key dates (as listed): Priority date 2015-01-15; filing date 2019-06-28; granted/publication date 2019-10-01; anticipated expiration 2036-01-15. Application number US16/456,490; a related publication US20190318368A1 is listed. Status shown as "Active."
Purpose (from the text): To replace generic, impersonal surveys with a system that automatically generates a particular questionnaire for each individual purchase. The stated problem is that conventional surveys ask pre-determined, redundant questions—like product name, serial number, store, price, or date—that customers already expect the merchant to know, causing abandonment. Point-of-sale (POS) systems already capture "check-level" data (server/cashier, date and time, check duration, table, location, mode, items and modifications), but that rich data "has never been made available for the customer to interact with."
Plain-language scope (from the text): The invention is a computer method and system in which purchase information is stored at the time of purchase as transaction data, and the customer receives an identifier for that purchase. Questions are "selectively and automatically generated" based on the items purchased or other definable sale attributes, and on merchant-configurable preferences contained in a "Campaign" data structure. Survey questions are displayed; feedback responses are stored, analyzed, and linked back to the transaction data. Transaction data may be stored locally on a POS device or remotely, "such as a cloud service provider." The stated benefit is eliminating obvious, redundant, or irrelevant questions and binding feedback directly to the actual purchase event.
Classifications noted: G06Q30/0201, G06Q10/06395, G06Q20/20, G06Q30/0202, G06Q30/0204–0205, G07G1/0009, G07G1/14, among others.
What the excerpt does not establish: It provides no claim language, no specification detail beyond selected definitions, and no prior-art references or comparison. It does not establish actual ownership, enforceability, or current legal status conclusively (the page itself labels such statuses assumptions). Litigation and post-grant proceedings are outside this summary's permitted scope.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10430811](/patent/US10430811)/en
Generated 10/6/2026, 12:10:47 AM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 10430811. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.