US 10936685

US Patent 10936685, titled "Poll-based networking system," was issued to Trinity Info Media LLC. The inventors are Timothy Beggy and David Shaun Neal. The application was filed on July 2, 2018, and the patent was published (issued) on March 2, 2021.

Abstract:
The patent describes a poll-based system for online and mobile networks that connects users and products, goods, and services. It identifies matches by comparing a current user's polling responses in real-time. As the user progressively answers questions, the system continuously updates and presents matches. The selected answers are compared against descriptions of other products, goods, and services, or general questions, to generate a likelihood of match. Profiles of matched entities (users, products, goods, or services) that fall within a predetermined threshold are then presented, including links for specific purchases.

Independent Claims Overview:

• Claim 1 (System Claim): This claim describes a poll-based networking and e-commerce system. It includes one or more processors and associated memory configured to perform several operations:

  1. Receive user information to create a unique user profile.
  2. Provide the user with polling questions, each having a finite set of answers and a unique identification.
  3. Receive and store the user's selected answer for these questions.
  4. Compare the selected answer against other users' selected answers (based on unique identification) to generate a "likelihood of match." This matching also applies to products, goods, or services.
  5. Display to the user other users, or products, goods, or services, that meet a predetermined likelihood of match.
  6. Crucially, one or more of these operations are performed on a hand-held device.
  7. Additionally, two or more results based on the likelihood of match are displayed in a list that can be reviewed by swiping.

• Claim 2 (Method Claim): This claim outlines a computer-implemented method for creating a poll-based network, involving one or more processors executing instructions to perform similar operations to Claim 1:

  1. Receive user information to generate a unique user profile.
  2. Provide polling questions with finite answers and unique identifications.
  3. Receive and store selected answers.
  4. Compare the selected answers against those of other users (based on unique identification) to determine a likelihood of match.
  5. Display to the user other users (and implicitly products, goods, or services, though not explicitly stated in this claim's summary) that meet a predetermined likelihood of match.
  6. Similar to Claim 1, one or more operations are carried out on a hand-held device.
  7. Also, two or more results are displayed in a swipe-reviewable list.

• Claim 3 (Computer Program Product Claim): This claim covers a computer program product for creating a poll-based network. It consists of computer-readable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, executable by one or more processors to cause them to perform operations including:

  1. Receiving user information to generate a unique user profile.
  2. Providing polling questions with finite answers and unique identifications.
  3. Receiving and storing selected answers.
  4. Causing to be displayed to the user other users that have a likelihood of match within a predetermined threshold (the comparison step itself is implied but not explicitly listed as an operation the product causes to be performed).
  5. Like the other independent claims, one or more operations are performed on a hand-held device.
  6. Two or more results are displayed in a list reviewable by swiping.

USPTO and CAFC Dockets Search:
A search of the USPTO database confirms the patent details provided above, including its status as "Active, expires 2030-12-17".

Regarding CAFC dockets for 2026, general searches for CAFC dockets show that the court provides information on case filings and records, including an event on July 3, 2026, for a public opening. However, a specific search for "US10936685" within CAFC 2026 dockets did not yield specific case filings or proceedings directly naming this patent for the year 2026. The provided patent information indicates "Family has litigation," with a "US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit" related to case 22-1308, as well as cases in the California Central District Court, but these citations do not specify activity in 2026. Without more specific search results for 2026 CAFC dockets for this patent number, I cannot confirm any ongoing CAFC proceedings for the current year.

The following litigation involving US patent 10936685 is known, based on the provided patent text and its references to Unified Patents and Darts-ip litigation data:

1. US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Case Number: 22-1308
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Outcome or Current Status: Listed as "Critical" litigation.
• Source: Unified Patents Litigation Data, via https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/22-1308

2. US case filed in California Central District Court

• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Jurisdiction: California Central District Court
• Case Number: 2:21-cv-01360
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Outcome or Current Status: Listed as "litigation."
• Source: District Court, via https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/California%20Central%20District%20Court/case/2%3A21-cv-01360

3. US case filed in California Central District Court

• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Jurisdiction: California Central District Court
• Case Number: 2:21-cv-01351
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Outcome or Current Status: Listed as "litigation."
• Source: District Court, via https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/California%20Central%20District%20Court/case/2%3A21-cv-01351

4. First worldwide family litigation filed

• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Jurisdiction: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but "worldwide family litigation" suggests potentially outside the US.
• Case Number: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Filing Date: The patent text indicates a priority date of 2010-11-22 for a related application (US12/951,332), but the actual filing date for this specific litigation is not provided.
• Outcome or Current Status: Listed as "litigation."
• Source: Darts-ip, via https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=64903869&utm_source=google_patent&utm_medium=platform_link&utm_campaign=public_patent_search&patent=[US10936685](/patent/US10936685)(B2)

No AIA trial proceedings are on file for US patent 10936685 based on the USPTO ODP API. Web search also did not reveal any active or recently-filed PTAB proceedings for this patent. Therefore, for a defendant, the bottom-line defensive posture is that the patent is currently untested by AIA trial proceedings.

Proceedings overview

No PTAB activity on file for US patent 10936685.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US patent 10936685 are UNTESTED by AIA trial proceedings. This means that no claims have been canceled or sustained in an IPR, PGR, or CBM. The estoppel landscape is entirely open, as no prior art grounds have been litigated at the PTAB. Any prior art grounds are still available for a defendant currently being asserted against. The absence of PTAB activity is notable for a patent that is the subject of litigation, as well-asserted patents often attract IPRs. The Google Patents page indicates that there is family litigation associated with this patent, including cases filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the California Central District Court, but no IPRs have been filed.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of US patent 10936685, the primary recommendation is to carefully consider filing an AIA trial proceeding, such as an Inter Partes Review (IPR), if viable prior art can be identified. The patent is currently untested, which presents an opportunity to challenge its validity at the PTAB. There are no active proceedings to monitor for milestones.

Inventors

• Timothy Beggy (Employer at time of filing: Trinity Info Media LLC)
• David Shaun Neal (Employer at time of filing: Trinity Info Media LLC)

Original assignee

The original assignee named on the issued patent US10936685B2 is Trinity Info Media LLC. Based on legal filings and analyses by organizations like Unified Patents, Trinity Info Media LLC is identified as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE). The patent describes a "poll-based networking and ecommerce system," but there is no evidence to suggest that Trinity Info Media LLC manufactures or ships products embodying the claims. Its primary line of business appears to be patent assertion and licensing. The company is currently operating, evidenced by its engagement in patent litigation, although claims of US10936685 were found ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by the Federal Circuit.

Assignment timeline

• 2020-01-23 to 2020-12-08 (executed) / recorded 2020-12-08 — Reel 054580/0358
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: BEGGY, TIMOTHY; NEAL, DAVID SHAUN
  • Assignee: TRINITY INFO MEDIA, LLC
  • Correspondent: BAKER, ROBERT E.; FOLEY & LARDNER LLP; ONE NORTH WACKER DRIVE, SUITE 2400, CHICAGO, IL 60606-2815. This correspondent does not recur in this patent's assignment chain.
  • Context: This represents the initial assignment of the inventors' rights to the assignee for the patent application that led to US10936685.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10936685
    2010 : Priority date
    2018 : Application filed
    2020 : Inventors assign to Trinity Info Media LLC
    2021 : Patent issued
         : Litigation initiated by Trinity
    2023 : Federal Circuit affirms patent invalidity

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. The patent remains with Trinity Info Media LLC, which is identified as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) by Unified Patents and through its history of patent assertion without commercial products.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. Trinity Info Media LLC is identified as an NPE and high-frequency plaintiff by Unified Patents.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present. Only one assignment record is found for this specific patent, showing Robert E. Baker of Foley & Lardner LLP as the correspondent [cite: 054580/0358]. Without other assignments for this patent, a recurrence pattern cannot be established for this chain.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Only one assignment from the inventors to Trinity Info Media LLC is recorded for this patent.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Unclear. The assignment (Reel 054580/0358, executed 2020-01-23 to 2020-12-08, recorded 2020-12-08) predates the first identified litigation filing against Covalent (February 2021) by less than six months (for the later execution date) to over a year (for the earlier execution date). However, this is an initial assignment from inventors, not a transfer between corporate entities, so it's less indicative of a pre-litigation transfer-to-asserter strategy. The fact that the initial assignment to the NPE was recorded relatively close to the first suit could be a weak signal.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no information indicating that the patent originated from a bankruptcy sale.
7. Privateering — Not present. There is no evidence from the provided information to suggest privateering activity.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent is owned by an NPE and is being asserted, rather than held by a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence. Trinity Info Media LLC is explicitly identified as an NPE by Unified Patents and has a clear history of asserting this and related patents in infringement lawsuits against multiple companies. The Federal Circuit affirming the dismissal of litigation related to US10936685 on § 101 grounds further underscores its role as a non-practicing entity engaged in patent assertion.

For verification, see the USPTO Patent Assignment Search for patent number 10936685: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/.

The most relevant prior art for US patent 10936685, as identified from its own citation list, includes the following patents:

Cited by Examiner

1. US20090287763A1

   • Full Citation: US20090287763A1 (Kota Enterprise, Llc)
   • Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: 2008-05-15, Publication Date: 2009-11-19
   • Brief Description: Titled "Question server to facilitate communication between participants," this patent generally describes a question server system designed to facilitate communication between participants by handling questions and responses.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): A detailed legal analysis is required to determine which specific claims of US10936685B2 are potentially anticipated by this reference. US20090287763A1's focus on a "question server to facilitate communication between participants" could be relevant to the general aspects of receiving user information, providing polling questions, receiving answers, and matching users as broadly described in claims 1, 2, and 3 of US10936685B2.

2. US20180330408A1

   • Full Citation: US20180330408A1 (Engine Media, Llc)
   • Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: 2017-05-15, Publication Date: 2018-11-15
   • Brief Description: Titled "Predictive analysis for controlling real-time advertising placement," this patent appears to relate to systems and methods for using predictive analysis to manage real-time advertising.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): Determining anticipation for specific claims requires a direct comparison. Given its title, US20180330408A1's concepts of "real-time" processing and potentially "matching" for advertising could be broadly relevant to the real-time matching aspects of US10936685B2, particularly those related to displaying products, goods, or services.

Family Cites Families (Cited by Examiner)

1. US7130807B1

   • Full Citation: US7130807B1 (Accenture Llp)
   • Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: 1999-11-22, Publication Date: 2006-10-31
   • Brief Description: Titled "Technology sharing during demand and supply planning in a network-based supply chain environment," this patent describes systems for sharing technology within a supply chain.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): Without a direct comparison, it's challenging to specify anticipated claims. This reference's focus on networking and information sharing within a supply chain, even though in a different domain (demand/supply planning), could potentially broadly cover foundational networking or data comparison techniques that might be considered generic to elements in claims 1, 2, or 3.

2. US8249943B2

   • Full Citation: US8249943B2 (Facebook, Inc.)
   • Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: 2007-05-31, Publication Date: 2012-08-21
   • Brief Description: Titled "Auction based polling," this patent relates to a system that uses an auction mechanism for polling.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference is directly related to "polling." Elements of US10936685B2 that involve "providing the user one or more polling questions" and "receiving and storing a selected answer for the one or more polling questions" (found in claims 1, 2, and 3) might find broad conceptual parallels in this patent. The "auction based" aspect distinguishes it, but the general concept of polling is highly relevant.

3. US10019722B2

   • Full Citation: US10019722B2 (Trinity Intel Media, Llc)
   • Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: 2010-03-01, Publication Date: 2018-07-10
   • Brief Description: Titled "Poll-based networking system," this patent is explicitly a Continuation-in-Part of U.S. application Ser. No. 14/987,447, which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 10/019,722, and is a direct parent to US10936685B2.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): As US10019722B2 is a direct parent patent in the same family, it is typically not considered anticipatory prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for the claims of US10936685B2, provided there is a valid priority claim. Instead, its content forms part of the ongoing disclosure from which US10936685B2 draws priority. It broadly covers a "poll-based networking system" that forms the foundation for the more specific claims of US10936685B2.

Note on Anticipation:
A definitive determination of whether a prior art reference anticipates a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires a detailed, claim-by-claim analysis, comparing every element of a claim to a single prior art reference. This technical patent analysis does not constitute a legal opinion on anticipation. The claims of US10936685B2 generally describe a poll-based networking and e-commerce system, a computer-implemented method, and a computer program product, featuring operations such as receiving user information, providing polling questions, comparing selected answers to generate a likelihood of match, and displaying results, particularly noting operations on a hand-held device and swipable list review.

Obviousness Analysis of US10936685 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

The analysis focuses on whether the claims of US patent 10936685 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) as of the patent's priority date of March 1, 2010, considering the cited prior art. The independent claims, which are claims 1, 2, and 3, define the core inventive concepts of the poll-based networking and e-commerce system, method, and computer program product, respectively. Key distinguishing features across these claims include the poll-based matching of users to other users or products/services, real-time results, presentation of an "exact matching number," and critically, the performance of operations on a "hand-held device" with results displayed in a "list reviewable by swiping from one result to another."

The relevant prior art references, based on their priority dates predating March 1, 2010, are:

1. US20090287763A1 (Kota): "Question server to facilitate communication between participants." (Priority: 2008-05-15)
2. US8249943B2 (Facebook): "Auction based polling." (Priority: 2007-05-31)

Other references like US20180330408A1 and US10019722B2 are not considered prior art against the primary claims due to their later priority/publication dates or shared priority date, respectively. US7130807B1 (Accenture) appears less relevant to the core social/e-commerce matching based on polls.

Analysis of Independent Claims 1, 2, and 3

Core Polling and Matching Functionality:
Claims 1, 2, and 3 describe a system, method, and product for:

• Receiving user information to generate a unique user profile.
• Providing one or more polling questions with a finite set of answers and a unique identification.
• Receiving and storing a selected answer.
• Comparing selected answers (of users against other users, or in Claim 1, also against profile descriptors of products/goods/services) to generate a likelihood of match.
• Displaying users, or products/goods/services (in Claim 1), that have a likelihood of match within a predetermined threshold.

Both Kota (US20090287763A1) and Facebook (US8249943B2) broadly disclose these core elements:

• User Profiles and Polling: Kota describes a "question server to facilitate communication between participants," which inherently involves user profiles and a mechanism for providing questions and receiving answers. Facebook explicitly details "auction based polling" within a social network, clearly teaching user participation in polls and the creation of user profiles.
• Matching Based on Polls: Kota's purpose is to "facilitate communication between participants," implying a matching process based on shared answers or interests derived from questions. Facebook, as a social networking platform, would naturally utilize user poll responses to connect users or personalize content, leading to a "likelihood of match."
• Displaying Results: Both systems would display results of matches or connections to users, consistent with their networking objectives.

E-commerce Aspect (Claim 1):
Claim 1 explicitly includes matching against "products, goods or services." In the context of an online networking system like those generally enabled by Kota or explicitly by Facebook, extending user preference data (collected via polls) to target or recommend products, goods, or services would have been an obvious business application for a PHOSITA in 2010. Social networks were already platforms for advertising and e-commerce, making the integration of user-generated polling data for product matching a natural and commercially motivated extension.

"Real-time" and "Exact Matching Number":
The patent emphasizes "real-time" results and an "exact matching number." While Kota and Facebook may not explicitly use these precise phrases, providing responsive feedback in online systems is a general goal to enhance user experience. The patent itself states, "As can be appreciated by one skilled in the art, there are numerous techniques for determining a likelihood of match between a particular user and a product, good or service, a non-limiting example of which includes a match number." This indicates that expressing a "likelihood of match" as a numerical value (an "exact matching number") is a matter of design choice and quantification, rather than a fundamentally new concept, and would have been obvious for presenting comparison results. Similarly, striving for "real-time" updates is a continuous engineering goal for online interactive systems.

Distinguishing Features: "Hand-held device" and "swiping" display:
These features are consistently present in all independent claims:

• "wherein one or more of the operations are carried out on a hand-held device"
• "and wherein two or more results based on the likelihood of match are displayed in a list reviewable by swiping from one result to another."

By the 2010 priority date, handheld devices, particularly smartphones with touchscreens, were widely prevalent and rapidly growing in usage.

• Hand-held Device: It would have been a matter of routine implementation for a PHOSITA to adapt any online networking or polling system (like those taught by Kota or Facebook) for use on a handheld device. This was a clear trend driven by user demand for mobile accessibility and convenience. References such as US8059101B2 describe techniques for handheld devices, including mobile phones, personal digital assistants, and tablet computers. US7180501B2 also describes gesture-based navigation for handheld devices like mobile phones and PDAs.
• Swiping to Review Results in a List: Swipe gestures for navigating content on touch-sensitive handheld devices were a well-known and intuitive user interface (UI) paradigm by 2010.
  • US8059101B2, filed in 2006, discusses "swipe gestures for touch screen keyboards" and their use on handheld devices. It describes various directions of swipes (leftward, rightward, upward, downward) for different functions.
  • US7180501B2, filed in 2004, teaches gesture-based navigation of a handheld user interface, noting that a user could "move the device left to pick a list to examine, then scroll that list by...". While describing device movement rather than finger swipes, it demonstrates the concept of gestural list navigation on handhelds.
  • Furthermore, contemporary discussions and common practices around 2010 (as reflected in later summaries discussing the prevalence of swipe gestures) indicate that "swipe gestures are now quite common and allow access to one or multiple functionality by swiping a list item to the right or the left". The intuitive nature of swiping for scrolling and navigating lists on touchscreens was well-established.

Motivation to Combine

A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the core poll-based matching functionality of systems like those described by US20090287763A1 (Kota) or US8249943B2 (Facebook) with the well-known capabilities and user interface paradigms of handheld devices.

The motivation for this combination would be to:

1. Improve User Convenience and Accessibility: Extend the reach of online networking and matching services to mobile users, allowing them to participate in polls and view results anytime, anywhere. This was a clear market driver.
2. Enhance User Experience: Leverage the intuitive touch-based interfaces of handheld devices. Displaying results in a list that users could easily navigate by swiping would significantly enhance the user experience on a small screen, providing a fluid and natural interaction method. This is a common design goal in mobile application development.
3. Expand Commercial Opportunities: For a system that matches users based on preferences, adapting it to mobile platforms with easy navigation, and extending matching to products/services, directly supports targeted advertising and e-commerce, which was a growing trend for online platforms, particularly social networks.

The combination of a poll-based matching system (e.g., from Kota or Facebook) with the application on a handheld device and the use of swipe gestures for list navigation (e.g., as widely taught or enabled by US8059101B2, US7180501B2, and general mobile UI/UX knowledge) would have been a predictable step for a PHOSITA seeking to implement such a system in a mobile environment. The individual elements were known, and the reasons for combining them to create a mobile-friendly, interactive polling and matching application were clear and commercially driven.