US 10609442

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 10609442:

US Patent Number: 10609442
Title: Method and apparatus for generating and annotating virtual clips associated with a playable media file [cite: The provided patent text]
Assignee: ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY LLC [cite: The provided patent text]
Inventors: David Hirschfeld, Mark Phelps, Theodore V. Haig, Barry Fernando [cite: The provided patent text]
Filing Date: April 5, 2017 (Application number US15/479,774) [cite: The provided patent text]
Issue Date: March 31, 2020 (Publication date) [cite: The provided patent text]
Abstract: A method and system for annotating playable media files is provided. A virtual clip is associated with first and second locations in the playable media file. These locations define a clip of the playable media file. The clip is displayed to a user, and a user input related to the virtual clip is received. The system determines if this input conforms to a predetermined format for taxonomy tags. If it does, one or more taxonomy tags are identified from the input and associated with the virtual clip in the user's account. [cite: The provided patent text]

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1 (Method for displaying information): This claim describes a method for displaying information related to a playable media file. It involves obtaining stored data that includes the media file's location and multiple "virtual clips." Each virtual clip identifies a start time within the media file and the user who created it. The method then accesses the media file, displays a graphical user interface (GUI) on a user's device (allowing user interaction), and receives an input from the user on a timeline displayed in the GUI. Based on this input, it determines a specific time in the media file, identifies relevant virtual clips, and updates the GUI to show a list of these displayable virtual clips.

• Independent Claim 12 (Method for marking a portion of interest): This claim outlines a method for marking a specific part of a playable media file. It starts with a recording device capturing a live event as a playable media file. While recording, the device receives a user input, but continues recording. From this input, a "temporal point of interest" in the recording is identified. A "temporal place marker" is then generated to index this point of interest and is electronically stored.

• Independent Claim 18 (Method of annotating a playable media file): This claim details a method for annotating a playable media file. It involves obtaining a virtual clip defined by a start and end location within the media file. This clip is then displayed on a user's device. The method receives a user input associated with the virtual clip and determines if this input matches a specific format for "taxonomy tags." If the format is correct, one or more taxonomy tags are identified from the input and are associated with the virtual clip in the user's account.

Uncertainty Regarding CAFC 2026 Dockets:
Based on the provided search results from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, no specific dockets for patent US10609442 were found for the year 2026. The search returned general information about accessing case information and a list of scheduled cases for May 2026, none of which explicitly mention this patent number.

As of April 26, 2026, the following litigation involving US Patent 10609442 is known:

1. Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court [cite: The provided patent text]

   • Case Number: 5:24-cv-04898 [cite: The provided patent text]
   • Source: District Court [cite: The provided patent text]
   • Status: Case filed [cite: The provided patent text]
   • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided text.
   • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided text.
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text for this specific case, but the "Family has litigation" section indicates that the "First worldwide family litigation filed" is ongoing. [cite: The provided patent text]

2. Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court [cite: The provided patent text]

   • Case Number: 3:24-cv-04898 [cite: The provided patent text]
   • Source: District Court [cite: The provided patent text]
   • Status: Case filed [cite: The provided patent text]
   • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided text.
   • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided text.
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text for this specific case, but the "Family has litigation" section indicates that the "First worldwide family litigation filed" is ongoing. [cite: The provided patent text]

3. PTAB Case: IPR2025-01406 [cite: The provided patent text]

   • Status: Procedural Termination [cite: The provided patent text]
   • Petitioner: Unified Patents [cite: The provided patent text]
   • Opponent (Patent Owner): Not specified in the provided text, but presumably ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY LLC as the assignee of US10609442B2. [cite: The provided patent text]
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated, but the case number IPR2025-01406 indicates it was filed in 2025. [cite: The provided patent text]

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US Patent 10609442, which concluded with a procedural termination. This gives a defendant a neutral defensive posture, as no claims were substantively invalidated or confirmed, and estoppel implications are limited depending on the reason for termination.

IPR2025-01406 — Google LLC et al. v. ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review [cite: The provided patent text]
• Filed: 2025-08-13 [cite: The provided patent text]
• Status: Terminated (Procedural Termination) [cite: The provided patent text, 1]
• Judge panel: The judge panel information is not available in the provided text or the search results.
• Petition grounds: The specific petition grounds, including claims challenged, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112), are not detailed in the provided patent text or the search results.
• Institution decision: The institution decision details are not available in the provided patent text or the search results. Given the "Procedural Termination" status, it is possible the case was terminated before a formal institution decision was rendered. [cite: The provided patent text, 1]
• Final Written Decision (if issued): A Final Written Decision was not issued. The proceeding was terminated procedurally.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding IPR2025-01406 was terminated on 2026-03-04. The status of "Procedural Termination" suggests it may have been terminated prior to institution, possibly due to settlement or a request for adverse judgment by the petitioner.
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal has been filed, consistent with a procedural termination before a Final Written Decision.
• Defensive value: Since this IPR was procedurally terminated without a Final Written Decision, no claims were invalidated or confirmed. This means a defendant is not estopped from raising prior art grounds that were or could have been raised in this IPR.

Strategic summary

Only one PTAB proceeding, IPR2025-01406, has been filed against US Patent 10609442. This proceeding reached a "Procedural Termination" on 2026-03-04, meaning no claims of US10609442 were canceled or sustained through a Final Written Decision. Therefore, all claims of US10609442 remain UNTESTED in the context of a full IPR trial and are presumed valid from a PTAB perspective.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since IPR2025-01406 concluded with a procedural termination without a Final Written Decision, the estoppel provisions of § 315(e)(2) generally do not apply to the petitioner (Google LLC et al.) or their privies for grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised. This means that if Google LLC or related entities were to face assertion of this patent, they could still challenge the patent on prior-art grounds that might have been part of the IPR petition. For any other defendant, all prior-art grounds remain available for a potential new IPR petition or district court defense.

A key pattern signal is that Unified Patents is listed as the petitioner for this IPR in the initial "Litigation summary" section, and Google LLC et al. is listed in the "PTAB proceedings on file" section. Unified Patents is a defensive aggregator that often files IPRs to clear patents asserted against its members. The procedural termination suggests that the parties involved (Google LLC et al. and ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY LLC) may have reached a settlement or an agreement that led to the termination of the IPR before a substantive decision. This is a common outcome in PTAB proceedings, especially when a patent owner or petitioner reassesses their strategy.

Recommended next steps

Given the procedural termination of IPR2025-01406, no claims of US10609442 have been substantively challenged and deemed unpatentable by the PTAB.

• For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, it means that the patent claims are currently "unhardened" by a PTAB trial. A new IPR petition could be considered, as no estoppel bars would apply from the prior terminated IPR.
• Reviewing the full docket for IPR2025-01406 on the USPTO PTAB E2E system (if accessible) is recommended to understand the precise reasons for the "Procedural Termination," as this could offer insights into potential settlement terms or petitioner strategies.
• Given that the patent has ongoing litigation in the California Northern District Court (cases 5:24-cv-04898 and 3:24-cv-04898), the absence of a successful IPR makes a direct district court defense more complex, as there's no PTAB invalidity finding to leverage.

https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-01406

Inventors

The inventors named on US Patent 10609442 are David Hirschfeld, Mark Phelps, Theodore V. Haig, and Barry Fernando. Based on the patent filing, it is presumed they were employed by ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY LLC at the time of filing, as the company is listed as the original assignee [cite: The provided patent text].

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent as the original assignee is ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY LLC [cite: The provided patent text].

There appears to be significant confusion in the search results between "ART Research and Technology LLC" (the assignee of the patent) and "Applied Research and Technology" (a pro audio company, often referred to as ART or ART Pro Audio, which is a division of Yorkville Sound). These seem to be distinct entities.

The patent mentions "ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY LLC" as the assignee. Based on previous PTAB activity for IPR2025-01406 and other related IPRs (like IPR2025-01404 and IPR2025-01405), where Google LLC is listed as the petitioner against "ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, LLC", and the district court cases against Google LLC and YouTube, LLC, it suggests that the ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY LLC associated with this patent is involved in patent assertion.

The numerous search results for "Applied Research and Technology" or "ART Pro Audio" describe a company founded in 1984 that makes musical equipment like digital reverbs, amplifiers, mixers, and signal processors, with their best-known product being the Tube MP. This company is currently a division of Yorkville Sound. This entity ships products (pro audio equipment).

Another entity, "ART Research Technology Ltd," incorporated in 2023 in the UK, specializes in designing, developing, and producing sculptures and immersive experiences. This is also distinct.

Given the context of the IPRs and district court cases involving Google, it is highly probable that the "ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY LLC" from the patent is primarily a patent assertion entity, and not the "Applied Research and Technology" pro audio company. The SEC Form D filings for "Art Research & Technology, L.L.C." from Arizona, with no clear company description or website provided, and with capital raised through filings, further supports the possibility of it being a non-operating entity. There is no readily available information indicating that ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY LLC itself ships products embodying the claims of US10609442.

Original Assignee Conclusion:

• Full legal name: ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY LLC
• Shipped a product embodying the claims: Unclear from direct evidence for this specific entity. The "Applied Research and Technology" (ART Pro Audio) company ships audio equipment, but this appears to be a separate entity. The ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY LLC associated with the patent has no clear product shipping activity evident from searches.
• Primary line of business: Patent assertion, based on its involvement in litigation against large technology companies like Google [cite: The provided patent text, 9, 11].
• Current status: Active, based on its ongoing litigation activities [cite: The provided patent text, 9, 11].

Assignment timeline

I am unable to access the USPTO Assignment Center directly to perform the search. My capabilities do not include live web browsing or interacting with web forms. Therefore, I cannot reconstruct the full assignment record for US Patent 10609442 from the USPTO Assignment Search database.

The Assignment Center has no records for this patent available through my current access methods.

Timeline diagram

Given the inability to access the USPTO Assignment Center, I cannot generate a complete timeline diagram for assignments beyond what is already known from Google Patents (which only indicates the current assignee).

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10609442
    2017 : Filed by ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY LLC
    2020 : Issued to ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY LLC
    2024 : Litigation filed in ND Cal
    2025 : IPR filed by Unified Patents

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Due to the inability to access the USPTO Assignment Center and retrieve detailed assignment records (reel/frame, conveyance type, correspondent), the following NPE/troll-pattern signals cannot be definitively assessed. My assessment is based only on the information provided in the patent text and prior search results.

1. Shell-entity transfer — Unclear. The patent is currently assigned to ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY LLC [cite: The provided patent text]. While previous analysis suggests this entity is primarily involved in patent assertion and does not appear to ship products, there's no record of a transfer from an operating company to this LLC available through the USPTO Assignment Center.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY LLC is listed as the patent owner in multiple litigations (California Northern District Court cases 5:24-cv-04898 and 3:24-cv-04898) and IPR proceedings (IPR2025-01406 by Unified Patents) where it is the opponent. This behavior aligns with a patent assertion entity (PAE), also known as a patent troll [cite: The provided patent text, 9, 11].
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear. Without access to assignment records, the correspondent information for any potential transfers cannot be determined.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There are no recorded assignments in the provided text or other search results that indicate multiple consecutive transfers. The patent remains with the original assignee, ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY LLC [cite: The provided patent text].
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Unclear. The first litigation mentioning this patent was filed in 2024 [cite: The provided patent text]. Without assignment records, it's impossible to determine if any transfer occurred within 6 months prior to this date.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. While one search result mentions "ART Advanced Research Technologies Inc." filing for bankruptcy in 2013, this appears to be a different entity than "ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY LLC", the assignee of US10609442. There is no indication that US10609442 was sold in a bankruptcy proceeding involving its assignee.
7. Privateering — Unclear. There is no information from SEC filings or other public sources to suggest an operating company transferred the patent to ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY LLC for assertion on its behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The current assignee is ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY LLC, which is involved in asserting the patent, not neutralizing it.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence

This verdict is based on the strong signal that ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY LLC, the current assignee, is actively asserting the patent in district court litigation against Google LLC and YouTube, LLC (cases 5:24-cv-04898 and 3:24-cv-04898 in the California Northern District Court) and has been a patent owner in PTAB proceedings (IPR2025-01406) [cite: The provided patent text, 9, 11]. There is no public evidence that ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY LLC manufactures or sells products embodying the claims of US10609442. The absence of publicly recorded assignments via Google Patents, combined with the active litigation, suggests the patent is held for assertion purposes.

A direct search of the USPTO Assignment Center for US10609442 was not possible with the available tools, which would typically provide more definitive evidence regarding shell entity transfers and correspondent patterns.

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 10609442, I need to access its cited references. Since I cannot directly access the USPTO database or its Patent Public Search tool to perform a live search for cited prior art, I will rely on the information provided in the patent text itself, which often lists "Prior Art References". If such a section is not explicitly provided, I will examine the "Description" or "Background" sections for mentions of existing technologies or patents that the invention builds upon or distinguishes itself from.

Based on the provided patent text, there isn't a dedicated "Prior Art References" section listing specific patent citations with full details. However, the patent does mention "Prior art keywords" such as "virtual, user, clip, media file, taxonomy" [cite: The provided patent text]. This indicates the general technical area.

To determine the most relevant prior art for US10609442, I would typically look for a "References Cited" section in the patent document. Since this section is not explicitly provided in the current text, and I cannot perform live web searches on the USPTO database, I cannot list specific patent citations for 10609442.

Therefore, I cannot provide a detailed analysis of each reference, including full citation, publication/filing date, brief description, and which claim(s) it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

I cannot perform an obviousness analysis of US Patent 10609442 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because, as stated in the "Prior art" section, I do not have access to specific prior art references cited by the patent or the ability to conduct live searches for them.

An obviousness analysis requires:

1. Identifying specific prior art references: These would typically be patents, publications, or other disclosures that predate the patent's priority date.
2. Determining the scope and content of the prior art: Understanding what each reference teaches.
3. Identifying the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art: Comparing the claims of US10609442 to what is taught by the prior art.
4. Determining the level of ordinary skill in the art: Understanding the capabilities of a hypothetical person skilled in the relevant field.
5. Assessing the motivation to combine references: Explaining why a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of multiple prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention, and whether such a combination would have been obvious.

Since the preceding "Prior art" section concluded that "there isn't a dedicated 'Prior Art References' section listing specific patent citations with full details" in the provided text, and I am unable to perform live web searches to identify such references, I lack the foundational information necessary to conduct a § 103 obviousness analysis.