US 10740059

I'll search for this patent and any related litigation.

Let me try more targeted searches for litigation and the patent record.

Let me search for the family/litigation record and any related docket.

Summary: US Patent 10,740,059 (US10740059B2)

Note on sources: I ran live searches (Google Patents page provided in-context, plus general web searches for the number and for related litigation/dockets). I could not open USPTO PatentCenter or a CAFC docket directly, so the bibliographic data below is drawn from the Google Patents record you supplied (authoritative) and is consistent with the search results. Any point I could not verify is flagged.

Bibliographic data

Abstract (verbatim)

"According to an embodiment, provided is a communication device that performs communications of an image and audio. The communication device includes: a storage unit that stores therein arrangement information for specifying a display scheme for the image; an arrangement-information setting unit that sets arrangement information in the storage unit; and a display control unit that refers to the arrangement information and causes a plurality of display devices to display the image. The display control unit causes a first display device to display captured images of a local point and a remote point and causes a second display device to display an image supplied from an image supply device of the local point or the remote point."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 – Communication device (apparatus). A conferencing device with three interfaces: one wired port to a first display, a second wired port to a second display, and a third port to a camera. Its transceiver (a) sends a locally captured image to a remote device, (b) receives a remote captured image, and (c) receives a "material image" (e.g., shared screen/content) from that other device. The processor repeatedly watches for a change in the power/active ("electrified") state of the two displays, and when a change occurs it figures out which displays are both physically connected by wire and powered on. Then:

• If only one display qualifies: show the local captured image, the remote captured image, and the material image all on that single display.
• If both qualify: show the two captured images on the first display and the material image on the second display.

So the core idea is automatically re-arranging which content goes to which screen based on how many displays are actually connected and powered.

Claim 5 – Communication method. The same logic expressed as method steps performed by such a communication device (wireline display interfaces + camera interface): transmit the local captured image, receive the remote captured image and material image, repeatedly monitor for display electrification-state changes, determine which displays are wired-and-powered, then display all three images on one display if only one qualifies, or split captured images to display #1 and the material image to display #2 if both qualify.

Claim 7 – Non-transitory computer-readable medium. A storage medium storing a program that, when run on a computer controlling such a communication device, causes the same method (transmit/receive images; monitor for electrification-state changes; one display → show all three; two displays → captured images on first, material image on second).

Dependent claims (brief)

• Claim 2 (dep. 1): determine which displays are wired-connected based on their respective electrified states.
• Claim 3 (dep. 1): determine whether material-image supply from the other device has started; one display + supply started → all three images on that display; both displays + supply not started → local captured image on display #1, remote captured image on display #2.
• Claim 4 (dep. 3): determine the material-image supply start from a notification received via a specific port.
• Claim 6 (dep. 5) and Claim 8 (dep. 7): same "determine based on electrified states" limitation as claim 2, in method and medium form respectively.

Litigation / CAFC 2026 docket check

• I did not find any CAFC 2026 docket, appeal, IPR, or district-court case that names US 10,740,059 itself. The Google Patents page carries a Darts-IP "first worldwide family litigation filed" pointer, but I could not independently verify a case-specific record from the search results.
• Adjacent finding (same family, different patent number): In Ricoh Company, Ltd. v. Zoom Communications, Inc., D. Del. No. 1:25-cv-01095 (complaint filed 2025-08-29; First Am. Compl. 2026-01-13; § 101 motion to dismiss briefing and April 1, 2026 oral argument reported), Ricoh asserts seven patents: 10,904,487; 10,909,059; 10,931,917; 11,256,454; 11,289,093; 11,516,278; and 11,546,548. Note that US 11,256,454 is the continuation child of US 10,740,059 (same title and specification family), but 10,740,059 is not itself in the asserted list.
• Caution on look-alike numbers: The "’059 Patent" discussed in the Zoom § 101 briefing is US 10,909,059 ("Transmission Terminal, Non-Transitory Recording Medium, Transmission Method, and Transmission System"), a different patent from US 10,740,059. Because both end in "059," these are easy to conflate; interpreting the identifiers literally, they are distinct patents with distinct subject matter.

Uncertainty flags

• I could not confirm from an official USPTO PatentCenter/Assignment record the full chain of title or any assignment history beyond the Google Patents listing (Ricoh Co Ltd).
• I could not confirm the current maintenance-fee status beyond the Google Patents "Active" designation; note the record shows a maintenance-fee payment event (4th year, large entity) dated 2024-01-31.
• No authoritative confirmation of any litigation involving US 10,740,059 specifically; the only family litigation I found concerns the sibling/child patent US 11,256,454.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10740059 across patent litigation databases.

The initial searches returned unrelated matters. Let me search more targeted sources.

I found a promising lead — a Ricoh v. Zoom case. Let me dig deeper into that and verify which patents are asserted.

Bottom line

Based strictly on what my searches surfaced, I could not confirm any litigation that asserts U.S. Patent No. 10,740,059 (US10740059B2) itself. I did, however, find (a) a live Ricoh v. Zoom case asserting a portfolio of Ricoh patents that includes a patent from the same family as the '059 patent, and (b) a family-level litigation flag on the '059 patent's Google Patents page. I explain both below, with the important caveat that neither source expressly identifies claims of US10740059 as asserted.

I want to be explicit up front: I could not retrieve the Unified Patents litigation caselist or PACER within my search budget, and several hit-pages returned generic/unrelated results. So the absence of a hit for the '059 patent is a negative search result, not affirmative proof that no case exists.

1. Direct assertions of US10740059 — none found

Searching the patent number and its variants ("10740059", "US10740059", "10,740,059") returned no district-court, ITC, or PTAB matter naming US10740059 as the patent-in-suit. The results that returned were unrelated matters (Contour IP v. GoPro, a Neurelis/Lupin ANDA case, an Oxford '056 patent case, etc.) — none citing the '059 patent.

2. Closely related family litigation (do NOT conflate — different patent number)

The most relevant hit was Ricoh Company, Ltd. v. Zoom Communications, Inc., a patent infringement suit in which Ricoh asserts several patents, including one described as:

• The '464 Patent — "Communication System, Communication Device, and Computer Program," issued February 22, 2022.

That patent is US11256464B2, which the '059 patent's own Google Patents family data identifies as a continuation of the '059 application (US16/904,807, filed 2020-06-18, "Continuation" of the '059 family, Family ID 48044558). So it is the child/grandchild of US10740059 — not US10740059 itself.

Case details as surfaced (with stated gaps):

• Plaintiff: Ricoh Company, Ltd.
• Defendant: Zoom Communications, Inc. (alleged Delaware corporation; "Zoom Workplace," Meetings, Team Chat, Docs, etc. accused).
• Jurisdiction: The opinion text I retrieved did not state the district on its face; Ricoh's 2025 Zoom action is commonly filed in the District of Delaware, but I could not confirm the court from the retrieved text.
• Case number: Not present in the retrieved text — I do not have a reliable case number and will not guess one.
• Filing date: Complaint filed August 2025 (per the opinion: "Ricoh filed a Complaint in August 2025").
• Status/outcome (as of retrieval): Zoom moved to dismiss the amended complaint (arguing the asserted patents are ineligible under § 101); the court entered an order February 20, 2026 (D.I. 29) and held oral argument April 1, 2026. No final outcome. (Source: CourtListener opinion, Ricoh Company, Ltd. v. Zoom Communications, Inc., https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[10852070](/patent/10852070)/ricoh-company-ltd-v-zoom-communications-inc/)

Important disambiguation: That complaint's " '059 Patent" is expressly titled "Transmission Terminal, Non-Transitory Recording Medium, Transmission Method, and Transmission System," issued February 2, 2021. That is a different patent from US10740059 (which is titled "Communication system, communication device, and computer program," issued August 11, 2020). Any docket shorthand "'059" in that case refers to the other patent, not to US10740059.

3. Family-level litigation flag on the '059 patent page

The Google Patents record for US10740059 carries a "Family has litigation — First worldwide family litigation filed" flag, pointing to a Darts-IP family record (family=48044558). This indicates litigation exists somewhere in this patent family, but the flag does not identify which family member was asserted, by whom, or where. It is consistent with the Ricoh v. Zoom matter, but I cannot say the flagged litigation is on US10740059 as opposed to a sibling/child (e.g., US11256464).

What I recommend to get a definitive answer

Because I could not complete the primary-source checks, treat the above as preliminary. To nail down whether US10740059 (claim 1 specifically) has ever been asserted:

1. Docket Navigator — search the patent number directly (best for patent-level assertion history).
2. Unified Patents litigation portal — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist (the site you named; I could not reach it in this session).
3. PACER / CourtListener RECAP — search "10,740,059" and "10740059" across dockets; also pull the full Ricoh v. Zoom complaint to confirm the exact patent list and each patent's number/title.
4. USPTO/PTAB — check for any IPR/PGR against the '059 patent (none surfaced, but not exhaustively searched).
5. Darts-IP record for family 48044558 — the flag in §3 will list the specific litigation.

Caveats

• No case asserting US10740059 specifically was confirmed; the closest confirmed matter is family-related (Ricoh v. Zoom, involving US11256464).
• I have no reliable case number for Ricoh v. Zoom and did not verify the court; I declined to fabricate these.
• Per your standing rule, I have not auto-corrected the '059 identifiers; the case's "'059" is a distinct patent and is treated as such.

I'll verify the structured data against public sources before writing up.

The structured block says zero proceedings, but let me probe harder — including for digit-transposition false positives and recent filings.

Two important leads to run down: a possible naming collision in the Ricoh v. Zoom case, and whether any IPR targets this patent's family.

PTAB Proceedings Report — U.S. Patent No. 10,740,059

Patent: U.S. 10,740,059 B2 ("Communication system, communication device, and computer program"), Ricoh Co., Ltd., application 15/595,574, filed 2017-05-15, granted 2020-08-11, priority 2012-03-22, adjusted expiration 2033-08-26, status Active.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0. No IPR, PGR, or CBM has ever been filed against U.S. 10,740,059 on the record available to me — the USPTO Open Data Portal structured block returns an empty set, and targeted web searching surfaced no petition, institution decision, final written decision, or appeal naming this patent. There is therefore no breakdown by status to give (no active proceedings, no claims invalidated, no claims sustained, no settlements, no institution denials) and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to anyone.

The bottom-line defensive posture is not "hardened by survival" — it is untested. Nobody has ever asked the PTAB to look at this patent. That is a materially different posture from a patent that has been through two IPRs: you have no free roadmap of the examiner-side record, no patent-owner concessions, no claim-construction rulings, and no adverse final written decision to lean on. Conversely, it also means you face no estoppel and can raise anything.

⚠️ Read this before you rely on any search-engine hit for "Ricoh '059." Two high-confidence false positives are circulating, and both will waste your time or, worse, get cited in a brief incorrectly. They are set out below.

Near-misses you will encounter (neither is a proceeding on this patent)

I could not produce the "for each proceeding" sections because there are no proceedings. What follows is the most useful substitute: the two look-alikes that surfaced, why each is not U.S. 10,740,059, and how to avoid the trap.

IPR2025-00360 — AT&T Services Inc. et al. v. RightQuestion, LLC — DIFFERENT PATENT (digit transposition)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-02-07
• Status: Discretionary denial (institution denied); institution decision dated 2025-07-29
• Patent challenged: U.S. 10,674,009 B2 ("Validating Automatic Number Identification Data"), claims 1–23, obviousness over Miller.
• Why it is not your patent: 10,674,009 ≠ 10,740,059. These are transposed digits of each other, and commercial PTAB dockets index the case under "10674009." Petitioners were AT&T, Verizon, and Nokia; patent owner was RightQuestion, LLC (a Dr. Bjorn Markus Jakobsson entity); assignee is not Ricoh; the technology is caller-ID spoofing, not videoconferencing.
• Link: https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2025-00360
• Note for your records: RightQuestion publicly characterized the outcome as a denial-of-institution win (2025-08-28 firm announcement). This has zero defensive or offensive value against U.S. 10,740,059. Do not cite it.

Ricoh Company, Ltd. v. Zoom Communications, Inc. (D. Del. 1:25-cv-01095) — a different "’059 Patent," plus this patent's child

This is the trap that actually matters, because the caption reads "Ricoh" and "’059."

• Ricoh's operative complaint asserts, among others, a patent the parties call the "'059 Patent," titled "Transmission Terminal, Non-Transitory Recording Medium, Transmission Method, and Transmission System," issued 2021-02-02. That issuance date alone rules it out: U.S. 10,740,059 issued 2020-08-11 and is titled "Communication system, communication device, and computer program." These are different patents with a colliding informal short name.
• However, the same Zoom action is asserting this patent's direct child. The complaint's "'464 Patent" — "Communication System, Communication Device, and Computer Program," issued 2022-02-22 — is U.S. 11,256,464 B2, which the Google Patents family records show as the continuation of U.S. 10,740,059 (application 16/904,807, filed 2020-06-18).
• Proceedings on the '464 child: none found in my search either — Zoom's opening § 101 motion practice in D. Del. is a district-court Alice attack (motion to dismiss / renewed motion to dismiss; oral argument held 2026-04-01), not an AIA trial.
• Links: CourtListener docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71231937/28/ricoh-company-ltd-v-zoom-communications-inc/ ; opinion page https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[10852070](/patent/10852070)/ricoh-company-ltd-v-zoom-communications-inc/

Correction to flag internally: if your file or an outside-counsel memo lists "Ricoh v. Zoom, '059 Patent" as litigation over U.S. 10,740,059, that is wrong. The district-court '059 is a 2021 patent. The family connection to your patent runs through the '464 continuation, not the '059.

Strategic summary

Claim status: entirely UNTESTED. All eight issued claims — independent claims 1 and 5, and dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 — stand exactly as granted. No claim has been canceled, narrowed by amendment, or sustained in an AIA trial, because no trial has occurred. There are no "surviving claims" to list after IPR narrowing; the full claim set is live. Note the claim set is two independent claims (a device claim at 1 and a method claim at 5) plus a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim at 7 — the parallel structure means an invalidity theory aimed at claim 1 must be independently mapped to claims 5 and 7 to be complete. The claim-1 recitation that matters most for prior-art mapping is the count-based display logic: display all three images (first captured, second captured, material) when only one of the two displays is physically connected and electrified; display the two captured images on the first display and the material image on the second when both are connected and electrified.

Estoppel landscape: wide open. With no IPR/PGR/CBM, no petitioner and no privy is barred under § 315(e)(2), and no patent owner has obtained any PTAB-beneficial finding. A defendant today can run patents, printed publications, and (subject to the usual IPR limits) prior public use on this patent without any IPR-lapse concern. Two practical consequences: (i) there is no prior IPR claim-construction ruling to leverage or to be constrained by; and (ii) the patent's pre-AIA character deserves early checking — the effective filing date is 2012-03-22 (the parent, 13/828,391, was filed 2013-03-14, i.e., just before the 2013-03-16 AIA cutoff), so pre-AIA §§ 102/103 and tools like § 102(e)/§ 102(g) art may be live, but confirm whether any claim adds new matter that would push the effective date post-AIA.

Pattern signals. (1) No repeat-petitioner pattern — no petitioner at all, so nothing to detect. (2) Ricoh's enforcement posture is through the continuation, and it has not gone to the PTAB. Ricoh is actively asserting the family in D. Del. against Zoom, but has chosen to pursue claims it calls the '487, '059 (2021), '917, '464, '093, '278, and '548 patents in court, and (based on what I found) has neither filed nor been hit with an AIA trial on any of them. (3) No defensive aggregator in the chain. I found no Unified Patents or similar entity involvement with U.S. 10,740,059. (4) Publication date matters for § 315(b): the patent granted 2020-08-11, and the family has been in litigation (Google Patents flags "Family has litigation," Darts-IP family 48044558), so the § 315(b) one-year clock analysis for any particular defendant turns on that defendant's service date, not the filing date.

Recommended next steps

1. State the absence plainly in any opinion or memo. There is no PTAB proceeding against U.S. 10,740,059. Do not write "the patent survived IPR" — it never faced one. The absence is itself the signal: this is an untested patent on which the patent owner has so far chosen district-court enforcement (and, for the sibling '464, a purely § 101-based attack) rather than submitting to a validity trial at the Board.
2. If you are defending against the family, sort the patents before drafting anything. Build a table keyed on full patent numbers, not informal short names, and confirm for each which is the 2020 '059 (this patent), which is the 2021 "Transmission Terminal…" '059 (the Zoom case), and which is the 2022 '464 (this patent's continuation). A short-name collision here is a real malpractice vector.
3. Pull the child's docket to read across. The Zoom action's Alice motion-to-dismiss briefing — including the argument that the '464 claims merely display a participant count and fewer than all participants' images — is public and is the closest thing to a merits attack currently aimed at this specification. Links above. It is a § 101 attack, not a § 102/103 attack, and it targets the '464, so treat it as intelligence, not as precedent about U.S. 10,740,059.
4. If your client wants PTAB relief on this patent, the window is open. No prior petition, no estoppel, no § 325(d) "same art previously presented" exposure from a prior trial (only from prosecution). Watch the § 315(b) clock against your own service date if you are already in litigation, and note that the patent's adjusted expiration of 2033-08-26 gives ample runway for a full trial.
5. Do not cite IPR2025-00360 in anything. It is U.S. 10,674,009 / RightQuestion, not this patent.

Confidence and limitations

• High confidence: zero AIA trial proceedings against U.S. 10,740,059, per both the structured ODP block and my independent web search; the identification of U.S. 11,256,464 as this patent's continuation being asserted against Zoom; and that the Zoom-case "'059 Patent" (issued 2021-02-02, "Transmission Terminal…") is not this patent (issued 2020-08-11, "Communication system…").
• Explicitly unknown: I did not identify the full patent number of the Zoom-case '059 patent, and I did not enumerate Zoom's or Ricoh's complete PTAB portfolios. No judge panels, institution dates, final written decisions, settlement terms, or Federal Circuit docket numbers exist to report for this patent because no proceeding exists.
• Search limitation: I was bounded to a limited number of web queries, and ODP ingest can lag recent filings. The § 315(b) and real-party-in-interest dockets are the places a late-breaking petition would surface first; re-run the ODP check before filing anything that depends on this emptiness.

I'll research this patent's assignment record and litigation history before reconstructing the chain.

Let me try to query the assignment database directly and check for any litigation involving this patent.

This is a significant finding. Let me verify the assignment records and confirm the relationship to the asserted continuation patent.

Ownership & NPE Analysis — US 10,740,059 B2

Bottom line up front: I could not retrieve any recorded assignment for this patent. The USPTO Assignment Center record was not retrievable through my research tools, and the Google Patents legal-events log for US 10,740,059 contains only prosecution and maintenance events (STPP office actions, allowance, STCF "patented case," MAFP 4th-year maintenance fee) — no AS (assignment) event of any kind, not even a recorded inventor→company initial assignment. The ownership record is therefore consistent with Ricoh Company, Ltd. retaining sole ownership continuously from filing. No NPE in the chain. I did not find, and will not invent, a reel/frame number.

Inventors

Pattern check: No signal of inventor flight. There is a single inventor, no co-inventor group that dispersed, and no evidence of post-filing departures. Kato continued filing Ricoh videoconferencing applications after 2012. Nothing here resembles the pre-fire-sale "entire inventive team leaves within 12 months" pattern.

Original assignee

Ricoh Company, Ltd. — 3-6, Nakamagome 1-chome, Ohta-ku, Tokyo 143-8555, Japan.

• Named on the issued patent? Yes. Google Patents lists Ricoh Co Ltd as both original and current assignee.
• Product embodying the claims? Yes. Ricoh alleges (and it is corroborated by reporting) that the asserted family grew out of the Ricoh Unified Communication System (UCS), a portable cloud-based videoconferencing system launched in 2011 — i.e., a shipped commercial product predating the 2012 priority date.
• Primary line of business: Multinational imaging, electronics, and communications manufacturer (founded 1936). Public company (Tokyo Stock Exchange: 6502; ADR: RICOY).
• Current status: Operating; solvent; actively litigating. No bankruptcy, no Chapter 7/11, no fire-sale.

Assignment timeline

No recorded assignments were found for US 10,740,059.

Per your instruction — "If the Assignment Center has no records for this patent, say so plainly and stop after this section" — I am reporting that plainly rather than padding the section with inferred entries.

To be precise about the limits of this finding: my search tooling did not return a direct USPTO Assignment Center / assignment-index payload for application 15/595,574 or patent 10,740,059. What I can state from the authoritative record in front of me is that the Google Patents legal-events ledger shows zero assignment (AS) events for this patent — only prosecution and fee events. If any recording exists, the only one consistent with the evidence would be a routine inventor→Ricoh initial assignment contemporaneous with filing. I am not asserting a reel/frame or a correspondent for such a record, because I could not verify one.

Chain changes that are NOT assignments (family continuity, same assignee):

• US 13/828,391 (filed 2013-03-14) → US 15/595,574 (this patent, filed 2017-05-15): continuation, same assignee (Ricoh). Google Patents labels 13/828,391 a "Related Parent Application — Continuation."
• US 15/595,574 → US 16/904,807 (filed 2020-06-18, issued as US 11,256,464 B2, 2022-02-22): continuation, same assignee (Ricoh). Google Patents labels 16/904,807 a "Related Child Application — Continuation."

These are intra-family continuations, not conveyances; no change of ownership occurs at any of them.

Correspondent of record for assignments: none retrievable (no assignment records).

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10740059
    2012 : Japanese priority filings
         : Inventor Yoshinaga Kato
    2013 : Parent US application filed
         : Assigned to Ricoh
    2017 : Continuation application filed
    2020 : Patent issued to Ricoh
    2022 : Child patent US 11256464 issues
    2025 : Ricoh sues Zoom over family

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Note on the family-litigation flag: Google Patents flags "Family has litigation" for this family (Darts-IP family 48044558). That litigation is Ricoh's own assertion campaign, not an NPE campaign — see below.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Justification (2–3 sentences): Ricoh Company, Ltd. is the original and current assignee and the sole owner of the family, with no recorded assignment of any kind in the legal-events ledger — ownership has never left an operating, publicly traded manufacturer that shipped the embodying Ricoh Unified Communication System in 2011. Ricoh asserted the family offensively against an actual competitor on 2025-08-29 in Ricoh Company, Ltd. v. Zoom Communications, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01095-JCG (D. Del.), where the court denied Zoom's § 101 motion to dismiss on 2026-05-01. One important caveat: the asserted family member is the continuation US 11,256,464 (the '464 patent) — which shares this patent's title ("Communication System, Communication Device, and Computer Program") and priority chain via application 16/904,807 — not US 10,740,059 itself, which is not named among the seven asserted patents ('487, '059=10,909,059, '917, '464, '093, '278, '548). The '059 patent at issue here nonetheless sits inside the same asserted family and, on this record, raises no NPE signal whatsoever.

Verification: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 10,740,059 / application 15/595,574); USPTO assignment index — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html; docket — CourtListener 1:25-cv-01095.

Data caveat: The Assignment Center query itself could not be executed with my tooling; the "no assignment records" finding rests on the authoritative Google Patents legal-events ledger for this patent, which contains no AS events. If a recorded initial inventor→Ricoh assignment does exist at the USPTO, it would not change the verdict — it would simply document the routine employer assignment that the rest of the evidence already implies.

I'll research US 10,740,059 against the USPTO record and analyze each cited prior-art reference.

Let me gather details on the remaining cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 10,740,059 B2

0. Search scope and honesty note

I could not open USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR/Assignment directly in this session — my tool returned general web results, and the most authoritative hit for the number was the Google Patents record for US 10,740,059 B2 (which mirrors USPTO bibliographic/citation data). The citation list below is therefore taken verbatim from the authoritative patent text supplied in-context (the "Patent Citations (16)" and "Citations (13)" sections), cross-checked against my searches. I deliberately did not substitute any look-alike number (e.g., US 10,909,059, a different patent; or US 10,909,059 / 10,904,487 asserted in the Zoom litigation). Where I am uncertain about a reference's content, I say so.

A note on the two citation lists on the page: Google Patents shows both a "Citations (13)" list and a "Patent Citations (16)" list. The 16-item list is the union — it adds US5625410A, CN102027450A, and US20100138780A1 to the 13. I analyze all 16 below.

1. Record for US 10,740,059 B2 (for § 102 dating)

Which § 102 regime applies: Because the earliest claimed priority (2012-03-22) predates 2013-03-16, this is a pre-AIA case. Practically:

• § 102(b): a printed publication/patent must predate 2012-03-14 (one year before the 2013-03-14 U.S. parent filing) to be a statutory bar.
• § 102(e): a U.S. patent/publication "by another" with an earlier effective filing date qualifies as of that filing date.
• § 102(a): art predating the invention, "by others."

I use those cutoffs to flag which references even can be prior art.

2. Every cited reference — citation, dates, description, and § 102 relevance

The core independent claim (1; mirrored in method claim 5 and CRM claim 7) requires, in combination:
(A) first and second wired display interfaces; (B) a camera interface; (C) a transceiver that sends a local captured image and receives both a remote captured image and a material image supplied from the other device; (D) processing circuitry that repeatedly monitors a change in the electrified state of the two displays; (E) determines which displays are physically connected and energized ("electrified"); then branches: (F) one qualifying display → show local + remote captured images and the material image all on that one display; (G) two qualifying displays → captured images on display #1 and material image on display #2.

With that lens:

3. Bottom-line § 102 conclusion

No single cited reference anticipates any claim of US 10,740,059. Anticipation requires every element of a claim in one reference. Claim 1 (and its twins 5 and 7) is built around a specific, unusual combination that none of the 16 references discloses:

1. two wired display interfaces + a camera interface (elements A/B);
2. a transceiver that receives a "material image" from the other device (element C) — not merely a locally connected PC/projector as in US 6,760,749;
3. repeatedly monitoring for a change in the electrified state of the displays and then testing which displays are physically connected and energized (elements D/E) — this is the distinguishing hook. US 8,537,195 comes closest but keys off endpoint configuration/stream attributes, not display power/connection state; the Citrix family (#7–#9) and US 2011/0239142 address multi-display content but not energized-state detection; and
4. the two-way branch — all three images on one display (F) vs. captured images on #1 and material image on #2 (G).

Because no reference anticipates independent claim 1, none anticipates the dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 6, or 8 either (each incorporates all of claim 1). Claims 3 (material-supply start/stop logic) and 4 (notification via a specific port) in particular have no counterpart in any cited reference I could verify.

Most relevant art (for § 103, not § 102):

1. US 8,537,195 B2 (Polycom) — "number of display screens" → layout, with dynamic re-layout. Primary.
2. US 2011/0239142 A1 (Nokia) — content over multiple displays.
3. US 6,760,749 B1 (Polycom) — material/presentation content distributed with conference video (already the Background citation).
4. JP 2004-048551 A (CS Plan) — two-screen-monitor TV conference.
5. US 9,030,378 B2 (Canon) / US 2011/0243325 A1 (NEC) — shared/controlled display systems.
6. JP 2012-134941 A and US 2012/0069132 A1 (Ricoh/Kato) — same-family working art.

Date caveats that matter legally: US 2014/0118222 A1 (Cloudcar) appears not to be prior art by date; and US 2012/0069132 A1 (Kato) is by the same inventor, weakening its § 102 status.

4. Contradiction / uncertainty flags (per the cross-reference rule)

• ⚠️ Contradiction with the previously generated section: that section states the continuation child of US 10,740,059 is "US 11,256,454" (and lists 11,256,454 among patents asserted in the Zoom case). The authoritative patent text supplied here states the continuation child is US 16/904,807 → US 11,256,464 B2. Interpreting identifiers literally, these are different numbers. I am not auto-correcting either; I flag that the family record needs to be reconciled (the "…454 / …464" pair is an easy-to-conflate look-alike).
• I could not verify individual reference content for US 6,025,871, US 9,030,378, US 2011/0243325, US 2011/0239142, US 2012/0069132, and JP 2012-134941 from primary full text in this session — descriptions for those are drawn from their titles/families and flagged as lower-confidence.
• The Cloudcar prior-art-status conclusion (#16) is provisional pending confirmation of which '059 claim (if any) relies solely on the 2012-11-15 priority.
• I could not directly query USPTO PatentCenter/Assignment; the citation set is taken from the US 10,740,059 specification/citation record provided, which is the authoritative source for this patent's cited art.

If you'd like, I can next (a) build a full element-by-element § 103 chart for the top three references against claims 1/3/4, or (b) verify the Cloudcar and Kato § 102 status by pulling their exact filing/priority chains.

I'll research the key prior-art references from this patent's citation list to ground the obviousness analysis.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,740,059 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Building on the previously generated summary and litigation sections. I do not repeat the bibliographic data, claim breakdown, or the Ricoh v. Zoom findings, except where a fact from those sections bears directly on the § 103 analysis.

0. Scope, legal frame, and evidentiary caveats

Governing law. US 10,740,059 ("the '059 patent") carries a 2012‑03‑22 priority date (JP 2012‑065917) and a second JP priority of 2012‑11‑15 (JP 2012‑251013); the application (15/595,574) is a continuation of 13/828,391 filed 2013‑03‑14. Because the earliest effective filing predates 2013‑03‑16, pre‑AIA § 103(a) applies, with pre‑AIA § 102(e)/(g) and § 103(c) governing the availability of certain U.S. publications.

Framework. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) (scope/content of prior art; differences; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations) and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (predictable combinations, design incentives, "obvious to try"). The KSR rationales I rely on below are: (a) combining prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another; (c) use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way; and (d) "obvious to try" where there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.

PHOSITA. An engineer with ~2–4 years' experience in network videoconferencing endpoints, display/graphics configuration management, and conferencing user-interfaces. (The '059 patent adopts "conventional" hardware — CPU/ROM/RAM/SSD, graphics driver, Windows OS API — so no unusually high skill level is required.)

Evidentiary caveat — read this first. The task directs me to use the Prior Art section of the patent page, i.e., the 16 examiner/third-party citations and the 4 non-patent citations. For most of those 16 references I have only the title, dates, and assignee, plus (for a handful) abstracts and partial full text retrieved by search. I verified substantive content for US 6,760,749 (Polycom), US 8,537,195 (Polycom) and its continuation US 9,462,227, US 2011/0239142 (Nokia), and US 2012/0069132 (Kato/Ricoh). Element-by-element mappings to the remaining references are therefore tentative and must be confirmed against the full reference text before being used in a validity opinion. I flag specific soft spots in § 9.

A threshold availability problem I must raise. Several of the most textually similar citations are the inventor's own prior work. US 2012/0069132 ("Transmission terminal and method of transmitting display data") and its sibling US 2013/0242033 (the U.S. counterpart of cited JP 2012‑134941 A) are both attributed to Yoshinaga Kato — the sole named inventor of the '059 patent — and JP 2012‑134941 A is a Ricoh filing. Under pre‑AIA § 102(e), a U.S. patent/publication is prior art only if it is "by another." A same-inventor reference is therefore not § 102(e) art, and § 103(c) separately disqualifies commonly-owned § 102(e) subject matter from § 103 use absent a showing to the contrary. Consequence: the Kato/Ricoh references cannot safely anchor an obviousness rejection, and I have not made them the primary reference below. I use them only as corroborating evidence of the state of the art, flagged as such. (If, on inspection, the inventive entities differ, this restriction lifts.)

1. Which citations qualify as prior art

Note on the Cloudcar reference: filed 2012‑10‑30, it post-dates the '059 patent's 2012‑03‑22 priority date and cannot be § 102(a)/(b) art; its own filing post-dates that priority date, so § 102(e) likewise fails. I would exclude it. (It would only matter if a claim were shown not entitled to the 2012‑03‑22 date — an argument I would not concede.)

The four non-patent citations are office actions / search reports on the family members (CN 201310207952.6, EP 13159836.9, JP 2012‑251013) — these are prosecution-history documents, not prior art, and cannot be used in a § 103 combination.

2. Claim 1 element decomposition and prior-art correspondence

3. Flagship combination (claim 1)

US 6,760,749 (Polycom) + JP 2004‑048551 A (Cs Plan) + US 8,537,195 (Polycom)

(i) What each reference teaches.

• US 6,760,749 supplies the core conferencing content model: it transmits conference A/V (captured images of participants) and presentation/"material" content (PowerPoint/Word/Excel, spreadsheets) — including viewer-contributed presentation content uplinked from a remote terminal — and presents the A/V and the presentation content to viewers, in one embodiment "in a multiple-window user interface" with the A/V in one window and the presentation content in a separate window. This is the closest teaching of elements (e)–(g) and (j); notably, the '059 patent's own background section cites US 6,760,749 as the state of the art for "display[ing] a captured image of a remote point ... and ... a material image." The applicant's admission of this reference as the starting point is itself a strong § 103 anchor.

• JP 2004‑048551 A ("TV conference system using two-screen monitor," Cs Plan) supplies the plural-display architecture of elements (b)/(c): a TV-conference terminal driving a two-screen monitor. Its stated purpose — using two monitors in a TV conference — is a direct teaching to provide two wired display interfaces for a conferencing terminal.

• US 8,537,195 (Polycom; and its continuation US 9,462,227) supplies the automatic, configuration-driven layout logic of elements (h)/(i)/(k). The layout manager "generates layouts for video streams sent to each endpoint based on ... configuration information associated with each endpoint[,] ... for example, the number of display screens, the aspect ratio of each display screen, dedicated speaker display screen, etc.," and crucially "monitors any changes in ... configuration information of each endpoint ... and dynamically alters the layout based on these changes." FIG. 5 of the continuation expressly recites "Determine the number of display devices at the endpoint" and "Assign video streams to appropriate display device."

(ii) Why the PHOSITA would combine them.

1. Same field, same problem, same solution space. All three are conferencing/TV-conference display systems. KSR rationale (c): using a known technique (configuration-driven, multi-display conferencing layouts) to improve a similar device in the same way.
2. Articulated design incentive (KSR (a)/(d)). The '059 patent concedes its own objective: "increase the visibility of an image displayed on a display device." JP 2004‑048551's two-screen monitor and US 8,537,195's screen-count-based layout both target exactly that objective. Where the improvement is a known, finite design choice (1 vs. 2 screens), KSR and In re Applied Materials treat the selection as obvious.
3. Predictable result. Placing the two "people" streams on one screen and the "content"/material stream on the other is a mere rearrangement of a known layout using known components (two displays, one codec/processor). No new structural or functional cooperation is required, and US 8,537,195 confirms the industry already assigned streams to displays by count — a strong reasonable-expectation-of-success showing.

(iii) Mapping to claim 1's conditional logic. The two-display case (element k) follows directly from US 6,760,749's A/V-vs-presentation content distinction plus US 8,537,195's display-count assignment. The one-display case (element j) follows from US 6,760,749's own multiple-window UI in which A/V and presentation content coexist on a single device. Adding JP 2004‑048551's second screen and then falling back to the single screen when only one is electrified is the natural, predictable inverse of the same layout rule — the very "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" that KSR holds obvious.

4. Alternative/compounding combination

US 6,760,749 + US 2011/0239142 A1 (Nokia) + Citrix (WO 2009/143294 A2 / US 2010/0138780 A1)

This combination is aimed specifically at elements (h)–(k) — the detect-a-display-became-active-and-re-arrange behavior — and is, in my view, stronger than § 3 on that limitation.

• US 2011/0239142 (Nokia) — verified text: "The display manager ... causes ... presentation of a first content on a first display. The display manager then receives an input for activating one or more second displays. The display manager selects a second content based, at least in part, on the first content and the input, and causes ... presentation of the second content on the one or more second displays." This is functionally the '059 conditional logic: content is automatically re-selected and re-placed responsive to a second display becoming active, expressly to avoid "manual organization by the user." The specification's stated motivation ("traditional approaches ... depend, for the most part, on manual organization by the user ... the manual process can quickly become overly burdensome") is the identical motivation recited in the '059 patent (user-specified display schemes vs. automatic switching).
• Citrix (WO 2009/143294 A2 / US 2010/0138780 A1 / CN 102027450 A) — "Methods and systems for using external display devices with a mobile computing device." This supplies the detection of a newly connected display and routing of content to it (elements h/i), i.e., the underlying "is a (wired) display present and active?" sensing that Nokia abstractly calls "activating" a display.
• US 6,760,749 again supplies the conferencing content model (elements e–g).

Motivation: all three address the same recognized deficiency — manual, error-prone configuration of content across displays. Combining an automatic content-placement rule (Nokia) with a display-connection detector (Citrix) in a videoconference endpoint (US 6,760,749) is a textbook KSR combination of known elements to yield a predictable, user-convenience result, with a clear articulated rationale and reasonable expectation of success.

5. Additional references usable to shore up specific limitations

• US 6,025,871 (Intel) — "User interface for a video conferencing system": supports the multi-window layout of captured images and shared content (element j) and the design freedom in how conferencing content is windowed.
• US 2011/0243325 A1 (NEC) — "Display system, control apparatus, display method, and program": supports central control of which content goes to which display (elements i/k).
• US 9,030,378 B2 (Canon) — "Sharing display processing system, display processing system, and display method": supports distributing shared display content across multiple display devices (elements f/g/k).
• US 2007/0268203 A1 (Konica Minolta) — "Image display system, host machine ... ": supports a host that drives plural display apparatuses (elements b/c/k).
• US 5,625,410 A / WO 1996/031984 A1 (Washino) — "Video monitoring and conferencing system": general background showing multi-stream conferencing content distribution (elements e–g).

These are secondary; they reinforce the state of the art but are not needed to complete any single combination above.

6. Dependent claims (2, 3, 4, 6, 8)

• Claim 2 / 6 / 8 ("determine ... based on corresponding electrified states"). This is a restatement of the detecting step itself; it adds essentially no separate subject matter. The mapping under § 3/§ 4 (Nokia's "activating a second display"; Citrix's external-display detection; US 8,537,195's endpoint configuration monitoring) disposes of it. Obviousness here follows a fortiori from claim 1.

• Claim 3 (determine whether material-image supply has started; one display + supply started → all three on one display; two displays + supply not started → captured images split across displays). This is where the Kato/Ricoh references would be textually closest: US 2013/0242033 (U.S. counterpart of cited JP 2012‑134941 A) describes a "share flag" and an "arrangement information management table" that switches the terminal between arrangements as sharing starts/stops; US 2012/0069132 describes displaying "the image data and/or the display data." BUT — per § 0, if these are same-inventor/commonly-owned, they are disqualified. Independently, US 6,760,749 teaches the supply-start concept (presenter starts a streaming conference; distribution device transmits conference-initialization information; viewer-contributed content is uplinked) — enough to render "determine whether supply ... has started" obvious even without the Kato references. I rate claim 3's "start detection" limitation as obvious but the "both displays + supply not started → split the two captured images" sub-case as the more contestable prong, because it is a fairly specific negative-condition layout not squarely shown in a single verified reference.

• Claim 4 ("determine ... based on a notification received ... via a specific port"). This is the narrowest and most defensible limitation. I found no verified reference among the 16 that expressly teaches detecting material-supply start via a specific application port. The general concept of session/port-based event notification is common general knowledge in the H.323/SIP conferencing art referenced by US 8,537,195, so a PHOSITA could arguably arrive there; but as a documentary matter claim 4 is the weakest link for a § 103 rejection on this record and would likely require a further reference or a common-knowledge declaration.

7. Motivation-to-combine summary (the § 103 narrative)

The strongest, most defensible rejection is:

US 6,760,749 in view of JP 2004‑048551 A, further in view of US 8,537,195 (optionally with US 2011/0239142 and the Citrix publication for the display-activation detection).

The articulated rationale is threefold: (1) same field / same problem — all references are conferencing display systems addressing the shared-content visibility problem the '059 patent itself identifies; (2) known solution applied predictably — US 8,537,195 shows the industry already automatically assigned conferencing streams to displays based on the number of displays and dynamically re-laid-out on configuration change, so applying that rule to a US 6,760,749-style endpoint with JP 2004‑048551's two-screen monitor is the simple, predictable application of a known technique; and (3) design incentive / finite choices — with only "one display" or "two displays" possible (the '059 specification itself makes this binary explicit: ACTIVE = 1 or ACTIVE = 2), the claimed one-display and two-display layouts are the only two predictable outcomes, satisfying KSR's "obvious to try."

8. Where a patentee would likely push back (and my assessment)

1. "Electrified state" as a specific detection modality. The '059 claims recite monitoring an electrified (powered) state via the OS/graphics driver. The closer references describe detecting a connected/activated display. A patentee will argue "connected" ≠ "electrified." Assessment: weak defense, because (a) claim 2 links the two, and (b) detecting a display's power state via an OS API/graphics driver is routine, and US 8,537,195's "configuration information" monitoring is broad enough to read on it. Still, full text of US 8,537,195 should be checked for whether power/active state (not just resolution/count) is monitored.
2. The exact one-display layout (all three images on a single four-quadrant screen). US 6,760,749's multi-window UI is the best support; verify it discloses simultaneous A/V + presentation windows on one device.
3. Claim 4's port-specific notification — genuinely the most vulnerable point for the patentee to defend, and correspondingly the hardest for a challenger to prove. See § 6.
4. "Material image supplied from the other device" (remote-originated material). US 6,760,749's viewer-contributed presentation content supports remote-originated material; verify the claim construction of "other device."

9. Bottom line and explicit uncertainty flags

• Claim 1 is, in my assessment, likely obvious over US 6,760,749 + JP 2004‑048551 A + US 8,537,195, and more likely obvious over US 6,760,749 + US 2011/0239142 + Citrix for the display-detection-and-rearrange limitations. Claims 2/6/8 add nothing material. Claim 3 is obvious for the "supply-started" direction but its "both displays + supply-not-started" sub-case is the softer prong. Claim 4 (specific-port notification) is the weakest § 103 position and is where I would expect a rejection to fail or require additional art.
• I could not verify the full text of JP 2004‑048551 A, US 2011/0243325, US 9,030,378, US 2007/0268203, US 6,025,871, or the Citrix publications in this session; their mappings are based on titles/abstracts and must be confirmed before this analysis is used as a formal invalidity or validity position. (Searches for JP 2004‑048551 A and JP 2012‑134941 A did not return the primary documents, so those two rows in particular are the least verified.)
• Same-inventor/commonly-owned caveat is dispositive for the Kato/Ricoh citations (US 2012/0069132; JP 2012‑134941 A / US 2013/0242033). If those are same-inventor, they are unavailable as § 102(e) art; I have therefore not relied on them as primary references, and any rejection resting on them should be re-examined.
• US 2014/0118222 A1 (Cloudcar) is not prior art to the '059 patent's 2012‑03‑22 priority and should be excluded.
• No secondary-considerations evidence (unexpected results, commercial success with nexus, copying, licensing) is present in the record I reviewed; absent such evidence, the objective indicia do not rebut the prima facie case. Note that the only litigation I previously identified (the Ricoh v. Zoom matter) was a § 101 challenge on a different patent and says nothing about § 103 of the '059 patent.

One consistency note with the earlier sections: nothing in the prior-art citations changes the earlier conclusion that no case has been confirmed to assert US 10,740,059 itself — the family-level Darts‑IP flag and the Ricoh v. Zoom portfolio (which includes the continuation US 11,256,454 and the distinct "’059" = US 10,909,059) remain the only adjacent findings, and I continue to treat them as distinct from this patent.