US 10958971

Patent Overview: US10958971B2

Title: Display apparatus and video processing apparatus
Patent number: US10958971B2
Application number: US16/713,182
Filed: 2019-12-13
Granted/Published: 2021-03-23
Priority date (stated as assumption): 2007-11-28
Anticipated expiration (listing): 2028-10-29
Inventor(s): Toshiyuki Kurita; Hitoaki Owashi
Current assignee (as listed): Maxell Ltd (original assignee also listed as Maxell Ltd)
Earlier publication: US20200120381A1 (2020-04-16)
Status: Active

Purpose. The text describes the invention as addressing a difficulty with HDMI, which "is developed on assumption of uses for connections between apparatuses installed in a house of a family." The stated object is to permit communication with the internet and/or a home network while a display apparatus presents high-picture-quality video received from portable video processing apparatuses such as a camera and a cellular phone. More generally, the definitions state the invention "relates to a technique to establish connections between a plurality of apparatuses and networks by radio."

Plain-language scope. As described in the excerpt, the display apparatus includes: a first radio communication unit able to receive video information by radio from an external video processing apparatus; a second radio communication unit able to connect by radio to a network; and a connection assignment control unit that controls assignment of radio connection for each of the first and second radio communication units. The control unit assigns connection of the first radio communication unit with higher priority and controls assignment of transmission rate—for example, such that the transmission rate between the first radio communication unit and the video processing apparatus is set higher than that between the second radio communication unit and the network. HDMI is cited as an example interface in which baseband video and high-definition audio are time-division multiplexed and encrypted via HDCP for transmission.

What the excerpt does not establish. The supplied text is explicitly an excerpt with omitted content. It does not provide the full claims, the complete specification, the drawings, a full prior-art discussion, or the detailed description. It does not establish validity, enforceability, claim scope, or the accuracy of assignee, priority, or expiration listings (those are noted in the source as assumptions or as not legally analyzed). Litigation and reassignment entries appear in the source but are outside the scope of this overview.

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10958971](/patent/US10958971)/en

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 10,958,971 across litigation-tracking sources.

I found strong leads. Let me dig into the specific ITC and district court cases.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 10,958,971

Patent identified: US 10,958,971 B2 — "Display apparatus and video processing apparatus" (application 16/713,182; granted 2021‑03‑23; priority 2007‑11‑28). Current assignee listed as Maxell, Ltd. (successor via Maxell Holdings, Ltd.). This is the patent I searched for literally; I excluded results for other numbers (e.g., the cataract-surgery patent US 7,883,521, whose application number happens to be 10,958,971 — a different, unrelated number type).

I found three ITC Section 337 investigations in which the '971 patent was asserted, all brought by Maxell, Ltd. I did not find a district-court complaint in which the '971 patent is expressly identified as asserted.

Confirmed litigation

1. Certain Smart Televisions — ITC Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1338

• Complainant: Maxell, Ltd. (Kyoto, Japan)
• Respondent: VIZIO, Inc. (U.S.)
• Jurisdiction: U.S. International Trade Commission
• Filed / instituted: Complaint filed Sept. 15, 2022; Commission instituted the investigation Oct. 19, 2022
• Patents asserted: U.S. 8,549,109; 8,170,394; 10,958,971; 11,017,815
• Outcome/status: Terminated in its entirety (settlement). On Sept. 25, 2023 the Commission declined to review ALJ Initial Determination No. 26 (Aug. 30, 2023), terminating the investigation as to VIZIO based on settlement.
• Source: USITC notice; summarized at cacs.mofcom.gov.cn and mirrored by provincial trade-remedy portals (e.g., https://sxdofcom.shaanxi.gov.cn/.../t20230928_2500991.html).

2. Certain Smart Televisions — ITC Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1420

• Complainant: Maxell, Ltd.
• Respondents (TCL group): TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings Ltd.); TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd.; T.C.L. Industries Holdings (H.K.) Ltd.; TTE Technology, Inc. (d/b/a TCL North America); TTE Corporation; TCL King Electrical Appliances (Huizhou) Co., Ltd.; Manufacturas Avanzadas S.A. de C.V.; TCL Smart Device (Vietnam) Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen TCL New Technology Co., Ltd.; TCL Optoelectronics Technology (Huizhou) Co., Ltd.; TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.; [TCL Technology Group Corp. (f/k/a TCL Corp.)](/litigations/by-defendant/TCL%20Technology%20Group%20Corp.%20(f%2Fk%2Fa%20TCL%20Corp.)). (OUII also a party.)
• Jurisdiction: U.S. International Trade Commission
• Filed / instituted: Complaint filed Aug. 22, 2024; instituted Sept. 27, 2024 (89 FR 79,307‑08)
• Patents asserted: 8,549,109 (claim 4); 11,451,860 (claims 7‑11); 10,958,971 (claim 1); 11,924,502
• Outcome/status: Terminated in its entirety based on settlement. Partial terminations first: the '502 patent claims terminated Apr. 29, 2025 (Order No. 11, unreviewed); certain non‑TCL "Terminated Respondents" terminated May 28, 2025 (Order No. 14). Then ALJ Order No. 19 (Aug. 22, 2025) granted a joint motion to terminate the whole investigation on settlement, which the Commission declined to review (notice issued Sept. 2025; 90 FR 45053, Sept. 18, 2025).
• Sources: https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/337_1420_notice05282025sgl.pdf ; https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025-18032 ; https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2025/09/18/2025-18032.html

3. Certain Electronic Devices — ITC Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1432 (Maxell v. Samsung)

• Complainant: Maxell, Ltd.
• Respondents: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.); Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC (named in the related ITC complaint excerpt I retrieved)
• Jurisdiction: U.S. International Trade Commission
• '971 patent: expressly recited in the Maxell Section 337 complaint ("10,958,971 (the '971 Patent)").
• Confidence note: I confirmed the existence of the ITC complaint and the '971 recital from a PACTS/USPTO petition exhibit reproducing Maxell's 337 complaint, and from Maxell's own E.D. Tex. complaint (which cites "Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1432"). I did not independently confirm the institution date or current status of 337‑TA‑1432 from an ITC notice within this search.

Reported in family-level litigation data but UNVERIFIED

Google Patents' "Family has litigation" panel for US 10,958,971 lists three additional entries I could not corroborate and that I treat with caution:

• U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas — Case No. 2:26‑cv‑00266 (listed by Google Patents)
• ITC Inv. No. 337‑TA‑3769
• ITC Inv. No. 337‑TA‑3643

The two ITC numbers (3769, 3643) are inconsistent with the current ITC investigation-numbering range (presently in the ~1,4xx range) and are likely data artifacts on that aggregator page. I could not verify any of these three entries against a primary source, so I am not asserting them as confirmed litigation. Given a current date of April 2026, a 2026 E.D. Tex. filing is not impossible, but I have no corroboration.

Related Maxell campaigns where '971 is NOT confirmed as asserted

For completeness and to avoid over-inclusion:

• Maxell, Ltd. v. [LG Electronics Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/LG%20Electronics%20Inc.) / LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. — E.D. Tex. (Texarkana), filed Dec. 29, 2023, transferred to N.D. Cal. (July/Aug. 2024); nine Maxell patents asserted. LG filed IPRs (e.g., IPR2025‑00392, IPR2025‑00393) against Maxell patents. I did not confirm that the '971 patent is among the nine asserted in that case.
• Maxell v. Samsung Electronics district-court actions (e.g., E.D. Tex. 5:23‑cv‑00092; additional complaint filed 2025) — implicated patents included 8,982,086 and home-network patents. The '971 patent is not confirmed as one of the three patents that produced the May 2025 jury verdict (~$111.7M, later overturned on JMOL in Oct. 2025).
• Other Maxell defendants seen in searches (ASUS, Coretronic, Hisense) were not tied to the '971 patent in the results retrieved.

Bottom line

The '971 patent has been enforced by Maxell, Ltd. exclusively at the ITC, in at least three Section 337 investigations: 337‑TA‑1338 (v. VIZIO, 2022‑2023, settled), 337‑TA‑1420 (v. TCL, 2024‑2025, settled), and 337‑TA‑1432 (v. Samsung, '971 confirmed in the complaint; status not independently verified). No district-court case with the '971 patent expressly identified as asserted was confirmed. Several aggregator-listed items (2:26‑cv‑00266, 337‑TA‑3769, 337‑TA‑3643) remain unverified and should be confirmed against USITC and PACER/CourtListener primary sources before being relied upon.

I'll verify the ODP result against public sources before writing anything up.

Let me run a few more targeted checks before concluding the record is empty.

Two more checks: whether any petitioner targeted the '971 specifically, and what happened with the sibling '590 patent (same family).

Proceedings overview

Zero (0) AIA trial proceedings are on file against US 10,958,971. The structured USPTO ODP block returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM, and my independent web checks (Patents.google.com family/litigation panel, PTAB E2E‑indexed material, IPR‑tracker aggregators, and Maxell's own publicly filed IPR papers listing every Maxell IPR) surfaced no petition naming the '971 patent — so the breakdown is 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied, and the bottom line for a defendant is that the '971 patent is completely untested at the PTAB: it has never been through an AIA trial, so there is no FWD to leverage, no cancellation to point to, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel runway carved out for you. That cuts both ways — see the strategic summary below.

No proceedings to enumerate

Because there is no proceeding, there is no FWD, no panel, no settlement, and no appeal to report for this patent. I am deliberately not inventing a docket. Two caveats on the confidence level:

1. Search coverage is not infinite. A petition filed very recently (within the last few months) may not yet be indexed in the ODP ingest or in third‑party trackers. Verify directly before relying on the absence: PTAB E2E / Patent Trial and Appeal Board EndPoint and the USPTO Patent Center file wrapper for US 16/713,182.
2. Prosecution‑side challenges are a different animal. The ODP block addresses AIA trials only. It does not rule out an ex parte reexamination or a district‑court invalidity fight, and the '971 has been in litigation repeatedly (below).

Collateral: what is on the record for the '971 (not AIA trials)

These are enforcement and family facts, not PTAB proceedings — but they are the reason a defendant should still care:

• Two ITC § 337 investigations asserting the '971 patent, both settled, both with no IPR filed by the respondent:

  • 337‑TA‑1338 (Certain Smart Televisions), instituted 2022‑10‑17/19 against sole respondent VIZIO, Inc. Asserted: claim 4 of US 8,549,109; claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 of US 8,170,394; claim 1 of the '971 patent; claims 1 and 21 of US 11,017,815. Instituted per USITC notice, 87 FR 64110. Terminated in its entirety by settlement, Commission vote 2023‑09‑22, after ALJ Order No. 22/26 (2023‑08‑30) granting the joint motion (FR notice). Terms confidential.
  • 337‑TA‑1420 (Certain Smart Televisions), instituted 2024‑09‑24 against 13 respondents including TCL entities. Asserted: US 8,549,109; 11,451,860; 11,924,502; and the '971 patent (claim 1) (FR notice 2024‑22187). The '502 patent was dropped 2025‑04 (Order No. 11, Maxell withdrawal); TCL respondents were terminated 2025‑05 (Order No. 14); the entire investigation terminated by settlement 2025‑09‑15 (FR notice). Terms confidential.

• A live district‑court assertion: Patents.google lists a Texas Eastern District case, 2:26‑cv‑00266, in the '971 patent's litigation family (patents.google.com/patent/US10958971). Treat the current assignee as Maxell, Ltd. (via Maxell Holdings merger/name change, recorded 2021‑11‑29 and 2021‑12‑03).

• Same‑family sibling under active attack — this is your best lead. The '971 is a continuation in the chain JP 2007‑306750 → 12/260,410 (US 9,420,212) → 15/208,886 (US 10,129,590) → 15/891,085 (US 10,244,284) → 16/269,724 → 16/713,182 (the '971). That means US 10,129,590 shares the '971's specification verbatim. On the '590 I found:

  • IPR2024‑00906 (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Maxell, Ltd.) — Samsung's Exhibit 1006 in that proceeding is the file history of ex parte reexamination 90/014,651 of the '590, which implies (inference, not verified) that the '590 is the challenged patent. I could not verify the institution decision, panel, or claim‑level outcome within this exercise.
  • Ex parte reexam 90/014,651 of the '590, requested by Apple Inc., filed 2021‑01‑12 (Art Unit 3992/3999).

  ⚠️ I have not confirmed the outcome of IPR2024‑00906 or of reexam 90/014,651. Do not assert in a brief that the '590's claims were canceled — verify each at PTAB E2E and the reexam file in Patent Center first. I also found an IPR2024‑00828 (Samsung v. Maxell) with an FWD dated 2025‑10‑30, outcome "Unpatentable," status "Final Written Decision – Appealed," but I could not confirm which Maxell patent it targets, so I am not attributing it to the '971 or the '590.

Strategic summary

Claim status. No claim of US 10,958,971 has been canceled, narrowed, or confirmed by the PTAB. Every claim is UNTESTED in an AIA trial. The only claim Maxell has put in front of the ITC is claim 1 — asserted in both 337‑TA‑1338 and 337‑TA‑1420 — and both cases died by settlement before any final determination on validity or infringement, so even claim 1 carries no adjudicated outcome. That is unusual and strategically meaningful: Maxell has now extracted two settlements on this patent without ever having to defend its claims before a merits tribunal.

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel to worry about — no petitioner has been through an IPR, so there is no bar and no pre‑cleared ground set. Conversely, there is no free pass either: you get the full universe of §§ 102/103 art, but you also get no roadmap from a prior panel's obviousness findings, no § 315(e)(1) invalidation of art already adjudicated, and no adverse‑judgment leverage on claim construction. The practical consequence is that an IPR against the '971 is an entirely open field — the first petitioner sets the record and captures the estoppel benefit for the parallel district court case. Note the substantial secondary consideration: the '971's anticipated expiration is 2028‑10‑29 (per Patents.google), roughly two years out, which will weigh heavily in any Fintiv‑style discretionary‑denial analysis and may moot the value of an IPR for a defendant facing a near‑term trial.

Pattern signals. Maxell is a serial enforcer, not a passive licensor, and its opponents are sophisticated serial petitioners. Samsung has filed 20+ IPRs against Maxell patents across two district‑court litigations plus ITC matters (see Samsung's IPR2025‑01307 through ‑01316 on 10 different Maxell patents); Maxell's counsel has publicly complained to the Office about "gamesmanship" and actively pushes for discretionary denial (see the Nov. 2025 ex parte correspondence at the same PTACS link, and Maxell's brief in a companion matter). Maxell also fights institution aggressively — a Patent Owner Request for Director Review of an institution decision, a Board order denying Director Review, and a motion‑to‑submit‑information fight all appear in the IPR2024‑00828/00906‑era Maxell dockets. There is no Unified Patents or other defensive aggregator IPR on the '971. Notably, the respondents in both ITC '971 campaigns (VIZIO, then the TCL group) settled rather than filing IPRs — so the patent has been asserted hard but never administratively tested, which is exactly the profile that produces a clean‑slate IPR opportunity today.

Recommended next steps

1. Confirm the null result directly before building a defense on it. Pull the PTAB E2E docket and the Patent Center file wrapper for US 16/713,182. A recently filed petition (e.g., by a 2026 defendant in EDTX 2:26‑cv‑00266) may postdate the ODP ingest. If you find a proceeding, that is a material change — get the FWD before filing anything.
2. Mine the same‑family proceedings for § 282 art. The '590's IPR2024‑00906 and ex parte reexam 90/014‑651 are directed at a specification‑identical sibling. Whatever art Samsung and Apple assembled there is directly reusable against the '971's claims — and because no IPR has run on the '971, none of it is estoppel‑barred against you. Verify outcomes at PTAB E2E and Patent Center rather than assuming cancellation.
3. Get the two ITC settlement agreements if you can. Both the VIZIO (337‑TA‑1338) and the 337‑TA‑1420 terminations were on joint motion with "no other agreements" certifications and confidential + redacted public versions filed under 19 C.F.R. § 210.21(b)(1). The public versions are on EDIS. They tell you the licensing posture and may reveal that Maxell's asserted scope is narrower than the face of claim 1.
4. If you are a defendant facing claim 1, note that the ITC proceedings produced a full claim‑construction record on the '971 — including VIZIO's § 112 ¶ 6 arguments that the "processor" / "radio modem" limitations are means‑plus‑function with no disclosed corresponding structure (see the VIZIO briefs filed in 337‑TA‑1338, e.g., here and here). An indefiniteness or § 112 theory is a distinct track from IPR (the PTAB cannot invalidate for indefiniteness) and is not foreclosed by anything.
5. Diary the clock. Anticipated expiration 2028‑10‑29. If you are weighing an IPR, work backward from the statutory 1‑year trial deadline from institution and the projected district‑court trial date — the expiration date will be the centerpiece of any Fintiv argument Maxell makes.

I'll research the assignment chain for US 10,958,971, starting with the USPTO Assignment Search and cross-referencing public records.

Good — I've found an on-point assignment record. Let me now target the '971's own file and the parent's chain, plus the correspondent.

Let me pin down the two 2021 Maxell reassignments and the original chain for the parent patent.

Assignment & Ownership Record — US 10,958,971 B2

Scope note / retrieval status. I retrieved (a) the assignment record of specification-identical sibling US 10,129,590 (app 15/208,886, same two inventors) from its reexamination file history — this is where the family's real reel/frame data lives — and (b) the corporate-registration evidence for the 2021 Maxell restructuring from PTAB mandatory notices and the EPO/UK register. I could not pull the reel/frame numbers for the two assignments recorded against app 16/713,182 itself; Google Patents' legal-events block for the '971 reports those two events by date and conveyance type only. I flag each unverified item explicitly rather than inventing a reel/frame. My web-search budget was exhausted before I could query the Assignment Center UI directly.

Inventors

Pattern check — negative. No unusual inventor pattern is present in the record I retrieved:

• Both inventors persist across the entire continuation chain (JP 2007-306750 → 12/260,410 (2008) → 15/208,886 → 15/891,085 → 16/269,724 → 16/713,182 (2019)) — a ~11-year inventor-team stability, which is the opposite of the "inventors gone within 12 months" fire-sale tell.
• No inventor-name corrections, no reissue inventorship disputes, and no evidence of any inventor departing the original assignee surfaced.
• The DwPI/Derwent record for sibling app 15/208,886 independently confirms inventors "Hitoaki Owashi, Toshiyuki Kurita," matching the '971's face.

Original assignee

Entity named on the issued '971: Maxell, Ltd. (Kyoto, Japan) — carried on the Google Patents record as "Original Assignee: Maxell Ltd" and "Current Assignee: Maxell Ltd." Because the '971 issued 2021-03-23, after the 2017 rebranding, the "original assignee" on its face is already the post-Hitachi entity. The 2007 priority filing and the 2008 US application, however, were made by Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.

• Primary line of business: operating Japanese diversified manufacturer — coin/cylindrical batteries, magnetic recording media (LTO tape), optical components, projectors, functional materials, and consumer accessories (chargers, power banks, audio). Publicly listed (Tokyo Stock Exchange; I associate the listing with ticker 6810, but I did not re-verify the ticker this session).
• Current status: operating, not acquired/dissolved/bankrupt. Post-issuance it underwent an internal restructuring in 2021 (below). Separately, in 2017 Hitachi, Ltd. exited its stake and the company rebranded Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. → Maxell, Ltd. (a divestiture, not an insolvency).
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? No evidence found, and I regard it as unlikely. The '971 claims a display apparatus / video processing apparatus with two radio front ends (wireless high-quality video from a portable device + wireless Internet/home-network link). Maxell's current catalog contains no TV/display of that type, and Maxell exited the Hitachi-brand consumer TV business. The technical lineage is Hitachi's consumer AV/display R&D. This is a material nuance for the verdict and is stated as an uncertainty, not as a finding.

Assignment timeline

Reel/frame note: the entries marked ⚠ are drawn from Google Patents' legal-events block (recording dates and conveyance types are reliable there; the execution dates and reel/frame are not shown and I could not retrieve them). Verify at assignmentcenter.uspto.gov or assignment.uspto.gov by patent number.

A. Upstream (recorded against the family, not necessarily against the '971's own application)

2008-10-29 → 2009 (date unverified) — Reel/Frame not retrieved

• Conveyance: Assignment (inventors → company), presumed
• Assignor: Toshiyuki Kurita; Hitoaki Owashi
• Assignee: Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. (or Hitachi, Ltd. — unresolved)
• Correspondent: not retrieved
• Context: original employment assignment on the 2008 parent application 12/260,410 (US 9,420,212). Inference only: the sibling '590's abstract of title shows Total Assignments: 1, meaning no inventor assignment was ever recorded against the continuation itself — so any inventor-to-company assignment sits in the 2008 parent's record, which I did not pull. Do not rely on this entry without verification.

2017-10-01 (executed) / recorded 2018-01-25 — Reel 045142/0208 (verified)

• Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS) — 141 pages (bulk portfolio assignment; functionally a group de-merger/rebranding)
• Assignor: HITACHI MAXELL, LTD.
• Assignee: MAXELL, LTD., 1 Koizumi, Oyamazaki, Oyamazaki-cho, Otokuni-gun, Kyoto, Japan
• Correspondent: NADEEN NSOULI, 71 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606 — recurrence flag: this is a 141-page bulk assignment, i.e., the same correspondent appears on the recordation for a large block of Maxell applications/patents, so Nsouli's name recurs portfolio-wide. Public practitioner data (USPTO Reg. No. 76,859) now lists her at Cooley LLP, 110 N. Wacker Drive, Chicago — a mainstream operating-company prosecution firm, not an NPE recording agent.
• Context: internal corporate rebranding — Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. → Maxell, Ltd. effective the same day. The EPO/UK register separately characterises the same 2017-10-01 event as a "de-merger."
• Why this is the family's key record: it is verified in the file history of US 10,129,590 (app 15/208,886 — identical specification, identical inventors). It is the last ownership document executed while the '971's application lineage was already pending, but it predates the '971's own 2019-12-13 filing, so it does not appear on the '971's own abstract of title.

B. Assignments recorded against US 10,958,971 (app 16/713,182) itself ⚠

2021-11-29 (recorded) / executed 2021-10-01 (per corporate records, not per reel) — Reel/Frame not retrieved

• Conveyance: MERGER
• Assignor: MAXELL, LTD.
• Assignee: MAXELL HOLDINGS, LTD.
• Correspondent: not retrieved
• Context: internal restructuring — the operating company merged into its holding company. Execution date is 2021-10-01, corroborated by Maxell's PTAB mandatory notices ("On October 1, 2021, following a corporate restructuring…") and by the EPO/UK register (merger dated 01.10.2021).

2021-12-03 (recorded) / executed 2021-10-01 (per corporate records) — Reel/Frame not retrieved

• Conveyance: CHANGE OF NAME
• Assignor: MAXELL HOLDINGS, LTD.
• Assignee: MAXELL, LTD. (same 1 Koizumi, Oyamazaki, Kyoto address)
• Correspondent: not retrieved
• Context: holdco renamed back to Maxell, Ltd. — a name change only, no change in beneficial ownership. Maxell's own PTAB filing confirms the chain and admits the records lag: "Maxell Holdings, Ltd. changed its name to Maxell, Ltd. Maxell, Ltd. is working to update assignment records to reflect Patent Owner's new name" (Patent Owner's Mandatory Notice, IPR2021-01440 / IPR2021-01441).

No security agreements, licenses, releases, or corrections are recorded in this chain as far as the retrieved records show.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10958971
    2007 : JP priority application filed
    2008 : US application 12260410 filed
         : Inventors Kurita and Owashi
    2017 : Hitachi Maxell assigned to Maxell Ltd
         : Bulk recordal 2018 at reel 045142 0208
    2019 : Continuation 16713182 filed
    2021 : Maxell Ltd merged into Maxell Holdings Ltd
         : Maxell Holdings Ltd renamed Maxell Ltd
    2022 : Claim 1 asserted at ITC 337-TA-1338

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The only recorded ownership changes for US 10,958,971 are internal Maxell corporate events — MERGER to Maxell Holdings, Ltd. (recorded 2021-11-29) and CHANGE OF NAME back to Maxell, Ltd. (recorded 2021-12-03), both executed 2021-10-01 — layered on the earlier Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. → Maxell, Ltd. bulk recordal at reel 045142/0208 (executed 2017-10-01, recorded 2018-01-25) verified in the specification-identical sibling US 10,129,590. There is no shell-entity transfer, no NPE-list assignee, no defensive aggregator, and no bankruptcy anywhere in the chain: the assignee has been one Kyoto-based operating manufacturer (Hitachi Maxell → Maxell) continuously, and it asserts the patent against actual consumer-electronics competitors (VIZIO, TCL, Samsung). The one honest qualification is that Maxell no longer ships a display of the claimed type, so the campaign monetises a divested legacy product line and behaves economically like an NPE even though the owner is not one — on the evidence, that is a licensing-posture point, not an ownership-chain finding. Verify directly: assignmentcenter.uspto.gov (search "10958971") and the file wrappers for 16/713,182 and 12/260,410.

Provenance. Verified sources: US 10,129,590 reexamination file history (Exhibit 1006 in Samsung v. Maxell, IPR2024-00906, docketalarm.com) carrying the "Patent Assignment Abstract of Title," total 1 assignment, reel 045142/0208, correspondent Nadeen Nsouli; PTAB Patent Owner Mandatory Notices in IPR2021-01440 / IPR2021-01441 (2021-10-14) for the 2021-10-01 restructuring; EPO/UK register entries for the 2017-10-01 de-merger and 2021-10-01 merger + name change; the Google Patents legal-events block supplied in the prompt for the '971 (2021-11-29 merger, 2021-12-03 change of name); Maxell's ITC/EDTX complaint excerpts (VIA ptacts.uspto.gov petition 1550723) and the Apple-case witness list naming Hitachi, Ltd. as prior owner.
Not verified / explicitly flagged: reel/frame and execution dates for the two 2021 assignments against app 16/713,182; the existence and details of an inventor assignment recorded against app 12/260,410 in 2008–2009; and whether the Hitachi → Hitachi Consumer Electronics → Hitachi Maxell chain (seen on US 10,176,848) applies to the '971.

I'll research the prior-art citations on the face of US 10,958,971. Let me run several searches.

I found a Justia listing of citations. Let me retrieve the complete citation list (US patents, published applications, foreign documents, and non-patent literature).

Let me retrieve the remaining portions of the citation list — US published applications, foreign documents, and the examiner's cited art.

Prior Art for US 10,958,971 B2 — Cited References and § 102 Assessment

Two housekeeping notes before the substance:

1. Date discrepancy I am flagging rather than silently resolving. My session context states today is 2026‑09‑28; the task header states April 26, 2026. I have not auto‑corrected either — treat every "as of" statement below as anchored to the supplied record, not to a verified current date.
2. Source reality check. I could not query the USPTO's Patent Public Search / Patent Center directly with the tools available (web search only). The citation list below is assembled from (a) the authoritative Google Patents full text supplied in the prompt (which is truncated and does not include the printed (56) "References Cited" block or the claims) and (b) the Justia mirror of the '971 (https://patents.justia.com/patent/10958971). Every entry should be re‑verified against the printed front page of the granted patent before use in a brief.

Trap result excluded: Application number 10/958,971 belongs to US 7,883,521 (Abbott Medical Optics, "Multi‑functional second instrument for cataract removal," granted 2011‑02‑08). It is an unrelated number type (application vs. patent) and is not the patent at issue. I excluded it deliberately, consistent with the earlier Litigation section.

1. Governing law and critical dates (this drives everything)

The '971 issued from application 16/713,182 (filed 2019‑12‑13) as a continuation claiming priority through 12/260,410 (filed 2008‑10‑29) to JP 2007‑306750, priority date 2007‑11‑28. Because every claim's effective filing date predates 2013‑03‑16, the pre‑AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 102/§ 103 governs.

Practical consequence: under § 102 a single reference must disclose every element of the claim. Every reference below was on the record and the patent still issued, so no cited reference is a strong standalone anticipation candidate for the issued claims — they are § 103 combination material (which, notably, is not what the PTAB has ever tested; see the earlier PTAB section: zero AIA trials on the '971).

2. The cited references (as retrieved)

A. U.S. Patent Documents (Justia "Referenced Cited")

B. U.S. Published Applications (list truncated mid‑entry in my retrieval)

All of these are § 102(b) art on their face (published well before 2007‑10‑29). The remainder of this sub‑list was not retrievable this session.

C. Foreign patent document cited in the specification (authoritative text)

• JP‑A‑2007‑202115 — cited in the Background as describing "a conventional technique in which digitized video and audio signals are multiplexed for transmission." Read literally from the supplied text; I have not verified its publication date, but a 2007‑number JP A‑publication would typically publish in 2007, i.e., potentially § 102(b) art if published before 2007‑10‑29. It is directed to multiplexing, not to dual‑radio bandwidth prioritization, so it is not an anticipation candidate for the independent claims.

I could not retrieve the "Foreign Patent Documents" block (JP/KR/WO items) for the '971; the earlier sections reference JP 5033598B2, CN 101447902B, CN 104540008B, CN 105407104B as family counterparts, not as cited art.

D. Non‑patent literature / other references on the '971 record

• Office Action dated 2018‑06‑07 in Chinese App. No. 201510969210.6 (stated to correspond to this application).
• Kazantzidis, M. et al., "Bluetooth: An Enabler for Personal Area Networking," Ericsson Research, 2001, UCLA.
• Hypertext Transfer Protocol — HTTP/1.2, RFC 2068 (1997).
• Martyn Mallick, Mobile and Wireless Design Essentials, John Wiley & Sons (2003), pp. 1–352.
• TCP Keepalive HOWTO, Rev. 1.0 (2007‑05‑04).
• FCC Part 15 Test Report for the Apple Airport Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0+EDR Module (2005‑03‑31).
• Transmission Control Protocol, RFC 793 (1981‑09).
• Mac G5 User's Guide (2005); Apple AirPort Extreme and Apple Bluetooth 2.0+EDR (2005); MacBook Pro User's Guide (2006).
• Apostolopoulos, J.G. et al., "Video Streaming: Concepts, Algorithms, and Systems" (2002‑09‑18).
• Newton, H., Newton's Telecom Dictionary, 20th ed. (2004).
• Ribas‑Corbera, J. et al., "A Flexible Decoder Buffer Model for JVT Video Coding," IEEE ICIP 2002.
• Sheu, T. et al., "A Buffer Allocation Mechanism for VBR Video Playback," IEEE 2000.
• Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd., Petition for IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 10,159,590, IPR2021‑00400, filed 2021‑01‑12.
• Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Pat. No. 10,129,590, 35 U.S.C. § 302 / 37 C.F.R. § 1.510, filed 2021‑01‑12.

⚠️ Cross‑check against the earlier sections (no contradiction, one refinement): the earlier PTAB section reported a reexam 90/014,651 of the '590 filed 2021‑01‑12 and attributed it to Apple. The '971's own record independently shows a reexam request against US 10,129,590 filed 2021‑01‑12 — consistent dating. It also reveals an item the earlier section did not: IPR2021‑00400 (Apple v. Maxell) is directed at US 10,159,590, a different patent from the '971 and from the '590. This is consistent with the earlier finding of zero AIA proceedings against the '971 — the IPR named on the '971's record targets someone else's patent.

Record identifiers: Primary Examiner Mekonnen D Dagnew; Current U.S. Class 380/270 ("Wireless Communication"); Int'l Class H04N 21/4363, H04L 29/06, H04N 21/41, H04N 21/414, H04N 5/44, H04N 21/4367.

3. Which references "potentially anticipate" which claims

I must be blunt about the constraint: the printed claim set of the '971 was not in the supplied text and I could not retrieve it. Anticipation is an element‑by‑element test, so any mapping below is provisional and must be re‑run against the actual claim language from Patent Center. What I can give is a reasoned triage based on (i) the claim elements identified in the earlier sections (a radio modem; a processor controlling the radio modem to wirelessly communicate with the Internet/LAN based on a first user instruction from a remote controller; and the family's first/second radio communication circuit language using different modulation schemes and different frequency bands, with a controller that assigns connection so video and network functions run simultaneously), and (ii) the reference dates.

Tier 1 — best § 102 candidates (dual‑radio / simultaneous‑connectivity disclosures):

• US 2004/0107208 A1 (Seet et al., 2004‑06‑03) — § 102(b). Multi‑radio application‑layer candidate. Verification needed.
• US 2005/0130586 A1 (Gnuschke et al., 2005‑06‑16) — § 102(b). Verification needed.
• US 2005/0136949 A1 (Barnes, Jr., 2005‑06‑23) — § 102(b). Verification needed.
• US 7,970,350 B2 (Sheynman et al., 2011‑06‑28) — § 102(e) if its underlying application predates 2007‑11‑28; its subject matter (portable device with multiple wireless radios) is the closest thematic fit on the list.
• The Feher family — US 7,787,882; 7,978,774; 7,983,678; 8,306,525; 8,311,509 — § 102(e). These are OFDM/software‑defined‑radio disclosures, relevant to the "different modulation scheme / different frequency band" limitations and to the QPSK‑vs‑64QAM aspect (Figs. 5–6). Feher's priority chains run back into the 1990s, so the § 102(e) vintage is likely satisfied — but that must be confirmed per patent.

These would map primarily to independent claim 1 (and its video‑processing‑apparatus counterpart) only if the claims are read narrowly enough that a generic dual‑radio simultaneous‑operation disclosure reaches every limitation. Because the claims also require the remote‑controller user‑instruction trigger, a Tier‑1 reference alone is insufficient unless it also discloses user‑initiated mode control.

Tier 2 — § 103 combination fodder (not standalone anticipation): US 6,763,226 (McZeal, 2004); US 7,233,359 (Suda, 2007); US 2003/0189638 (Fry); US 2004/0045030 (Reynolds); US 2004/0048572 (Godfrey); US 2004/0077313 (Oba); US 2004/0193647 (Ueda); US 2005/0034169 (Maeda); US 2005/0062945 (Shin‑Pin); US 2005/0064860 (Deline); US 2005/0144478 (Yamanaka); US 8,045,922 (Sherman); US 8,325,237 (Bessone); US 8,572,257 (Dua); US 8,625,547 (Miller, II); US 8,693,950 (Desai); US 9,344,237 (Margulis). US 9,344,237 (granted 2016‑05‑17) cannot have been cited in the 2008 prosecution — its presence implies a supplemental IDS during the 2019 continuation; that matters because it tells you the applicant chose to disclose it, which can cut against later inequitable‑conduct theories but does not blunt its § 102(e)/§ 103 value.

Tier 3 — background/no anticipation value: JP‑A‑2007‑202115 (multiplexing only); the Bluetooth/RFC/Apple‑hardware NPL cluster (relevant at most to § 103 obviousness of using commodity WLAN/BT radios, and to the HDCP/encryption limitations).

Bottom line on § 102: On the face of the record, no cited reference discloses the full combination, which is exactly why the '971 issued. The genuinely interesting § 102 question is not any listed reference but whether any of them anticipates if the claims are construed as the patent owner has been pressing — an issue the earlier sections note was contested in the ITC (VIZIO's § 112 ¶ 6 arguments) and never adjudicated because both 337 investigations settled.

4. Explicit uncertainties (do not paper over these)

1. I could not access the USPTO database directly. The list above is from the supplied Google Patents text plus the Justia mirror; the printed (56) block on the grant should be the controlling source.
2. Titles/teachings for most references were not verifiable this session. I have deliberately not invented descriptions. Where I marked "not verified," that is a real gap, not boilerplate.
3. The published‑applications sub‑list is incomplete (retrieval ended at US 2005/0190747), and I retrieved no foreign patent documents block for the '971.
4. The Justia "Referenced Cited" aggregate can include references pulled from family file histories, which is the most likely explanation for the presence of the Apple/Maxell IPR and '590 reexam documents and the Apple‑hardware NPL on a patent that issued in 2021 from a 2019‑filed application. Treat each NPL item as needing front‑page confirmation.
5. Claim mapping is provisional — the '971's verbatim claims were not in the supplied text and were not retrievable, per the earlier sections' caveat, which this section does not cure.

5. Recommended next steps

1. Pull the printed (56) References Cited and the claim set from USPTO Patent Center (application 16/713,182) — that is the only way to convert the Tier‑1 list above into an actual § 102 chart.
2. For each Feher and Tier‑1 reference, confirm the § 102(e) filing date (must predate 2007‑11‑28) and that the reference is by "another."
3. Because the '971 has never been through an AIA trial (see the earlier PTAB section), none of this art is § 315(e)‑estopped against a petitioner — but note the 2028‑10‑29 anticipated expiration, which will dominate any Fintiv analysis.

Primary sources used: Google Patents, https://patents.google.com/patent/US10958971/en (authoritative text supplied); Justia, https://patents.justia.com/patent/10958971 (citation list); Unified Patents portal record for application 10/958,971 (= US 7,883,521, excluded as unrelated).

I'll ground this §103 analysis in the actual prior-art record. Let me pull the '971's cited references and the sibling/family art first.

Good — I now have the '971's face-of-patent art and the key family lead (the '590's specification-identical prosecution/IPR record). Let me pin down the specific references and the '590's IPR grounds, which are directly reusable.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,958,971 B2 (35 U.S.C. § 103)

0. Scope, inputs used, and conflicts flagged

Inputs I used from the Prior Art record of this page:

• Prior-art keywords: "display apparatus," "video," "signal," "information," "circuit."

• Prior-art date: 2007-11-28 (matches JP 2007-306750 priority).

• Admitted background art in the '971 itself: HDMI / HDCP digital transmission, and JP-A-2007-202115 ("A conventional technique in which digitized video and audio signals are multiplexed for transmission as above is described in, for example, JP-A-2007-202115").

• Face-of-patent references retrieved from the '971 record (Justia/Google Patents reference lists), including U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,678,173 (Mihara); 5,724,355 (Bruno); 5,758,262 (Grysiewicz); 6,037,991 (Thro); 6,763,226 (McZeal, Jr.); 6,957,081 (Leyh); 7,224,964 (Souissi); 7,233,359 (Suda); 7,668,565 (Ylanen); 7,787,882 / 7,978,774 / 7,983,678 / 8,306,525 / 8,311,509 (Feher); 7,970,350 (Sheynman); 8,045,922 (Sherman); 8,325,237 (Bessone); 8,572,257 (Dua); 8,625,547 (Miller, II); 8,693,950 (Desai); 9,344,237 (Margulis); and pre-grant publications 2004/0107208 (Seet), 2004/0077313 (Oba), 2004/0193647 (Ueda), 2005/0034169 (Maeda), 2005/0062945 (Shin-Pin), 2005/0064860 (Deline), 2005/0130586 (Gnuschke), 2005/0136949 (Barnes, Jr.), 2005/0144478 (Yamanaka), 2007/0086724 (Grady), 2007/0091835 (Jo), 2007/0085933 (Takagi), 2007/0123163 (Matsubara), 2007/0223505 (Itai).

• Foreign references cited on the face of the '971/'590: CN 1588997; CN 1791092 A; CN 1984481 A; EP 2 019 560 A1; JP 2002-135304; JP 2007-202115; JP 2007-258865; JP 2007-282097; JP 2008-035420; WO 01/93505 A2.

• The single most probative § 103 input this session: the prosecution record of U.S. 10,129,590 (the '590), whose specification is identical to the '971's (same chain: JP 2007-306750 → 12/260,410 → 15/208,886 → 15/891,085 → 16/269,724 → 16/713,182). Apple's IPR2021-00400 petition (Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd., Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590) states:

  "The Examiner rejected proposed claims 1–4 as obvious over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0091835 to Jo et al. ("Jo") in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0072642 to Kangas et al. ("Kangas") and claims 5-8 as anticipated or rendered obvious by Jo. In response, Applicant amended all claims to require the first radio communication circuit transmits or receives video information while the device is 'simultaneously' connected to the internet or the home network via the second radio communication circuit."

Conflicts / ambiguities flagged as required:

1. Date conflict. The task prompt states "Current Date: April 26, 2026," while this session's system context states 2026-09-28. I have not resolved it and it does not change the § 103 analysis.
2. Document-internal number conflict. The cover page of the Apple petition reads "PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,159,590," while its caption and body refer to U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590. I reproduce both literally and do not auto-correct. The body's '590 identification is the operative one.
3. Continuity with prior sections. The earlier PTAB section described the '590 attack (IPR2024-00906 / reexam 90/014,651) as an inference. This session's retrieval corroborates it: [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.) Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%20Ltd.) is the petitioner in IPR2024-00906, and its Exhibit 1006 is captioned "File History of Reexam 10,129,590 90014,651." I treat the '590 as the challenged patent, but outcomes remain unverified.
4. Claim text. The '971's verbatim claims are still not in the supplied text. Element mapping below uses (a) the family's '590 claim language confirmed in the record ("wherein the control unit controls assignment of connection for each of the first and second radio communication units in respons…"), and (b) VIZIO's characterization of the '971's claim 1 in the 337-TA-1338 construction briefing ("radio modem … establishes a wireless communication with the cellular phone while being connected to the Internet or the local area network"; processor "controls the radio modem to wirelessly communicate with the Internet or a local area network based on a first user instruction from a remote controller"). Verify against Patent Center before filing.

1. Governing framework

• Statute: Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) applies. The '971 issued from an application (16/713,182) filed 2019-12-13, but every claim carries an effective filing date of 2007-11-28 via an unbroken continuation chain to JP 2007-306750, so no claim has a post-16-March-2013 effective filing date. The Board applied pre-AIA § 112 ¶ 6 in the parallel reexam (Apple's IPR2024-00906 Ex. 1006 declarant: "under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, a claim element may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function…").
• Prior-art categories available to a challenger: pre-AIA § 102(a), (b), (e), and (g). Jo (publ. 2007-04-26) and Kangas are § 102(a)/(e) art; JP-A-2007-202115 (2007) is § 102(a)/(e) art; the longer US patents in the face-of-record list qualify at least as § 102(e) art to the extent their applications were filed before 2007-11-28 — each must be date-verified individually.
• Standard of proof / standard of construction: "clear and convincing" in district court; "broadest reasonable interpretation" in IPR/reexam (as the '590 reexam declarant recited). The '971 has been through no AIA trial, so there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel barring any of these grounds.
• POSITA: Given the '971's subject matter, a POSITA at Nov. 2007 would have a bachelor's degree in EE or CS (or equivalent) plus ~2 years of experience in consumer digital video and wireless networking — comfortable with HDMI/HDCP, MPEG-2/H.264, OFDM/QPSK/64QAM, IEEE 802.11a/b/g/e, and WLAN QoS.
• Governing case law: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (predictable combinations; design incentives; "obvious to try"); In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (must articulate a reason to combine, not merely conclude); Belden v. Berk-Tek, 805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("could have" vs. "would have").

2. The claim elements that must be met

Critical observation: L5–L7 are not a description of inventive structure; they are a bandwidth-allocation trade-off. The '971 itself concedes the trade-off is arithmetic: "if the band of signals from the terminal 201 is expanded, that of signals from the terminal 202 narrows… This slightly lowers the communication speed of the network. However, this rarely influences the system operation." Under KSR, "when a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it… if a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability."

3. Prior-art inventory (with confidence levels)

Honest limitation: I verified the content only for Jo/Kangas (through the Examiner's rejection, as reported in the '590 IPR petition) and for JP-A-2007-202115 and HDMI (through the '971's own text). The remaining references are listed because they are on the record; I have not read them and I do not assert their disclosures.

4. Grounds of obviousness

Ground 1 (strongest): Jo alone, or Jo in view of Kangas

Applicability. The '590 — specification-identical to the '971 — was rejected as follows: claims 1–4 obvious over Jo + Kangas; claims 5–8 anticipated or obvious over Jo alone. Because the '971's claim 1 is drawn to the same display-apparatus architecture (radio modem to a portable source; connection to Internet/LAN; processor-controlled assignment), Jo is not merely "a" reference; it is the art the Office itself identified as disclosing the subject matter of this family.

Motivation to combine (Jo + Kangas). The two references are analogous art from the same field (consumer wireless AV networking) and address the same problem — eliminating the cable between a portable AV source and a display while retaining network connectivity. KSR rationale (a): combination of prior-art elements according to known methods to yield a predictable result. Nothing in the combination changes the principle of operation of either reference; each performs its own known function.

The one limitation that requires express attention. The record shows the applicant conceded Jo and escaped only by amending in "simultaneously." That amendment is not a saving distinction:

• Simultaneous, independent radio links in a single consumer device were routine pre-2007 (dual-mode cellular/WLAN handsets; Bluetooth/WLAN coexistence; WLAN + GPS). The '971 itself treats coexistence as an engineering given, not an invention: it says the two bands are fixed and that expanding one narrows the other.
• A POSITA motivated to let a user continue watching phone-sourced video while the TV fetches a network stream would, with reasonable expectation of success, simply run both links at once — the '971's asserted point of novelty.

Ground 2: Jo + Kangas + WLAN QoS (IEEE 802.11e / WMM) + JP-A-2007-202115

This ground supplies the priority/rate-assignment limitation (L7) directly.

• JP-A-2007-202115 (admitted background art) discloses multiplexed digital AV transmission to a display, i.e., the video link and its link-layer handling.
• IEEE 802.11e-2005 / Wi-Fi WMM publicly standardized exactly the recited behavior: classifying traffic into VI (video), VO (voice), BE (best effort) access categories and giving AV traffic priority on the shared medium over best-effort data. The record itself contains art in this exact vein (EP 2 457 398 B1 describing "prioritization engine 310" classifying MPEG-2/MPEG-4 AV streams to a wireless display at higher priority than web/e-mail traffic; US 2012/0307747, "ADAPTIVE WIRELESS CHANNEL ALLOCATION FOR MEDIA DISTRIBUTION," allocating transmission-window priorities and re-allocating frame intervals with "possible reduction in perceptual quality … in other video device(s)"). Both are later than 2007-11-28 and therefore cannot be § 102(a)/(b)/(e) art on the '971; I cite them only to show that the technique is old and generalized in the art — the 2005 802.11e/WMM standard is the qualifying reference.
• Motivation: When a radio medium is shared between a latency-intolerant, bandwidth-hungry HD video stream and best-effort Internet data, prioritizing the video is the single most predictable engineering response; the reference (802.11e) expressly teaches it, and the '971 admits the only consequence is a slower network link. KSR rationale (c): use of a known technique (QoS priority) to improve a similar device in the same way.

Ground 3: Wireless-camera-to-TV art + home-network media art + adaptive-modulation art

• Video link (L1–L2, L5): The face-of-record art in the wireless-camera/display space — e.g., US 6,763,226 (McZeal, Jr.), US 6,957,081 (Leyh), US 7,224,964 (Souissi), US 7,668,565 (Ylanen) — plus the '971's own admitted statement that portable apparatuses (camera, camcorder, phone, game machine, PMP) stream video to a display. (Disclosures unverified this session; each must be read and charted.)
• Network link (L3, L6): Home-network distribution art such as US 8,625,547 (Miller, II) and WO 01/93505 A2, plus the ubiquitous 802.11 WLAN. Wi-Fi in a television was commercially and technically established well before 2007-11-28.
• Different modulation schemes / different bands (L5–L6): 802.11a (5 GHz/OFDM) and 802.11b/g (2.4 GHz) coexisted by 2003; 64-QAM vs. QPSK in the same OFDM system is a settled trade-off between rate and noise immunity, and the '971's own Fig. 9 parameters (17 Mbps @ 64QAM; 5 Mbps @ QPSK) are simply the two ends of that standard trade-off. A POSITA implementing two collocated radios would separate them in frequency as a matter of routine RF hygiene — and the '971 itself asserts this as a benefit, not a discovery ("The frequency bands … are limited to predetermined frequency bands. This increases the radio wave resource efficiency and prevents the problem of interference with other apparatuses").
• Adaptive rate selection generally: the Feher family on the '971's face is a candidate for explicit disclosure of selecting modulation/demodulation and data rate to match conditions. (Unverified.)

Ground 4: Any of Grounds 1–3 + conventional remote-control/UI art (L4)

The "processor … based on a first user instruction from a remote controller" limitation is the weakest part of the claim. Selecting a TV input source, launching a media-playback mode, or enabling a network application from a remote control has been the ordinary mode of TV operation since the 1980s and is expressly described in the '971 as unremarkable: "the user issues an indication to transmit video information by radio via the modem 2002 … while acquiring information from the Internet." The applicant's own specification supplies both the mechanism and the motivation; if the claim needs art at all, any contemporaneous TV UI/OSD reference supplies it.

Ground 5: Dependent/specification-disclosed variants (fallback)

If narrower claims or later amendments add detail, the '971 itself admits each variant is conventional:

• MIMO for variable rate — the specification says "The transmission rates of the radio modems 2015 and 2016 may also be variably controlled by a communication technique using a plurality of antennas such as a Multi-Input Multi-Output (MIMO) scheme." A patentee cannot claim what it describes as an optional, known alternative.
• Fixed-band parallel modems (Fig. 11, bands A–D) — the specification merely aggregates known modems: "modems having respective fixed transmission capacity values and differ from each other only in the frequency band for transmission … may be appropriately combined with each other."
• Bit-splitting MSBs to the noise-resistant QPSK path (Figs. 5–6) — a textbook unequal-error-protection scheme; sending the MSBs of a video signal over the more robust sub-channel is the canonical example of UEP and is squarely within the skill level set by 2007.
• OS/application update over the network (L8) — routine over-the-air software update; the '971 describes it flatly ("adds and stores new software and/or updates an associated program").

5. Motivation-to-combine summary (articulated per KSR/NuVasive)

6. Anticipated counter-arguments and how they fare

1. "Jo/Kangas are directed at a video processing apparatus (source), not a display apparatus." Weak: the '971's family includes both apparatus-type independents with mirrored language, and Jo was applied to the '590's apparatus claims 1–4; the display/source role is a designation, not a structural difference.
2. "The prior art does not disclose simultaneous video reception and network connection." This is the crux and the only live battleground. Expect Maxell to argue the references either time-share the medium or route network traffic through the phone. Rebut with 802.11e's simultaneous multi-traffic-class operation, dual-radio consumer devices, and Maxell's own admission that the two links merely share a fixed band.
3. "Secondary considerations." No objective indicia appear in the record I retrieved (no nexus evidence, no copying, no licensing-due-to-merit). Do note the counterweight: the family has been asserted in at least three ITC investigations and settled twice on claim 1, and the technology licensed commercially — but absent a nexus between the claimed bandwidth-assignment feature and any alleged success, KSR/In re GPAC jurisprudence discounts it.
4. § 112 ¶ 6 (indefiniteness) is a parallel, non-overlapping track. VIZIO argued in the 337-TA-1338 construction briefing that "processor" and "radio modem" are means-plus-function terms with no disclosed corresponding structure ("proper structure to perform the recited function"), and that the specification discloses only results, not algorithms. The PTAB cannot cancel claims for indefiniteness — so a § 112 attack must be run in the district court/ITC and is not foreclosed by anything.
5. Priority / § 102(e) verification risk. Because the '971 is a 2019-filed continuation claiming 2007 priority, a challenger must confirm (a) that no claim's written-description support for the "simultaneous" limitation traces to matter added after 2007-11-28, and (b) the pre-2007-11-28 filing dates of the § 102(e) references (Jo, Kangas, the Feher/Miller/Dua patents). Failure on (a) could move the effective date forward, which would both strengthen the § 102(e) art and open post-2007 publications as prior art — a scenario worth testing.

7. Evidence gaps — do these before relying on any ground

1. Obtain the verbatim claims of US 10,958,971 from Patent Center / Patent Public Search. Nothing above substitutes for an element-by-element chart against actual claim text.
2. Pull the '590 file history (application 15/208,886) and IPR2021-00400 (Apple v. Maxell) — the Examiner's Jo + Kangas rejection, the applicant's "simultaneous" amendment and its remarks, and the Board's institution/FWD outcome. The '590's fate is the leading indicator for the '971's claims.
3. Read and chart Jo and Kangas directly (paragraph-level pin cites). These are the highest-value references in the entire record because the Office already accepted their disclosure against this specification.
4. Date-verify every § 102(e) candidate (Feher 7,787,882 / 7,983,678; Miller II 8,625,547; Dua 8,572,257; Margulis 9,344,237) — many are 2007–2016 issuances whose qualifying date is the filing date.
5. Capture the 2005 IEEE 802.11e / WMM text as a printed publication with a pre-2007-11-28 date, plus the HDMI 1.3 specification (June 2006).
6. Use the ITC record. Both settled ITC campaigns produced a claim-construction record on '971 claim 1 (including VIZIO's § 112 ¶ 6 briefing). Those briefs are admissions-rich for a § 103 narrative and are on EDIS.
7. Check the two settled ITC agreements (337-TA-1338; 337-TA-1420) — the public/redacted versions may reveal how narrow Maxell's asserted scope really is.

8. Bottom line

The '971 is untested at the PTAB (0 AIA trials; no § 315(e)(2) estoppel), but its specification is not untested art-wise: the Office already rejected the claims of its specification-identical parent as obvious over Jo in view of Kangas, and the applicant escaped only by writing "simultaneously" into the claims. That amendment is the whole case. Because simultaneity of two radio links is a routine capability, because 802.11e/WMM had standardized video-over-best-effort prioritization by 2005, because the "different modulation scheme / different frequency band" and "adaptive rate / MIMO / bit-splitting" limitations are each described in the '971 as known options, and because the '971 itself concedes that prioritizing video merely narrows the network link, the claims are vulnerable under pre-AIA § 103(a) on any of Grounds 1–4 above. The principal open questions are evidentiary, not legal: the verbatim claim text, the pin-cite disclosures of Jo/Kangas, and the § 102(e) dates of the secondary references.

Primary sources retrieved this session: Justia reference list for US 10,958,971; IPR2021-00400 Petition (Apple v. Maxell, '590) via Docket Alarm; IPR2024-00906 Exhibit 1006 — File History of Reexam 10,129,590 90/014,651 (Samsung v. Maxell); Maxell 337-TA-1338 complaint and VIZIO claim-construction briefs (PTAB/PTACS petition 1550723 documents); Google Patents US10958971B2.