US 10816353

I'll search for the specific patent number and check for any CAFC 2026 docket activity.

Let me pull the abstract and full independent claim text, and check for any 2026 litigation activity.

US 10,816,353 B2 — Summary

Important scope note up front: I do not have direct API/PACER access to the USPTO PatentCenter or the CAFC docket system. The following is based on live web-search results (Google Patents, Justia, FreePatentsOnline, Unified Patents) plus the authoritative full-text record supplied in this task. I found no CAFC 2026 docket entry for this patent — see the uncertainty section at the end.

Bibliographic data (as reported)

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10816353/en ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/[10816353](/patent/10816353) ; http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fe/fe/6c/2b43ae3d4904a8/US10816353.pdf

Related family members noted in the record (not the same number, listed only for context): US 2017/0356754 A1; US 10,247,568 B2 (app. 15/274,907, granted 2019-04-02 — listed with a 2016-06-11 priority date and 2036-09-24 expiration, i.e., a one-day variance from the 10,816,353 listing; I am reporting both literally rather than correcting either); US 10,302,446 ("Context driven navigation presentation"); US 11,486,724 B2 ("Grouping maneuvers for display in a navigation presentation"); and US 2025/0164270 A1.

Abstract (verbatim)

"Some embodiments of the invention provide several novel methods for generating a navigation presentation that displays a device navigating a route on a map. The method of some embodiments uses a virtual camera that, based on detected changes in the navigation context, dynamically modifies the way it captures portions of the map to produce different navigation scenes in the navigation presentation. To generate the navigation scenes, the method of some embodiments (1) identifies different sets of attributes that describe the different navigation contexts at different times during the navigation presentation, and (2) uses these different sets of attributes to identify different styles for operating the virtual camera. In some embodiments, the method uses an identified style to specify the virtual camera's positional attributes, which, in turn, define the portions of the map that the virtual camera identifies for rendering to produce several navigation scenes for a period of time (e.g., until the navigation context changes, or until the navigation presentation ends when the navigation context does not change again). During the navigation presentation, each time the navigation context changes, the identified set of attributes may change. This change, in turn, may cause the method of some embodiments to select a new style for operating the virtual camera. When the style for operating the virtual camera changes, the method of some embodiments modifies the way the virtual camera captures the portion of the map to render."

Plain-language overview

The patent is about how a phone-based turn-by-turn navigation app decides what to draw on screen — specifically, how it moves and orients a "virtual camera" (the conceptual viewpoint in a 3D map) as driving conditions change.

The core architecture described in the specification:

1. A navigation module produces a set of attributes describing the current "navigation context" (road type, posted speed limit, distance/type of the next maneuver, whether the maneuver is a roundabout/ramp/grouped maneuver, on-route vs. off-route vs. recalculating, etc.).
2. A style engine compares that attribute set against styles stored in a style sheet (data structure, often hash-keyed by attribute set) and picks a matching style.
3. A virtual camera (VC) engine turns the style's properties into the camera's pitch, rotation and distance/target, driving a spring system for smooth animation.

Two operating regimes are central: tracking mode (camera locked to the device "puck" in position and heading) and framing mode (camera position/rotation is partly or fully disassociated from the puck so it can frame a collection of points — e.g., the puck plus an upcoming maneuver, a freeway exit, a grouped set of maneuvers, a roundabout, a traffic incident and detour, an arrival point, or a departure point). Framing uses four coordinate systems (map, puck/graphical-object, virtual camera, display screen), a "field of focus" region on screen, and a puck bounding box used to clip the framing bounding box and set zoom.

Independent claims (plain language) — with a caveat on verbatim recovery

The full claim set is not visible in the record supplied to me, so the below is reconstructed from the claim text returned by Justia (https://patents.justia.com/patent/10816353). Three independent claims appear present: claim 1 (non-transitory machine-readable medium), claim 10 (mobile device), and claim 19 (method). Dependent claims confirmed in the record include 2–9 (medium), 18 (device), and 20–27 (method).

Claim 1 — Non-transitory machine-readable medium storing a program for generating a navigation presentation on a device that navigates to a destination along a map. In substance it requires:

• presenting, via a virtual camera, a first collection of points of the route on the display screen according to a first perspective of the virtual camera focused on a graphical object representing the mobile device, where that first perspective is determined by a first positional relationship between a first coordinate system corresponding to the graphical object and a second coordinate system corresponding to the virtual camera;
• identifying an upcoming maneuver along the route; and
• responsive to identifying the upcoming maneuver, presenting a second collection of upcoming points of the route including the upcoming maneuver according to a second perspective focused on the upcoming maneuver, the second perspective determined by a second positional relationship between the first and second coordinate systems.

In lay terms: the display switches from a camera view anchored to the user's position marker to a camera view anchored on the next turn, by changing the positional relationship between the puck's coordinate system and the camera's coordinate system.

Claim 2 (dep., medium) adds defining positional relationship(s) and angular relationship(s) among a plurality of coordinate systems comprising a graphical-object coordinate system, a virtual camera coordinate system, and a display screen coordinate system. Claim 3 adds the 3D-camera → 2D-screen perspective-projection pipeline. Claim 4 recites first/second positional offset values and switching between them. Claims 6–7 recite that the relationships concern the origin positions of the coordinate systems. Claim 8 recites partially disassociating an angular rotation relationship so the puck and camera rotate independently, with both rotations oriented in the direction of the upcoming maneuver. A claim in the 9–17 range (exact number not recoverable) recites displaying the upcoming maneuver in a larger subset of the map area in response to identifying it.

Claim 10 — Mobile device (a display screen plus a program with instruction sets). Dependent claim 18 adds further instructions. The exact verbatim text of claim 10's limitations was not returned by my searches — based on the surrounding claims it mirrors the claim 1 functionality in apparatus form (display screen + programmed processor implementing the perspective/positional-relationship switching), but I cannot confirm the wording.

Claim 19 — Method of generating a navigation presentation for a display screen of a mobile device, implemented by a mobile device that navigates a route. The opening claim language in the record matches the "presenting a first collection of points… identifying an upcoming maneuver… responsive to identifying the upcoming maneuver, presenting a second collection of upcoming points…" sequence. Dependent claims 20–27 add further steps (contents not returned).

Uncertainty flag: the record I retrieved shows claim text in fragments and omits claims 9–17 and 21–27. My claim numbering (1, 10, 19 as independent) is an inference from the "The mobile device of claim 10" and "The method of claim 19" dependency references, and is reliable to that extent, but I cannot certify that every independent claim has been captured, nor quote claims 10 and 19 verbatim in full.

CAFC 2026 docket check — negative result with caveats

• I ran targeted searches for "10816353" / "10,816,353" combined with "CAFC", "Federal Circuit", "appeal 2026", "Apple litigation," and "docket."
• No Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2026 docket, appeal, or decision involving US 10,816,353 appeared in any search result. Search hits for the string "10816353" were dominated by an unrelated EP application EP10816353A / EP2519161 ("Closure system and uses thereof"), which is a different identifier entirely — I did not treat it as the same patent, per the instruction not to auto-correct identifiers.
• I cannot confirm this negative authoritatively. I have no live PACER/CAFC CM/ECF or USPTO PatentCenter assignment/PTAB query capability in this session, and a Federal Circuit appeal might exist without surfacing in general web search. If you need a docket-level confirmation, that requires a direct PACER/CM-ECF query (or a commercial litigation database) that I could not perform here.

Points of uncertainty to flag

1. Priority-date variance in the family: 10,816,353 is listed at 2016-06-12 with a 2036-09-23 expiration, while sibling US 10,247,568 B2 is listed at 2016-06-11 with a 2036-09-24 expiration. These are as-reported values; I have not reconciled them.
2. Verbatim claim completeness: claims 9–17 and 20–27 were not fully recoverable from the search results.
3. Litigation status: the "Active" legal status and expiration date are Google Patents' own disclaimers ("an assumption... not a legal conclusion"); no ownership transfers or adversarial proceedings were visible in what I retrieved.
4. No CAFC 2026 activity found, which should be treated as "not found in web search," not as "confirmed none."

I'll research litigation involving US patent 10816353 across patent litigation databases.

Let me search more specific litigation databases and identifiers.

Let me try the Unified Patents portal and other litigation-specific databases directly.

Findings: Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 10,816,353

No litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 10,816,353 was found.

I searched patent-litigation-oriented sources (including the Unified Patents litigation portal and other patent docket aggregators) for the exact number "10816353" / "10,816,353" and related identifiers, and returned no case in which this patent was asserted as a patent-in-suit, challenged in a PTAB proceeding, or otherwise made the subject of a dispute.

What I confirmed about the patent itself

• Patent: U.S. Patent No. 10,816,353 B2 — "Style sheet driven virtual camera for defining a navigation presentation"
• Assignee: Apple Inc. (current and original)
• Inventors: Justin M. Strawn, Nathan L. Fillhardt, Christopher F. Marrin, Thomas Davie
• Application No.: US 16/279,053 (filed 2019-02-19); Divisional/continuation of a family claiming priority to 2016-06-12
• Grant date: 2020-10-27
• Anticipated expiration: 2036-09-23
• Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10816353](/patent/US10816353)/en

Cases that surfaced that are NOT this patent (noted to prevent over-inclusion)

My searches surfaced several navigation-technology patent suits, but none involve U.S. 10,816,353 — they assert different patents:

• MDSP Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:23-cv-00254 (W.D. Tex.) — asserted U.S. 9,239,376 and 10,371,806 ("Doppler aided inertial navigation")
• Traxcell Technologies litigation against Apple (navigation-system patents)
• American Navigation Systems, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 3:14-cv-05297 (N.D. Cal.) — dismissed 2016; different patents

These are unrelated patents and I am not reporting them as litigation over the '353 patent.

Important caveats

1. Search-tool limitation: I reached the tool-call limit before I could complete direct queries against the specific Unified Patents case-list page and PACER/CAFC dockets for the exact number. Within the searches I was able to run, no result matched the patent.
2. Currency: This reflects the state of publicly indexed litigation information as retrieved; PACER-only filings or recently filed actions may not yet be captured in the indexed sources I could reach.
3. Not a clearance opinion: A negative search result does not establish that no litigation exists; it means none was found in the sources queried.

Recommended verification steps

To reach a higher-confidence answer, the following should be checked directly:

• Unified Patents Portal – Litigation: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist (search by patent number 10816353)
• PACER (Case Locator) — search the patent number across all district courts
• CAFC docket search for any appeal referencing the patent
• USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) — for any IPR/PGR referencing 10,816,353
• USPTO Patent Assignment / Reexamination records

If you'd like, I can continue targeted searches of the specific Unified Patents case-list page and PTAB records for this number once additional queries are available.

I'll verify the structured data (empty ODP list) against live sources before writing the section.

Let me run additional targeted checks, including the family's other members and the Unified Patents portal.

PTAB / AIA Trial Proceedings — U.S. Patent No. 10,816,353

Source of record: the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block in this prompt (USPTO Open Data Portal canonical list). Live-search verification: corroborating searches on the patent number, its publication number, and the same-family '568 patent also returned no AIA trial. Details and caveats below.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings: 0. No IPRs, PGRs, or CBM reviews are on file for U.S. 10,816,353 — so there is no breakdown by active / invalidated / sustained / settled / institution-denied, because there is nothing to break down. Defensive posture: the patent is untested, not hardened. No claim has ever survived (or been canceled by) a panel, no claim has been narrowed by a § 316(d) motion to amend, and — critically — no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to anyone. A defendant is not standing on someone else's invalidity win, but is also not boxed out by someone else's loss: the entire § 102/§ 103 prior-art universe remains open.

Proceedings detail

There are no proceedings to enumerate. I am not listing placeholder docket numbers, because the instruction is to source the list from the structured data and not to invent proceeding numbers. The canonical list is empty:

Why the list is empty — verification trail

• ODP structured data (authoritative for this report): "The USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest."
• Independent web checks (exact-number queries): searches for "10,816,353" + IPR, "10816353" + PTAB petition, and US20190178673A1 + inter partes review returned no petition, institution decision, FWD, or CAFC appeal referencing this patent. Retrieved results were generic IPR primer material and unrelated proceedings on other patents (e.g., ASML/Zeiss v. Nikon, CardWare v. Apple on unrelated patents).
• Same-family check: the sibling patent US 10,247,568 B2 (app. 15/274,907; same title, same four inventors, Apple) also shows no AIA trial in the sources reached. The Unified Patents patent page for the '568 lists no PTAB or district-court challenges: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-[10247568](/patent/10247568)-B2. If a challenger wanted to take down this disclosure, the '568 was and remains the more natural target (earlier issuance ⇒ earlier IPR eligibility); no one took that shot either.

Cross-reference flag — the "no litigation" finding is consistent

The previously generated Litigation summary concluded no litigation involving the '353 was found. That is mutually corroborating with this section: patents that are never asserted do not attract IPRs, because the AIA § 315(b) one-year clock and the economic motivation to file both generally arise from an infringement demand. Two independent negative findings pointing the same direction raise confidence considerably above either one alone.

Data discrepancies to flag (not contradictions, but do not silently reconcile)

These are source-level metadata inconsistencies in the family's public records. They do not affect the zero-proceeding finding, but they matter if you ever build a printed-publication or § 102(b) date argument around the family's critical date. Verify against the face of the patent and the USPTO file wrapper (PatentCenter for app. 16/279,053) before relying on any of these dates.

Strategic summary

Claim status: all claims UNTESTED. Because no AIA trial exists, there is no claim-level scorecard to report. Nothing has been canceled, nothing has been confirmed patentable by a panel, and no independent claim has been narrowed. For a defendant, this means the "the patent has already been bloodied, work from the FWD" playbook is unavailable — you will be litigating validity from a blank slate, and any IPR you file will be a first impression for the panel. Conversely, you cannot be accused of re-litigating a ground that a prior petitioner already lost, and Apple cannot point to a "survived IPR" halo. Note also that the '353 is a continuation-stage member of the same family as US 10,247,568 (shared specification and inventors), so the effective prior-art landscape and prosecution history are shared across both — a validity analysis must treat the family as a unit, and both patents remain separately enforceable. (I confirmed the shared-family relationship from the citation tables; I did not independently verify the precise continuation lineage line-by-line, so treat "continuation-stage" as a family descriptor rather than a verified § 120 chain.)

Estoppel landscape: clean, and that cuts in the defendant's favor. With zero instituted proceedings, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel binds nobody. No petitioner or privy is barred from asserting any § 102 or § 103 ground, on any patent or printed publication, in district court or before the PTAB. Simultaneously, IPR is still fully available to you: the '353 issued 2020-10-27, so the PGR window under § 321(c) closed on 2021-07-27 — PGR is time-barred and CBM review is unavailable (sunset for new CBM petitions). The AIA-track option is therefore IPR only, subject to the ordinary gates: your own § 315(b) one-year-from-service deadline, § 315(a)(1) (no IPR after filing a DJ action of invalidity), and § 325(d) / Advanced Bionics risk to the extent you recycle art the examiner already considered during prosecution of the '568 or the '353. There is no Fintiv-style or § 314(a) track record to argue from, since there is no prior PTAB panel that has opined on the merits; discretionary denial would rise or fall on your specific parallel litigation posture.

Pattern signals: none on this patent; Apple is active only as a petitioner. No serial petitioner has emerged, so this is not a patent under coordinated attack. There is no defensive aggregator in the chain — Unified Patents' radar shows the family but no challenge, and Apple (the assignee here) is a frequent Unified member/petitioner itself, which cuts against any aggregator ever targeting it. Worth noting because it inverts the usual asymmetry: Apple is one of the most prolific IPR petitioners in the country — e.g., its FWD-winning petitions in Apple Inc. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty, Ltd., IPR2022-00601 / IPR2022-00602 (appealed, Nos. 2024-1278, 2024-1354) and its 2025 wave against CardWare (IPR2025-01145 through IPR2025-01152). Apple therefore knows exactly how to run — and defend — a PTAB campaign, and would be a sophisticated, well-resourced patent owner if the '353 were ever asserted. Any defendant should assume Apple's validity defense at the PTAB would be competent and that Apple would likely seek cert.-worthy issues or a Director-relevant panel if it lost.

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant today: whatever claim your demand letter cites has never been tested and never been narrowed. There is no FWD to quote, and I will not manufacture one. Build your invalidity case from the specification (the '353 shares the '568 disclosure) and the prosecution history of app. 16/279,053 in PatentCenter, and treat the un-narrowed claim scope as your primary leverage.
2. Check your § 315(b) clock immediately if a complaint has been served. With no prior proceedings, nothing tolls or forecloses your IPR; the one-year bar from service is the controlling date, and you must file before filing a DJ of invalidity, not after.
3. Mind § 325(d) and § 325(e)(1) history. Because the claims descend from the same prosecution as the '568, art the examiner substantively considered is recycled-art territory under Advanced Bionics — plan around it, or build your record showing material examiner error. Verify the examiner's treatment of each reference rather than assuming either way.
4. PGR is off the table (window closed 2021-07-27); CBM is unavailable. Your PTAB route is IPR (§ 102/§ 103 on patents and printed publications only). Non-patent-publication art (system prior art, public use, on-sale) must be developed in district court, where a Sotera-style stipulation may be a useful institution lever given the absence of any competing PTAB track record.
5. Because this section and the Litigation summary both came back negative, the classification is "portfolio patent, unasserted." If a demand letter appears, that would be the first assertion event in the patent's ~6-year life — a salient fact that supports both a strong § 314(a)-style "no prior challenge" narrative and a real possibility that the '353 (rather than the earlier '568) is chosen precisely because its claims have never been examined by a panel.

Confidence and limits: High confidence in the zero-proceeding finding — it rests on the ODP structured data plus independent exact-number searches on the patent, its publication, and its sibling. I could not complete a direct query of PTAB E2E/PACER for any petition filed in the last few weeks of the ODP ingest lag, so a very recently filed petition (institution decision not yet published) remains the one residual blind spot. To close it, check PTAB E2E — https://ptab.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 10,816,353 and by the App. No. 16/279,053) and the Unified Patents litigation/PTAB portal entry for the family: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-10247568-B2 (the '353's own portal page follows the same URL pattern).

I'll research the assignment record for US 10,816,353 and cross-reference ownership sources.

Let me search more specifically for the assignment records and legal events for this patent.

Let me try more targeted queries on the assignment databases and the patent's legal events.

⚠️ Data-gap disclosure up front: My searches did not return a retrievable USPTO Assignment Center record (reel/frame, correspondent, execution/recording dates) for U.S. 10,816,353 or its parent application. Google Patents lists the current assignee as Apple Inc., and the patent is a continuation in an Apple-originated family (priority 2016-06-12), so the ownership chain is inferable in structure but not yet cited to a specific reel/frame in this session. I flag every place below where a reel/frame is expected but unverified, rather than inventing one. This is consistent with (does not contradict) the earlier Litigation summary, which found no suits or PTAB proceedings naming the '353 patent.

Inventors

• Inventor lineup is a team, not a lone inventor — consistent with an in-house product-group filing (Apple Maps / 3D navigation rendering), not a purchased-in invention.
• No unusual departure pattern determinable. There is no evidence that any inventor left Apple within 12 months of the 2016-06-12 priority filing, and — decisively — the patent is still held by Apple, which is inconsistent with a post-departure portfolio fire-sale. (Verified employer-at-filing status is a public-record question; treat "Apple Inc." as the working assumption grounded in the assignee-of-record data.)

Original assignee

Apple Inc. — the entity named on the issued face of the patent, and per Google Patents both the original and current assignee (no intervening assignee listed).

• Primary line of business: Consumer hardware/software; the patent's subject matter (style-sheet-driven virtual camera for a navigation presentation) maps to Apple Maps turn-by-turn 3D navigation.
• Product embodiment: Yes, strongly indicated. The specification's virtual-camera / framing-and-tracking behavior is the kind of ship-facing feature Apple Maps deployed; Apple ships navigation software in iOS/iPadOS/watchOS/CarPlay. (Category level: operating company that ships products embodying the claimed subject matter.)
• Current status: Operating; publicly traded (NASDAQ: AAPL); a going concern with no bankruptcy, receivership, or dissolution. No Chapter 7/11 event is associated with this assignee.
• Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10816353/en

Assignment timeline

The chain contains no post-issuance assignments and no third-party transferees. The only ownership transition reflected is the standard inventor → Apple Inc. assignment. Because I could not retrieve the Assignment Center record directly, the execution date, recording date, reel/frame, and correspondent below are marked unverified rather than asserted:

• 2016-06-12 (priority filing date; assignment execution presumably on/near this date — unverified) / recorded date not retrieved — Reel not retrieved / not retrieved
  • Conveyance: Assignment (inventor → employer; entire right, title, and interest)
  • Assignor: Justin M. Strawn; Nathan L. Fillhardt; Christopher F. Marrin; Thomas Davie
  • Assignee: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, CA)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved — (cannot flag recurrence without the record; a single Apple-side filing-firm entry would not by itself be an NPE signal)
  • Context: Routine employment assignment to the original operating-company assignee.
• 2019-02-19 — application 16/279,053 filed (continuation of the 2016-06-12-priority family). No new recorded assignment surfaced for the continuation; none recorded to any third party.
• 2020-10-27 — patent granted to Apple Inc. No assignment recorded subsequent to grant.

If the Assignment Center in fact shows a record I could not retrieve, it will almost certainly be the single inventor→Apple link above. The material point for this analysis stands regardless: there is no chain of NPE transfers to reconstruct.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10816353
    2016 : Priority filing by Apple inventors
        : Rights assigned to Apple Inc
    2019 : Continuation application filed
    2020 : Patent issued to Apple Inc
        : No post issue assignments

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Insufficient data (formally: only the original assignment exists, and I could not retrieve its reel/frame in this session).

Substantively, every indicator points the opposite direction from an NPE: the assignee of record is Apple Inc. (an operating company that ships the accused-class product, Apple Maps), the chain contains no third-party or LLC conveyances, and no litigation or PTAB proceeding naming U.S. 10,816,353 was found. The "insufficient data" call is driven strictly by the unretrieved reel/frame and correspondent for the single inventor→Apple assignment — not by any suggestion of a shell or asserter. If the assignment record is confirmed to be the inventor→Apple link alone, the correct characterization is operating-company-held and non-asserted.

Verify (primary sources):

• USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "10816353" / "16/279,053")
• USPTO Assignment Search (mirror) — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events / assignee — https://patents.google.com/patent/US10816353/en
• PTAB (confirm no IPR/PGR) — https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/ (or https://ptacts.uspto.gov/)

Residual uncertainty: (a) the specific reel/frame, execution date, recording date, and correspondent for the inventor→Apple assignment; (b) whether the parent/priority application carries an earlier assignment that the '353 continuation relies on. Both are answerable at the Assignment Center links above but were not reachable within my search budget this session.

I'll research the prior-art citations for US 10,816,353 using the sources I can reach.

Scope, method, and a tool-limit disclosure

What I attempted: targeted searches for the literal strings 10816353, 10,816,353, US10816353B2, and US 2019/0178673 (the pre-grant publication) restricted to patent-document sources — Google Patents, Justia Patents, FreePatentsOnline, and patentimages PDFs of the patent itself / its family members.

What I could not do: I do not have a direct, live USPTO PatentCenter / USPTO Full-Text (PatFT) / USPTO Open Data Portal query interface in this session, and I hit the tool-call limit before I could retrieve the complete front-page "(56) References Cited" block for US 10,816,353. So I cannot present the full citation list as a certified USPTO extract. What follows is (a) the portion of the cited-references block I did recover verbatim, and (b) an explicitly-labeled analytical framework. Where I cannot verify a reference's subject matter, I say so rather than guess.

Literal-ID discipline (per instruction): Searches for 10816353 also surfaced identifiers that are not this patent and which I discarded: EP 10816353 A / EP 2519161 B1 (a vascular closure system), UK company no. 10816353 (RK Tiling Ltd), US 10,842,953 (a different US grant), and US 12,081,853 B2 ("Camera module and electronic device"). None of these are US 10,816,353 and I have not merged them into the analysis.

1. The cited references I was able to recover (partial — verbatim)

The only directly on-point extraction I obtained is the opening of the "Referenced Cited → U.S. Patent Documents" block for this patent, returned from Justia (https://patents.justia.com/patent/10816353):

Critical caveat: this list is truncated mid-entry (the seventh row's inventor field is cut off) and the entire remainder of the cited-references block — typically 30–80 US patent documents, plus foreign patent documents and non-patent literature — was not returned. Treat the above as the first ~6 rows only. I do not have the full § 102 citation set for this patent, and I will not pad it with plausible-looking but unverified numbers.

Also relevant: this grant is a continuation (app. 16/279,053, filed 2019-02-19, priority 2016-06-12). Its citations plausibly overlap the citations of the family members noted in the earlier section (US 2017/0356754 A1; US 10,247,568 B2; US 10,302,446; US 11,486,724 B2) — but I did not verify any of those lists either, so I do not assert the overlap as fact.

2. Per-reference detail — with confidence levels

Honesty rule applied: for a reference whose subject matter I cannot confirm from retrieved text, I say "not verified" rather than supply a title/description from memory.

I want to be blunt about this: I cannot supply an accurate "brief description" for any of these six references from verified retrieved text, and I will not fabricate one. The dates and inventor names above are as-reported by the source; the subject matter is not.

3. § 102 anticipation analysis — framework and provisional mapping

Since I cannot enumerate the full reference set, the useful deliverable is a claim-by-claim § 102 screen that tells you exactly what a reference would have to disclose to anticipate (not merely render obvious) each claim, so you can test any candidate reference against it once the full (56) list is pulled.

Independent claims (1, 10, 19) — the anticipation-critical limitations. Per the earlier section's reconstruction (consistent with the Justia claim fragments I re-retrieved, including claims 2, 3, 4, the origin-position claim, the claim reciting "partially disassociating an angular rotation relationship … the first rotation and second rotation are oriented in a direction of the upcoming maneuver," and the "second subset … larger than the first subset" claim), an anticipating reference must disclose all of:

1. presenting, via a virtual camera, a first collection of route points on a display screen according to a first perspective focused on a graphical object (puck) representing the mobile device;
2. the first perspective being determined by a first positional relationship between a puck coordinate system and a virtual-camera coordinate system;
3. identifying an upcoming maneuver along the route; and
4. responsive to that identification, presenting a second collection of upcoming points including the maneuver according to a second perspective focused on the upcoming maneuver, determined by a second positional relationship between the same two coordinate systems.

My assessment of the six recovered references against this test:

• The coordinate-system-relational framing of claim 1 is the hard limitation. Pre-2016 3D navigation-display art overwhelmingly teaches positioning/orienting a camera relative to the vehicle (tracking), and, separately, teaching 2D overhead maneuver views or zooming. Anticipation under § 102 requires a single reference disclosing the switch of the positional relationship between two named coordinate systems, triggered by identification of an upcoming maneuver. A reference that merely zooms or changes to a top-down view would be, at most, a § 103 candidate against claims 1/10/19, not a § 102 anticipant. I flag this as the primary § 102/§ 103 dividing line for this patent.
• Dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 7 are the most § 102-susceptible. Claim 3 (3D camera coordinate system → perspective-projection transform → 2D display coordinate system) and claims 4/6/7 (positional/angular offset values, and origin positions of the coordinate systems) recite generic 3D-graphics pipeline and offset concepts. Any older 3D map-rendering reference that (a) models a camera in 3D, (b) projects to a 2D screen, and (c) expresses camera placement as an offset (including a zero offset) from a map/vehicle origin is a genuine § 102 candidate for these dependents. Whether US 4,914,605, US 6,169,552, or US 7,321,824 does so is precisely what I could not verify — see § 5.
• The disassociation/independent-rotation claim (the "partially disassociating … first rotation distinct from second rotation … both oriented in a direction of the upcoming maneuver" claim) and the "second subset larger than the first subset" claim are, in my judgment, the least susceptible to § 102 on the art of this vintage — they recite the puck rotating independently of the camera while both point at the upcoming maneuver, which is the patent's asserted departure from conventional "puck always points up" presentations.
• Claim 8-family angular claim and the "larger subset" claim were identified but not verbatim-recoverable in full in the earlier section; the Justia fragment I re-retrieved corroborates their substance (see the "partially disassociating an angular rotation relationship" and "second subset being larger than the first subset" language above). This now resolves part of uncertainty item #2 from the earlier section — the substance of those claims is confirmed, though exact claim numbers 8/9–17 remain an inference.

Bottom line on § 102: on the evidence I have, no reference I can verify anticipates claims 1, 10, or 19, and I would expect the six recovered references (all mid-1980s-to-2010 map/navigation-display art) to be cited as § 103 background for the independent claims while potentially serving as § 102 art for one or more of dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 7. That conclusion is provisional because the citation set is incomplete.

4. Contradiction / reconciliation with the earlier sections

• No contradiction with the earlier Patent summary or Litigation summary. The re-retrieved Justia text (claim 1, 2, 3, 4, the angular-disassociation claim, claim 18 depending on claim 10, claim 19 independent method, 20–27 dependent) is consistent with the earlier reconstruction, and additionally corroborates the earlier flag that claims 9–17 and 20–27 were not fully recoverable.
• New information added here (not in the earlier sections): the first six rows of the (56) cited U.S. patent documents (§ 1 above), which the earlier summary did not contain.

5. What is still missing, and how to close it

1. The complete (56) "References Cited" block for US 10,816,353 — U.S. patent documents (all rows), foreign patent documents, and NPL. Best sources: the patent PDF front page; USPTO PatentCenter for app. 16/279,053; or the "Citations"/"Cited By" tabs at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10816353B2](/patent/US10816353B2)/en.
2. The examiner's § 102/§ 103 rejections in the prosecution history (the "Non-Final/Final Rejection" and "Notice of Allowance" with the examiner's reasons) — this is what actually tells you which references the examiner treated as anticipating vs. obvious. Retrievable via USPTO PatentCenter → app. 16/279,053 → "Documents."
3. Verified titles/assignees/disclosures for: US 4,477,802; 4,914,605; 5,608,635; 6,169,552; 7,321,824; 7,818,116 — and the truncated remainder of the list.
4. Family citation overlap with US 2017/0356754 A1, US 10,247,568 B2, US 10,302,446, and US 11,486,724 B2.

Bottom line: the only citation data I can stand behind for US 10,816,353 is the six-row partial U.S. patent-documents list in § 1, and I could not complete the USPTO database search before exhausting my tool calls. I have deliberately declined to fill the gap with reconstructed citations or invented descriptions. If you can supply the patent's front page or the PatentCenter prosecution documents, I will produce the full per-reference table (citation, publication/filing date, description, asserted claims) and a reference-by-reference § 102 chart.

I'll research the prior art landscape for this patent, including the references cited on its face, before building the § 103 analysis.

Let me retrieve the actual references cited on the face of this patent and the key related prior art.

§ 103 Obviousness Analysis — US 10,816,353 B2

Scope note: I do not have a verbatim "Prior Art" / "References Cited" face list for US 10,816,353 in the material supplied or in my search results. The reference set below is assembled from live search results and patent PDFs I could actually retrieve; it is therefore a working prior-art set, not a certified copy of the examiner-cited list. I flag each reference's provenance and date, and I do not infer or "correct" any identifier. Where the previously generated sections stated a claim-numbering caveat (verbatim text of claims 10 and 19 not recovered; claims 9–17 and 20–27 missing), that caveat carries forward and constrains the confidence of the claim-mapping below.

1. The governing framework

Statute: AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103. The '353 patent lists a 2016-06-12 priority date and was filed 2019-02-19 — after the March 16, 2013 AIA cutover — so AIA § 102/§ 103 apply. Prior art must therefore predate 2016-06-12 (with the standard § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) and § 102(b)(1)/(b)(2) exceptions).

Test: Graham v. John Deere (scope/content of claims; differences over prior art; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations) as refined by KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Under KSR, a combination is obvious where (a) the claimed elements were known and the combination is a "predictable variation" using "a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way," or (b) the combination is "of familiar elements according to known methods [yielding] predictable results." An explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the references is not required.

PHOSITA (proposed): A person of ordinary skill would have a bachelor's degree in computer science, computer graphics, electrical engineering or a related field, plus 2–4 years of experience in 3D graphics / map rendering / turn-by-turn navigation UI, or a master's degree with 1–2 years of such experience. This person would be familiar with: virtual-camera models (position/orientation/pitch/field-of-view), perspective-projection pipelines, and conventional turn-by-turn navigation camera behaviors (camera "behind and above" the position marker; zoom-out on turns).

Independent claims in play (per the earlier section, provisionally): claim 1 (machine-readable medium), claim 10 (mobile device), claim 19 (method). The core claim-1 requirement is a two-perspective switch: (i) present a first collection of route points via a virtual camera "focused on a graphical object" representing the device, according to a first perspective determined by a first positional relationship between a coordinate system of the graphical object and a coordinate system of the virtual camera; (ii) identify an upcoming maneuver; (iii) responsive to identifying the upcoming maneuver, present a second collection of upcoming points including the maneuver, "focused on the upcoming maneuver," determined by a second positional relationship between the two coordinate systems.

2. The prior-art references

Same-family items (NOT prior art against the '353): US 10,247,568 B2, US 2017/0356754 A1, US 10,302,446, US 11,486,724, US 2023/0025576, US 2025/0164269/270. These share the 2016-06-12 priority and, even where published, cannot be used against the '353's claims. I am flagging this because the "Prior Art" section of a family page can misleadingly list siblings.

Important honesty flag: I could not retrieve the face references actually cited by the examiner. So the analysis below is an independent, reference-grounded obviousness case, not a reconstruction of a real office action or an invalidity contention.

3. Element-by-element mapping to claim 1

Conclusion (claim 1): R1 alone discloses the core "camera repositions/reframes when the device is about to turn" concept; R2 supplies the maneuver-distance trigger and the changed camera pitch/height aimed at the upcoming decision point; R3 supplies the explicit coordinate-frame relational model (object frame ↔ camera frame), including constrained relative positioning and orientation. The combination yields the claim-1 sequence as a predictable variation of known navigation-camera behavior.

4. Element-by-element mapping to representative dependent claims

5. Motivations to combine (KSR rationales)

1. Same field, same problem, same solution type. R1, R2 and R7 are all turn-by-turn navigation rendering/context systems; R3 and R4 are virtual-camera control/composition systems. A PHOSITA improving a navigation presentation would look directly to these.

2. "Known technique to improve a similar device in the same way." R1 already teaches the exact improvement at issue — move the camera off the behind-the-device position when a turn is imminent — and R2 already teaches the exact trigger (distance to the upcoming decision point) plus the camera-attribute change (pitch/height/zoom). Combining R1's camera-motion idea with R2's distance-triggered, maneuver-directed camera change is applying a known navigation technique to a known navigation camera.

3. Predictable result / design choice. Re-framing the view to keep an upcoming maneuver inside a screen region is a predictable result of changing pitch/zoom/heading; the question of how much to change (the "second positional relationship") is a parameter-tuning/design choice.

4. Explicit relational model already exists. R3 supplies the coordinate-frame relationship model that claim 1's "first/second positional relationship" language invokes, so the claimed implementation mechanism is known, not novel.

5. Automation of a manual/known operation. R4 shows that even cinematic camera placement can be encoded in rules and computed from subject geometry — supporting the claim-1 transition to automatic, attribute-driven camera changes without user input.

6. Where the § 103 case is weaker (candidate non-obviousness positions)

To be balanced, the strongest places the '353 might survive an obviousness attack are the specific mechanisms in the specification — not the high-level claim-1 flow:

• The style-sheet abstraction (attribute-set → hash → matching style → VC properties). I did not find a clean reference that keys a virtual-camera behavior table by a hashed navigation-attribute set and swaps the camera "style" on a context change. R4 teaches rule-driven camera parameters (helps), but the style sheet / hash-keyed lookup framing is the patente's own emphasis.
• The spring system for pitch/rotation/height/puck-screen-position. R6's state tables and R4's canonical-distance rules are analogous but not identical; a patentee could argue the spring-based implicit animation is a distinct mechanism.
• The "field of focus" + puck bounding box → clip framing box → align framing-box side to focus-box side → zoom algorithm (process 400 / FIG. 3). R3's constrained-camera orientation and R4's bounding-box composition encoding are close but would each need explicit mapping.
• The dynamic grouping of maneuvers (FIGS. 10–14, the backward-traversal count) — but note this subject matter is at the center of sibling US 11,486,724 / US 2025/0164269–270, not necessarily the '353 claims as issued.

A serious invalidity position would therefore likely lead with R1 + R2 (+ R3) against claim 1 and the angular/coordinate-frame dependents, and separately develop R4 (and any style/config-driven camera reference) against the style-sheet-dependent claims.

7. Secondary considerations

No evidence was found of unexpected results, long-felt need, industry praise, copying, or licensing attributable to the '353 claims, nor a commercial-success nexus to a specific product. The "Active" status is Google Patents' own disclaimer and is not a validity finding. Secondary considerations are therefore neutral-to-missing in the record I could retrieve, which leaves the KSR case unrebutted on that axis. (I flag: absence of evidence here reflects only what general web search surfaced, not a comprehensive clearance-style search.)

8. Bottom line

• Claim 1 (and its method/device siblings) is, on the record I could assemble, likely obvious under § 103 over R1 (WO 2013/184533 — camera moves off the behind-device position to a top-down/reframed view when a turn is imminent) in view of R2 (JP 2016-540284 — distance-to-decision-point trigger that changes camera position/pitch/height and generates a zoomed forward preview) and, for the coordinate-frame-relational limitations, R3 (US 8,698,735 — constrained object-to-camera positioning/orientation with degrees-of-freedom removal).
• Dependents 2–8 (angular/positional relationships, offsets, origins, partial angular disassociation) are further rendered obvious by R3 (and R6's position/orientation state model); the "enlarge the map area around the maneuver" dependent is directly taught by R1/R2 zoom behavior.
• The strongest patentee counterarguments lie in the specific style-sheet/lookup, spring-system, and field-of-focus clipping/zoom algorithms — for which I found only analogous, not identical, prior art.

Confidence and caveats

1. Verbatim claims not fully recovered (claims 9–17, 20–27 missing; claims 10/19 text not returned; numbering inferred from dependency references). Claim-mapping here is provisional.
2. No certified "References Cited" list was obtainable, so this is an independent reference-grounded analysis, not a reproduction of an examiner action or an invalidity contention.
3. Dates: R1 (§ 102(a)(1), published 2013-12-12) and R4 (published 2013-05-30) are solidly pre-2016. R2's exact publication date is a caveat — JP 2016-540284 is a 2016 Japanese publication whose underlying PCT likely published earlier; it needs a primary-source date check before being relied on as § 102 art. R5 (US 10,818,077) is same-day-grant 2020 and therefore not prior art; it is listed only for comparability. R6 and R7 are pre-2016 but should be verified to their face dates.
4. No litigation/invalidity record for the '353 was found (consistent with the earlier section), so this analysis is not corroborated against any filed invalidity contention.