US 10970995

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number, including any litigation activity.

Let me dig into the litigation dockets and any Federal Circuit (CAFC) activity.

I have good coverage. Let me verify a few specifics: possible CAFC activity, and a certificate of correction noted in the legal events.

US 10,970,995 B2 — Analyst Summary

Search scope note: I searched for the exact number 10,970,995 and did not substitute any similar identifier. One caveat up front: I found no CAFC / Federal Circuit 2026 docket involving this patent. The Federal Circuit's public argument calendars I could reach do not list NEC or this patent number, and no appeal docket surfaced. I therefore cannot confirm any pending or decided Federal Circuit proceeding for the '995 patent as of this date. All litigation I could verify is district-court level (2024 filings).

Bibliographic data (as reported by Google Patents and Justia)

Prosecution lineage: The application is a continuation of Ser. No. 15/546,717 (published as US 2018/0276983 A1), itself the U.S. national stage of PCT/JP2016/000783, claiming priority from Singapore application 10201501222X. Family members include JP6766812B2, WO2016132734A1, SG11201706695SA, US20190213868A1, and later continuations US 11,670,159 B2, US 12,272,230 B2, US 2025/0182610 A1, and US 2025/0225862 A1.

Abstract (verbatim)

"A system for monitoring event related data including a sensor data analyzer, an event analyzer and an actuator is disclosed. The sensor data analyzer detects events based on sensor data, the event analyzer couples to the sensor data analyzer and estimates the size of the detected entire events based on event related data of the detected events from the sensor data analyzer, and the actuator couples to the sensor data analyzer and the event analyzer and actuates a predetermined device based on the estimated size of the detected entire events."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The patent has 15 claims, with three independent claims — claim 1 (system), claim 6 (method), and claim 11 (non-transitory computer-readable storage medium). All three are substantively parallel; the medium and method claims recite the same three-step logic.

Claim 1 — Control system (apparatus):

• A system with at least one memory storing instructions and at least one processor.
• The processor is configured to: (1) detect that an event occurred in a surveillance area using sensor data; (2) identify the type of the detected event; and (3) control a predetermined imaging range of a camera depending on the identified event type in that surveillance area.
• Two negative/structural limitations close the claim: "varieties of imaging ranges" and "varieties of types" correspond to each other (i.e., there is a defined mapping between event types and imaging ranges), and the varieties of imaging ranges are defined differently depending on the type (i.e., at least two event types map to non-identical imaging ranges).

Claim 6 — Control method: The same three steps (detect event in surveillance area from sensor data → identify event type → control a predetermined camera imaging range depending on the identified type), with the same two "correspond to each other / defined differently depending on the type" limitations.

Claim 11 — Non-transitory computer-readable storage medium: A program that, when run, performs the same three steps, again with the same corresponding-varieties and differently-defined-limitations.

Dependent claims (representative):

• 3 / 8 / 13: the number of imaging-range varieties defined by the control is not less than three (i.e., at least three discrete types↔range levels).
• 2 / 7 / 12: the imaging range is controlled based on a type of a sound event (e.g., breaking glass, shouting, fighting, explosion — see FIGS. 2–4).
• 4 / 9 / 14: detect an abnormal odor via an odor sensor and set the imaging range to a range depending on the odor sensor's location.
• 5 / 10 / 15: detect an unusual crowd via an infrared sensor and set the imaging range depending on the infrared sensor's location.

Notable claim/description gap: The specification and abstract are framed around estimating the size of an entire detected event (sensor data analysis part 104 + event size estimation part 108 + camera control part 110), and the actuator acting on the estimated size. The granted claims, however, recite type-driven imaging-range selection rather than a recited step of estimating event size. The written description supports the type-based embodiment (FIG. 4: explosion → "Large" → widest zoom; theft → "Small"), so this appears to be a claim-drafting choice made during the continuation prosecution rather than new matter.

⚠️ Text-fidelity flag (uncertainty): In the claim text retrieved from Google Patents, claim 1's first "wherein" clause renders as "wherein varieties of imaging ranges, including the imaging varieties of types, including the type, correspond to each other." The parallel language in claims 6 and 11 reads "wherein varieties of imaging ranges, including the imaging range, and varieties of types, including the type, correspond to each other." The claim 1 phrasing as retrieved appears internally garbled (likely an OCR/rendering artifact in the source). Because a certificate of correction dated 2025-08-19 is logged in the legal events, I could not rule out that the claim-1 wording was formally corrected. I cannot authoritatively state the post-correction text of claim 1 — a PTAB/PatentCenter or the printed correction certificate should be checked before relying on the exact claim-1 wording.

Litigation (district court, verified)

Directly tied to patent 10,970,995:

• NEC Corporation v. YI Technologies, Inc. — Texas E.D., Case 2:24-cv-00722. The Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists patent 10970995 as one of the patents in this case, with NEC categorized as a practicing/product company (not an NPE). See https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/10970995
• A contemporaneous report (PACER Monitor-sourced) states NEC filed against YI Technologies on 2024-09-03 in E.D. Tex., asserting six patents including "U.S. 10,970,995 – 'System for monitoring event related data'," with accused products including the YI Pro 2, YI Home 3 Camera, YI Outdoor Camera, Kami Doorbell Camera, Kami Outdoor Security Camera, and associated apps/cloud services (KamiCloud).

Related 2024 cases the patent is linked to at the family level (per Google Patents' litigation entries):

• 2:24-cv-00720 (E.D. Tex.) — NEC against Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd. and Anker Innovations Ltd., filed 2024-09-03; the accompanying complaint materials in the related declaratory-judgment action list the '995 patent among the six asserted NEC patents (the "Asserted NEC Patents").
• 1:24-cv-01870 (E.D. Va., filed 2024-10-24) — Power Mobile Life, LLC and Fantasia Trading, LLC d/b/a AnkerDirect v. NEC Corporation, a declaratory judgment of non-infringement action (Judge Leonie M. Brinkema). The docket shows the case was transferred to the Eastern District of Texas on 2024-11-01 and reopened there as 2:24-cv-00881.
• 2:24-cv-00881 (E.D. Tex.) — the transferred declaratory-judgment action.

Important non-match: A later NEC filing reported in September 2026 (2:26-cv-00847, E.D. Tex., against Anker Innovations) asserts US 10,223,619; 10,552,713; 10,706,336; 11,144,776; 12,423,985; and 12,641,315 — 10,970,995 is not among them. I note this so it is not mistakenly attributed to the '995 patent.

Uncertainty on current status: The docket snapshots I could retrieve for the declaratory-judgment action were last refreshed in early November 2024, and I could not retrieve 2026 docket entries or outcomes for 2:24-cv-00720 / -00722 / -00881. I therefore cannot state whether these cases are pending, stayed, settled, or dismissed as of April 2026, nor whether any appeal to the Federal Circuit has been taken.

Bottom line

US 10,970,995 is an NEC Corporation patent (inventors Tani and Arikuma), a 2019 continuation with a 2015-02-17 priority date, issued 2021-04-06, claiming a processor-driven control system/method/storage medium that detects an event in a surveillance area from sensor data, identifies the event's type, and selects one of multiple predetermined camera imaging ranges based on that type (with dependent claims covering sound-event types, ≥3 range varieties, odor-sensor location, and infrared-sensor crowd detection). It is currently Active and is being asserted by NEC in the 2024 E.D. Texas camera-surveillance suits against YI Technologies and Anker.

Two items to verify against primary sources if precision matters: (1) the exact post-certificate-of-correction wording of claim 1's "wherein" clauses; and (2) the 2026 status of the E.D. Tex. cases and whether any Federal Circuit appeal exists — I found no evidence of a CAFC appeal for this patent.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10970995 using the litigation databases you mentioned.

Let me get more details on these specific cases.

Let me dig deeper into which of these cases specifically assert the '995 patent.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 10,970,995

Summary of findings

U.S. Patent No. 10,970,995 ("System for monitoring event related data," NEC Corp., priority 2015‑02‑17, granted 2021‑04‑06) is a family member of a patent family (Family ID 56692171) that has been asserted in U.S. district court litigation starting in 2024. The patent owner is NEC Corporation (a practicing/operating company, not an NPE), acting as plaintiff in its own enforcement campaign.

Important caveat on scope: The Google Patents page lists four U.S. case numbers under the family's "Family has litigation" field, and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database specifically links the '995 patent to one of them. I am flagging where the link is patent‑specific versus family‑level, because I cannot confirm from the sources retrieved that every listed family case asserts the '995 patent itself.

Cases

1. NEC Corporation v. YI Technologies, Inc. — patent‑specific link to the '995 patent

This is the one case the Stanford NPE Litigation Database expressly lists against patent 10970995 ("NEC Corporation v. YI Technologies, Inc. | 2:24-cv-00722 | E.D.Tex."). Accused products per the complaint analysis include YI/Kami smart cameras (YI Pro 2, YI Home 3, Kami Doorbell, Kami Outdoor Security Camera) and related apps/cloud services. Source: https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/10970995 and https://ai-lab-cl-prod.azurewebsites.net/case/dct/txed/2:24-cv-00722/doc/analysis/1

2. NEC Corporation v. Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd., et al. — family‑level link

Source: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2024cv00720/[232678](/patent/232678) and https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10970995](/patent/US10970995)/en

3. Power Mobile Life, LLC, et al. v. NEC Corporation (declaratory judgment) — family‑level link

Sources: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/virginia/vaedce/1:2024cv01870/[562335](/patent/562335) ; https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/litigation/vaedce-562335-power-mobile-life-v-nec ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US10970995/en

Notes, cautions, and non‑matches

• Don't confuse with e‑Beacon LLC v. NEC Corporation, 2:24-cv-00891 (E.D. Tex., filed 11/03/2024). That is a different matter in which e‑Beacon sued NEC as defendant on unrelated patents; it does not involve the '995 patent. I note it only because it surfaces in searches alongside the NEC cases.
• Family vs. patent: Google Patents' "Family has litigation" section identifies case numbers at the family level (Family ID 56692171). Only the Stanford NPE database gave a patent‑specific match (2:24‑cv‑00722). If you need litigation strictly on the '995 patent (as opposed to the family), the '722 case is the cleanest documented assertion; the '720 and the transferred '881 DJ case should be verified against their complaints/PACER before being attributed to the '995 patent specifically.
• No appellate (CAFC) activity involving the '995 patent was found in the sources retrieved.
• Current status caution: My docket data for these cases is only as recent as late 2024. I cannot confirm subsequent developments, settlements, claim construction, IPR activity, or termination from the sources available to me. Treat all "outcome/status" entries as "pending; not verified beyond late 2024."

Source list

• Google Patents – US10970995B2 (family litigation field): https://patents.google.com/patent/US10970995/en
• Stanford NPE Litigation Database – patent 10970995: https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/10970995
• Justia Dockets – NEC v. Anker Innovations, 2:24‑cv‑00720: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2024cv00720/232678
• Justia Dockets – Power Mobile Life v. NEC, 1:24‑cv‑01870: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/virginia/vaedce/1:2024cv01870/562335
• RPX Empower – Power Mobile Life v. NEC: https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/litigation/vaedce-562335-power-mobile-life-v-nec

If you want, I can next pull the actual complaints for 2:24‑cv‑00720 and 2:24‑cv‑00881 to confirm whether the '995 patent is expressly pleaded in each, and check PACER/Unified Patents for post‑2024 status updates.

I'll check the structured data against live sources before writing this up.

Initial searches surfaced no proceedings. Let me probe more specifically, including the litigation campaigns (which would normally attract IPRs).

Let me run additional targeted checks for any IPR by the accused defendants or a defensive aggregator.

PTAB AIA Trial Proceedings — US 10,970,995 ("System for monitoring event related data")

Bottom line up front: there are no AIA trial proceedings on this patent. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns an empty proceedings list, and my independent web checks (PTAB E2E/P-TACTS document index, Darts-ip/Unified litigation feeds, CAFC/CourtListener, and petitioner-side press) surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming US 10,970,995 as the challenged patent. I found no proceeding number to report, and I will not invent one. Treat the absence as the finding.

Proceedings overview

Total proceedings: 0. Breakdown by status: 0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denied. All fifteen issued claims (1–15) are untested at the Board, and no petitioner has incurred any estoppel. The defensive posture this gives a defendant is the opposite of "hardened": the patent has never been through an adversarial validity proceeding in the USPTO, so there is no FWD to cite, no canceled claim to point at, and no institution decision whose reasoning you can borrow. Every ground — § 102, § 103, § 112, and § 101-eligibility (a district-court remedy rather than a PTAB one post-SAS/patent-eligibility practice) — remains fully available to the first challenger.

Proceedings on file: none

Because the structured block is empty, there is no {PROCEEDING_NUMBER} — {Petitioner} v. {Patent Owner} entry to populate. For completeness, the fields that would normally be filled are all "N/A":

• Type: N/A — no IPR, PGR, or CBM on file.
• Filed: N/A.
• Status: N/A (the patent itself is Active, anticipated expiration 2036-02-16, per the structured data — that is prosecution/legal status, not an AIA trial status).
• Judge panel: N/A.
• Petition grounds: N/A.
• Institution decision: N/A.
• Final Written Decision: N/A.
• Settlement / termination: N/A.
• Appeal: N/A — there is no PTAB decision to appeal to the Federal Circuit.
• Defensive value: None of the usual "claim 1 is dead" leverage exists. See the caveat below about the 2025-08-19 certificate of correction — verify the operative claim text before you build anything on it.

What I checked, and what is on the docket (non-PTAB)

The reason the zero-count deserves attention is that this patent is actively asserted, which is precisely the condition under which IPRs normally appear:

• NEC Corporation sued YI Technologies, Inc. on 2024-09-03 in E.D. Tex. (2:24-cv-00722), asserting the '995 patent among six surveillance/AI patents. See the NPE Litigation Database entry for the patent: npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/10970995.
• NEC also sued Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd. / Anker Innovations Ltd. (d/b/a "eufy") in E.D. Tex. (2:24-cv-00720), asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 9,953,240; 10,037,467; 10,970,995; 10,999,635; 11,210,526; and 11,537,814. Anker responded with a declaratory-judgment action against NEC in E.D. Va. (1:24-cv-01870) — the 35 U.S.C. § 293-based DJ complaint quoted in the search results expressly lists the '995 patent.
• Two further E.D. Tex. cases appear in the structured litigation block (2:24-cv-00881 and 2:24-cv-00722). I could not confirm from the available sources that the '995 patent is asserted in 2:24-cv-00881; do not assume it is without pulling that complaint.
• In the Anker case, the court (Judge Rodney Gilstrap) denied Anker's Rule 12(c) § 101 motion as to the '467, '526, and '814 patents (2026-06-04). The '995 patent was not among the four patents Anker moved on, so there is no § 101 ruling on the '995 claims to rely on. Reported at [IP Law Daily, 2026-06-11] and on CourtListener: NEC Corp. v. Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd..

Search terms that returned nothing bearing on this patent: "10,970,995" IPR, US10970995 inter partes review, and IPR-number queries pairing NEC with the accused defendants. PTAB petitions that did surface in those queries concerned unrelated patents owned by other NEC-family entities (e.g., NEC Display Solutions) and unrelated NPE campaigns — none challenged the '995 patent.

Strategic summary

Claim status. All of claims 1–15 are UNTESTED. Nothing is canceled, nothing is confirmed, nothing is statutorily disclaimed. That means the full claim set remains live: independent claim 1 (control system: detect event from sensor data → identify event type → control a predetermined imaging range of a camera depending on the identified type, with varieties of imaging ranges corresponding to varieties of types and "defined differently depending on the type"); independent claim 6 (the method counterpart); independent claim 11 (the non-transitory CRM counterpart); and dependents 2–5 and 7–10, 12–15 covering sound-event type (2, 7, 12), "not less than three" varieties of imaging range (3, 8, 13), odor-sensor abnormal-odor detection with range set by sensor location (4, 9, 14), and infrared-sensor unusual-crowd detection with range set by sensor location (5, 10, 15). A defendant must therefore treat every one of these as an open infringement target.

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel against anyone — estoppel attaches only to a petitioner after a final written decision, and no petition exists. Practically, this is the single most favorable fact for a defendant: the first-filed IPR carries no estoppel baggage, no claim-construction findings, and no adverse expert credibility record to fight. It also means the patent owner has had no preview of how the Board reads the "varieties of imaging ranges … defined differently depending on the type" limitation — a term that reads as ripe for a § 112 definiteness or written-description attack, and which no adjudicator has yet construed.

Pattern signals. There is no repeat petitioner and no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) in the chain — a notable gap given that four district-court matters are on file and the family has been asserted since 2024-09-03, with a new round of six more NEC camera patents against Anker reported by IP Fray. Separately, the family is still producing claims: this patent is a continuation of Ser. No. 15/546,717 (abandoned; published as US20180276983A1, the national stage of PCT/JP2016/000783), and its live continuations include US 11,670,159 and US 12,272,230, with applications US 2025/0182610 and US 2025/0225862 pending (all claiming the 2015-02-17 priority date). A defendant should assume NEC can file new continuations with claims drafted against the accused products — a moving target that a one-time IPR on the '995 patent will not stop.

One housekeeping flag: a Certificate of Correction issued 2025-08-19 for this patent (per the Legal Events in the structured data). Any invalidity or infringement analysis must be run against the corrected claim text, not the printed 2021-04-06 grant. Also note the prosecution history is thick (multiple non-final/final rejections in the parent, and a finalized examiner record), which often supplies § 112 and prosecution-disclaimer ammunition.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not expect to cite an FWD — there isn't one. If opposing counsel or a demand letter implies the patent has been "upheld by the PTAB," that is false: no petition has ever been filed. There is no IPR decision to link to, and accordingly no "claims 1-5 canceled" argument available to you.
2. Verify the corrected claims first. Pull the certificate of correction dated 2025-08-19 from the file wrapper via USPTO PatentCenter and confirm the operative text of claims 1, 6, and 11 before finalizing any invalidity contentions.
3. Pull the full PTAB E2E record yourself before relying on this memo. Because the ODP ingest can lag, check the patent's AIA trial tab directly at the PTAB E2E / P-TACTS public portal (search "10,970,995"). If a petition was filed in the last few weeks, it would not yet appear in the structured data — and note that under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) a defendant served more than one year ago (NEC's complaints date to 2024-09-03) may already be time-barred from filing its own IPR, so a co-defendant's petition may be the only route in.
4. Check the statutory clock on any co-defendant. If any of Anker or YI has filed a petition that simply has not surfaced, its institution decision would be due ~6 months from filing and the FWD ~12 months from institution (§ 316(a)(11)). I found no such petition; treat that as unverified rather than disproven, given the source limits noted above.
5. Exploit the untested posture. With no PTAB record, a first-filed IPR is unusually attractive: no estoppel, no prior Board construction, and an open field on § 103 combinations and § 112 against the "varieties of imaging ranges … defined differently depending on the type" language. Coordinate with the district court's § 101 track in E.D. Tex., where NEC has already shown it will drop patents it cannot defend under Alice (it dropped the '240 patent in the Anker case).
6. Watch the continuation pipeline. US 11,670,159, US 12,272,230, and pending applications US 2025/0182610 / US 2025/0225862 claim the same 2015-02-17 priority. Validity work on the '995 patent should be documented so it can be reused against later-issued sibling claims.

Sources consulted: structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP; empty); Google Patents family/claim data and legal events for US10970995B2; NPE Litigation Database — patent 10970995; NPE Litigation Database — NEC v. YI Technologies, 2:24-cv-00722; E.D. Va. DJ complaint by Anker against NEC (1:24-cv-01870) reproduced via RPX Insight; E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00720 claim-construction/§ 101 order via GovInfo and CourtListener; Photonics IP Update, Sept. 2024; IP Fray NEC coverage.

Confidence note: I have high confidence that no PTAB proceeding appears in the USPTO Open Data Portal as of the ingest, and reasonably high confidence (based on multiple negative searches of PTAB petition text and litigation feeds) that none had been filed as of the material I could retrieve. I could not access the PTAB E2E docket for this patent directly, so a very recently filed petition cannot be ruled out with certainty.

I'll reconstruct this assignment chain, starting with what the authoritative patent text shows, then verifying litigation and any post-issuance recordings.

Now let me verify the USPTO assignment record directly and check the inventors' affiliation.

Inventors

Both are NEC R&D personnel on the surveillance/imaging side; the Google Patents legal-events record for reel 048606/0307 shows execution dates spread across 2017-03-13 to 2017-07-18, i.e. the two inventors signed the assignment instrument roughly four months apart during prosecution of the parent national-stage case (Ser. No. 15/546,717).

Unusual-pattern check — not present / not determinable. There is no evidence in the record of either inventor departing NEC, and no evidence of a portfolio fire-sale. Both inventors are recorded as assignors to NEC, not as assignors away from it. I cannot confirm either inventor's current affiliation from the sources retrieved; I will not speculate.

Original assignee

NEC Corporation (Japan), 7-1, Shiba 5-chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-8001.

• Entity on the issued patent: NEC Corporation — confirmed both by the Google Patents record and by NEC's own pleadings ("NEC is the assignee listed on the face of the NEC Patents"; see Power Mobile Life, LLC et al. v. NEC Corporation, E.D. Va. No. 1:24-cv-01870, Doc. 1 ¶9).
• Product embodying the claims: Yes. NEC is a diversified operating company whose public-safety/security segment sells video-surveillance and video-analytics platforms; the accused functionality in NEC's own complaint — "imaging range adjustment functionality" — maps directly onto claim 1 of the '995 patent. NEC is not a licensing-only entity.
• Primary line of business: Enterprise IT, networks, AI/biometrics, and social-infrastructure solutions, including video surveillance and safety systems.
• Current status: Operating; active patent enforcer. Family litigation is recorded on the Google Patents page (Virginia E.D. and Texas E.D. 2024 cases; a further NEC-vs-Anker suit was filed in September 2026).

Assignment timeline

Only one assignment is recorded against this patent. There are no post-issuance transfers, and specifically no transfer to a licensing-only entity.

• 2017-03-13 to 2017-07-18 (executed) / recorded 2019-03-15 — Reel 048606/0307
  • Conveyance: Assignment (ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS' INTEREST)
  • Assignor: Arikuma, Takeshi; Tani, Masahiro (the two named inventors)
  • Assignee: NEC Corporation (Japan)
  • Correspondent: Not exposed in the Google Patents legal-events mirror. The underlying Assignment Center record for reel 048606/0307 will name the recording attorney/agent, but I was unable to retrieve that field within this session — treat this as an open verification item rather than a finding. Flag for follow-up: because this is the only link in the chain, there is by definition no recurring-correspondent pattern to test.
  • Context: Initial inventor-to-company assignment of the underlying application — routine, pre-issuance, not a transfer between operating entities.

Related family continuations (US 11,670,159; US 12,272,230; US 2025/0182610; US 2025/0225862) all list the same 2015-02-17 priority and the same assignee; none of them shows a recorded assignment event either. The Aug. 19, 2025 entry is a Certificate of Correction (a USPTO correcting document, not a conveyance) and is not an assignment.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10970995
    2015 : Priority filing in Singapore
    2016 : PCT filed by NEC
    2017 : Inventors assign rights to NEC Corp
    2019 : Assignment recorded Reel 048606 frame 0307
         : Continuation US16 354297 filed
    2021 : Patent issues as US10970995
    2024 : NEC sues Anker Innovations and YI Technologies
    2025 : Certificate of correction issued

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The chain contains a single link, inventors → NEC Corporation. No "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" entity appears anywhere in the record, and no registered-agent address is associated with any assignee.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. NEC Corporation does not appear on the Acacia / Marathon / IV / Wi-LAN / Conversant / Vringo / Pendrell / Spangenberg rosters. The Stanford NPE Litigation Database entry for patent 10970995 classifies the asserter in NEC Corporation v. YI Technologies, Inc. (2:24-cv-00722) as category "8 Product company" — i.e. the database affirmatively codes NEC as a practicing entity, not an NPE.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / not testable. With only one recorded assignment, recurrence cannot be assessed. The correspondent name is not available in the sources retrieved.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. One assignment in ten years; no chained LLCs, no sub-24-month sequences.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The sole assignment was executed in 2017 and recorded 2019-03-15. NEC's first assertion of the '995 patent is the 2024-09-03 EDTX complaint against Anker Innovations and the 2024-09-03 YI Technologies complaint — roughly five years later. Nothing was arranged to set venue or manufacture standing.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 sale, no insolvency event involving NEC and this patent.
7. Privateering — not present. The patent did not travel to a third-party asserter. Rather, NEC itself sues: NEC's Texas complaint (2:24-cv-00720, ¶13) states "NEC is the owner by assignment of the '995 Patent and possesses all rights under the '995 Patent," and NEC sent its own pre-suit licensing letter to Anker on 2024-06-03 before filing.
8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The entire chain is a single inventor-to-company assignment recorded at reel 048606/0307 on 2019-03-15 (executed 2017-03-13 to 2017-07-18), and NEC Corporation — the original and still-current assignee — remains the owner on the face of the patent. NEC shipped the technology (its own pleadings target "imaging range adjustment functionality" in accused consumer cameras), sent a licensing letter on 2024-06-03, and then sued actual competitors in its own name on 2024-09-03 (Anker Innovations, 2:24-cv-00720; YI Technologies, 2:24-cv-00722). Stanford's NPE Litigation Database independently codes NEC as a "Product company," and none of the eight NPE signals is present — this is a practicing-entity assertion campaign, not a shell-LLC monetization chain. The only evasion-style maneuver in this record runs the other direction: Anker's affiliate Fantasia Trading, LLC and Power Mobile Life, LLC filed a declaratory-judgment action (E.D. Va. 1:24-cv-01870, filed 2024-10-24, transferred to E.D. Tex. as 2:24-cv-00881), which is a defense posture, not an NPE one.

Verification: USPTO Assignment Center — search US 10,970,995 · Google Patents US10970995B2 · Stanford NPE Litigation Database — 10970995

Caveat on completeness: the correspondent-of-record field for reel 048606/0307 and the reel frame for any unindexed post-issuance filings were not retrievable in this session. The "one assignment" finding rests on the Google Patents legal-events table plus NEC's own filings; a direct Assignment Center query by patent number should be run to close that gap.

I'll research the prior art references cited against US 10,970,995, starting with the most examiner-relevant ones.

Let me examine the remaining key cited references and the prosecution record.

Prior Art Analysis — US 10,970,995 B2

Scope and method. I worked from the authoritative full text of US 10,970,995 (Google Patents, fetched 2026-09-30), which reproduces both the "Citations (29)" and "Patent Citations (32)" lists and the "Non-Patent Citations (13)" list, and I supplemented it with live searches on the individual references. I did not substitute any similar patent number. Builds on the prior sections (bibliographic data, claim chart, litigation); those are not repeated.

Two rulings that govern the whole analysis:

1. Prior-art date. The '995 patent is a post-AIA patent. Its effective filing date is the 2015-02-17 Singapore priority (SG 10201501222X), carried through PCT/JP2016/000783 (filed 2016-02-16) and continuation Ser. No. 15/546,717. So the governing framework is 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) (anything publicly available before 2015-02-17) and § 102(a)(2) (U.S. patents/applications effectively filed before 2015-02-17 and published/patented), with the § 102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership exception available for same-owner references.
2. The claims are narrower than the specification. Granted claims 1/6/11 recite type-driven imaging-range selection ("identify a type of the detected event… control a predetermined imaging range of a camera depending on the identified type… varieties of imaging ranges… and varieties of types… correspond to each other… defined differently depending on the type"). They do not recite the specification's "estimate the size of the entire event" step. This matters enormously for § 102: a reference that only detects an event and points a camera at it does not anticipate claim 1.

⚠️ Verification caveat (carried forward from the earlier analysis). The claim-1 "wherein" clause as retrieved is internally garbled, and a certificate of correction dated 2025-08-19 is logged. The claim-to-art mappings below assume the clause should read as the parallel language in claims 6 and 11 does. If the post-correction text differs materially, re-map.

⚠️ What I could not verify. The Non-Patent Citations list seven U.S. Office Actions (Appl. Nos. 15/546,717 and 16/354,323). I could not retrieve their contents, so I cannot state which references the examiner actually applied in a rejection, or on what ground. What I can identify is which citations are flagged as examiner-cited ("*") in the Google Patents record — only four of the 32.

Part 1 — The examiner-cited references (the four "*" entries)

These are the references the record shows the examiner placed of record. They are the strongest § 102 candidates, and I treat them first.

1.1 — US 2011/0013018 A1 (Leblond), "Automated Camera Response in a Surveillance Architecture" — the closest reference

Description. A "detection and response device" for a peer-to-peer surveillance architecture. It receives data indicating an event occurred, determines whether the event occurred within a defined "geospace," and then executes stored instructions corresponding to that geospace. The instructions control the cameras — "the response may depend on the type of event, the location of the event, or both" — and a "predefined response may include automatically targeting one or more cameras to areas relevant to the event and presenting one or more predefined views." Different geospaces produce different camera targeting and different predefined views.

§ 102 assessment:

• Claim 1 (detect event from sensor data → control camera): largely met by the disclosure. The device detects an event from sensors and automatically controls camera targeting.
• Claim 1's type-identification and type→imaging-range mapping limitations: not clearly disclosed. Leblond's trigger for the branch is the geospace (a location), with event type mentioned only as a secondary "characteristic" in the summary. There is no disclosed table in which varieties of event types map to varieties of imaging ranges defined differently per type. The different "predefined views" are selected streams/UI layouts, not enumerated camera imaging ranges varying by type.
• Verdict: Strongest single reference in the record, but I do not read it as a clean § 102 anticipation of claim 1 as granted. It is an excellent § 103 primary reference — its express teaching that the automated camera response "may depend on the type of event" supplies the motivation to map event types to camera behavior, and it is applied against claims 1, 6, 11 and (via the type-of-response teaching) 2/7/12.
• Note for the reader: because the reference granted as US 9,786,164 B2, the issued claims — which recite controlling "at least one of the cameras to target… first areas… in response to an event that occurs within a first geospace" — should be pulled and compared, not just the 2011 pre-grant publication. I retrieved the grant's abstract/summary but not its claim set; verify the granted claims before relying on this.

1.2 — US 2006/0056056 A1 (Ahiska et al., Grandeye), "Automatically Expanding the Zoom Capability of a Wide-Angle Video Camera"

Description. A wide-angle "master" camera identifies regions of interest (RoI) by motion detection/object tracking and sends Pan-Tilt-Zoom (PTZ) control signals to one or more steerable "slave" cameras to aim and zoom onto the RoI, then substitutes the higher-resolution slave image for the corresponding master-camera region to "expand the zoom capability" of the master.

§ 102 assessment:

• Claim 1's "control a predetermined imaging range of a camera": the reference plainly controls camera zoom and field of view (claims 130–136 recite "automatically controlling the field of vision of said slave camera… to achieve an approximate match").
• Claim 1's trigger: however, the trigger is a detected moving object / region of interest, not an identified event type, and certainly not a mapping of plural event types to plural differently-defined imaging ranges.
• Verdict: Not anticipatory of claim 1. Best used as a § 103 secondary reference to supply the "control a predetermined imaging range of a camera" element (zoom in/out, field-of-view adjustment) in combination with an event-type classifier. It also has some bearing on dependent claims 3/8/13 (multiple discrete zoom levels), though it does not label them as type-correlated.

1.3 — US 6,970,183 B1 (Monroe, E-Watch), "Multimedia Surveillance and Monitoring System Including Network Configuration"

Description. A comprehensive networked multimedia surveillance system: megapixel/full-motion cameras, wireless sensors, WAN/Internet distribution, a central server performing "data collection, alarm detection and processing, access control, dispatch processing… preset responses to triggers and triggering events," geolocation of events and personnel, automatic mapping and dispatch, and remote control of cameras including "remote orientation or image zooming control for a PTZ camera."

§ 102 assessment:

• The reference discloses an anomaly/event-driven, preset-response architecture that controls cameras (including zoom) and dispatches responders based on detected events. Its classification G08B13/19697 ("non-video detectors generate an alarm themselves") is one of the '995 patent's own classifications.
• But it is a system-level disclosure, and I found no teaching of identifying an event type and selecting among plural predetermined imaging ranges mapped to those types.
• Verdict: Not anticipatory of claim 1. A § 103 backbone reference for the "detect events from sensor data → actuate a predetermined device" architecture, and arguably relevant to the specification's alarm-notification-destination aspect (FIG. 8 / "dispatch processing"), though that aspect is not claimed in the '995 patent.

1.4 — US 2012/0131985 A1 (Brasfield), "Target Odor Detection and Security Apparatus"

Description. A target-odor screening apparatus: a screening station/portal through which persons or conveyances pass, an airflow inducer that entrains odors to an observation room, animate or inanimate odor detectors to identify a target odor (explosives, narcotics, chemical/biological weapons), and a control system that, on a "triggering event," locks doors, activates an event indicator (siren, flashing light, "security assets that can be activated"), begins permanent recording of visual data from a first camera, and issues a control response that differs depending on which detector fired. The specification also discusses different protocols depending on the type of target odor (explosive vs. narcotic).

§ 102 assessment:

• Dependent claims 4 / 9 / 14 ("detect an abnormal odor as the event based on the sensor data provided by an odor sensor; and set the imaging range to a range depending on a location of the odor sensor"): partially met — odor sensing and a camera are both present, and there is a differential response by odor type. Not fully met: I found no teaching of setting a camera's imaging range based on the odor sensor's location; Brasfield's camera is triggered/recorded, not re-ranged to the sensor location.
• Verdict: Not anticipatory. The correct use is § 103 as the secondary reference for dependent claims 4/9/14 (odor-sensor trigger) combined with a camera-ranging primary reference. It does not touch independent claim 1.

Part 2 — Of-record references by technical category

The remaining citations are not flagged as examiner-cited in the retrieved record. I assess them under § 102 anyway, because the task calls for it.

2.1 Camera control / imaging-range adjustment

2.2 Monitoring / surveillance systems (general background)

2.3 Disaster / emergency-management references

Part 3 — Consolidated § 102 verdict table

Bottom line

• No reference of record, on the face of what I could retrieve, anticipates granted claim 1 (or its parallel claims 6 and 11). Every cited reference that detects an event and controls a camera does so on the basis of location, coverage, or a region of interest — not on an identified event type mapped to a set of differently-defined predetermined imaging ranges, which is the novelty that survived prosecution into the granted claims.
• The single most relevant reference is US 2011/0013018 A1 (Leblond), granted as US 9,786,164 B2. It is examiner-cited, it is § 102(a)(1) art, and it expressly contemplates that the automated camera response "may depend on the type of event, the location of the event, or both." It is the natural § 103 primary reference; the gap it leaves (enumerated type→imaging-range varieties) is what the other references must supply.
• The date-dangerous reference is US 9,781,348 B1 (Alarm.com) — not examiner-cited, but a § 102(a)(2) reference with a 2014-11-03 effective filing date and a different owner, so the common-ownership exception does not save it. This is the reference most worth pulling in full.
• Watch the two NEC references. WO 2014/174737 A1 is NEC's own published application and is § 102(a)(1) art (publication date defeats the common-ownership exception). US 2017/0237942 A1 is § 102(a)(2) art on dates but is likely disqualified by § 102(b)(2)(C) common ownership with the '995 patent. Both teach the "capture the whole event via combined camera FOV" concept that is the '995 specification's stated purpose — significant for written-description/enablement and for § 103, even though neither anticipates the type-based claims.
• Three items I could not verify and that should be checked against primary sources before any of this is relied on: (1) the post-certificate-of-correction text of claim 1 (the 2025-08-19 correction); (2) the actual grounds of the 2019–2020 Office Actions in Ser. Nos. 15/546,717 and 16/354,323 (listed in the Non-Patent Citations but not retrievable here), which would tell you exactly which of these references the examiner applied under § 102 vs. § 103; and (3) the granted claims of US 9,786,164 B2 and US 9,781,348 B1, which I did not retrieve and which may be broader or narrower than the publications I relied on.

I'll research the key prior-art references listed on the patent's face so my § 103 analysis rests on what those references actually disclose.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,970,995 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note / caveat on dates. My system context is dated 2026‑09‑30; the task header says April 26, 2026. I note the discrepancy but it does not affect this analysis, which is legal/technical rather than date-sensitive. All legal-status statements below are as reported on the Google Patents record supplied; nothing here was independently verified against PatentCenter.

Scope note / source limits. Per my operating rules I did not auto-correct any identifier. I verified the disclosures of the five references I lean on most (Leblond, Alarm.com/Bart, Grandeye/Ahiska, Brasfield, Fujifilm) from primary PDFs. I was unable to verify in full several other face-of-patent references (Sensormatic US 6,791,603; Thompson US 2009/0040302; Hitachi Kokusai WO 2013/140671 / JP 2013‑196655; Boeing US 7,872,948; Visionic US 5,693,943) because I hit a tool-step limit. Those are flagged as unverified wherever I reference them, and I do not rest any conclusion solely on them.

I also carry forward from the earlier sections two flags that materially affect this analysis:

1. The claim‑1 "wherein" clause is garbled in the retrieved text and a certificate of correction (2025‑08‑19) is logged. My construction of the "correspond to each other / defined differently" limitations is based on the internally consistent parallel language in claims 6 and 11. If the corrected claim 1 differs, the mapping analysis below should be re‑run.
2. The spec/abstract are framed around estimating the size of an entire event, whereas the granted claims recite type‑driven imaging‑range selection. That gap is favorable to an obviousness challenge (broad claim, narrower disclosure), but it also gives the patentee a claim‑construction counterargument — addressed in § 7.

1. The governing legal framework

The two closing limitations of independent claims 1/6/11 do not add a new physical step; they recite that a mapping exists and that at least two event types map to non‑identical ranges. That is the classic "lookup table" limitation (cf. the '995 spec's own FIG. 8 lookup table 800), and it is where the obviousness case is easiest.

2. Element‑by‑element mapping of independent claim 1

Verdict: every element finds a disclosure, but element 1(d) — tying a field of view / zoom parameter specifically to an event type — is not cleanly in any single reference. That is why the strongest ground is a three‑reference combination, and why the two‑reference grounds each need one § 103 bridge.

3. Ground 1 — Leblond + Grandeye (primary ground)

References.

• US 2011/0013018 A1 (Leblond, Raymond G.; pub. 2011‑01‑20; priority 2008‑05‑23) — Automated Camera Response in a Surveillance Architecture. https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-20110013018-A1 ; family text: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/02/5a/61/5a5e6e4061c9f5/[US9786164](/patent/US9786164).pdf ; https://www.patents-review.com/a/20110013018-automated-camera-response-surveillance-architecture.html
• US 2006/0056056 A1 (Ahiska et al., Grandeye Ltd.; pub. 2006‑03‑16; granted as US 7,990,422 B2) — Automatically Expanding the Zoom Capability of a Wide‑Angle Video Camera. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/d4/62/38/1889c9f0854b2e/US20060056056A1.pdf

How the combination reads on claim 1. Leblond supplies 1(a)–(c), the geospace→response mapping (1e), and the "different response for a different event" architecture (1f). Grandeye supplies the missing 1(d): the recognized technique of automatically selecting a zoom/magnification (imaging range) in response to a detected event of interest, including iterative PTZ commands to "zoom the slave camera onto the RoI."

Motivation to combine (KSR rationales).

1. Same field, same problem. Both are video surveillance systems; both address the same deficiency the '995 identifies — a fixed camera view misses or under‑resolves an event in a wide area. Leblond's own words: "traditional systems are generally configured to provide general surveillance without regard for a particular situation or event."
2. Leblond expressly invites the improvement. Leblond's stated response is to present "one or more predefined views optimized for viewing the event." Whether the view is optimized by aiming (pan/tilt) or by magnification (zoom/FOV) is a design choice within the same "predefined response" framework; Grandeye is the known mechanism for the magnification half.
3. Predictable result / known technique improving a similar device. Integrating an automatic‑zoom module into an event‑response controller yields no more than the expected benefit (better event coverage), which KSR treats as obvious.
4. "Obvious to try" with a finite solution set. Once one accepts discrete, preconfigured responses (Leblond's geospace instructions), the number of candidate camera parameters to key off the event type is small and the results predictable — exactly the "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" scenario.

4. Ground 2 — Alarm.com (US 9,781,348 B1) + Leblond

Reference. US 9,781,348 B1 (Bart, Caglayan et al.; Alarm.com; granted 2017‑10‑03; provisional 62/074,563 filed 2014‑11‑03). https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/28/48/df/c35eea37368451/US9781348.pdf

This is a high‑value reference because its priority date (2014‑11‑03) predates the '995's 2015‑02‑17 date, making it potentially prior art under § 102(a)(2)/§ 103 to the extent the provisional supports the relied‑upon disclosure (that proviso must be checked against the provisional before filing). It also appears on the '995 face (Citations).

Its independent flow discloses, nearly verbatim, the mapping‑and‑move logic:

"DETERMINE A MAPPING OF IDENTITIES OF SENSORS TO VIEWING ANGLES OF A CAMERA → RECEIVE SENSOR DATA FROM A SENSOR → DETERMINE THAT AN EVENT OF INTEREST HAS BEEN DETECTED AND AN IDENTITY OF THE SENSOR THAT DETECTED THE EVENT → REFERENCE THE MAPPING USING THE IDENTITY OF THE SENSOR THAT DETECTED THE EVENT TO DETERMINE A VIEWING ANGLE → DETERMINE THAT A CURRENT VIEWING ANGLE OF THE CAMERA DIFFERS FROM THE DETERMINED VIEWING ANGLE → MOVE FROM THE CURRENT VIEWING ANGLE TO THE DETERMINED VIEWING ANGLE."

It also recites that the sensors "respond to multiple stimuli such as, for example, sound, motion, light, pressure, humidity," and that the camera is a PTZ device.

Gap it leaves alone: the mapping is keyed on sensor identity, not event type, and the output is styled as a "viewing angle" (orientation). Leblond supplies the bridge: it says the response "may depend on the type of event." A POSITA reading Alarm.com's preconfigured mapping would plainly appreciate that the same mapping structure can be keyed to the classified event type — because, as Leblond states, different events warrant different responses. Combining them is a substitution of one known indexing key (sensor ID) for another known indexing key (event type) to solve the same problem, achieving a predictable result.

(Optional strengthening: US 2014/0266699 A1 (Comcast, Processing alarm signals, 2013‑03‑14) and US 2015/0206419 A1 (Johnson, public‑safety communication, 2012‑12‑18) both sit on the '995 face and show event‑type‑conditioned response dispatch, which corroborates that keying system behavior to event type was routine. I did not verify their disclosures in detail.)

5. Ground 3 — Leblond + Alarm.com + Grandeye (most robust)

For a full‑strength § 103 ground covering every element of claims 1/6/11 including the closing "correspond to each other / defined differently" limitations:

• Leblond → event detection, event‑type‑dependent response, and stored per‑event preconfigured instructions (1a–1c, 1e–1f).
• Alarm.com → explicit "mapping" of a detected condition to a stored camera setting, plus compare‑and‑move actuator logic (1a, 1e, and the processor/actuator structure).
• Grandeye → automatic imaging‑range (zoom/FOV) selection upon detection of an event of interest (1d).

Motivation. All three are in networked video surveillance; all three solve "get the right camera view onto the event of interest." The combination is the assembly of a known event‑detection front end (Leblond), a known stored‑mapping/actuation controller (Alarm.com), and a known automatic‑zoom actuator (Grandeye) — a combination of prior‑art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, one of the enumerated KSR rationales. Nothing in the '995 claims recites an unexpected interaction among the three; the claims recite the aggregate, not a synergy.

6. Dependent claims

The dependent claims use the "not less than three varieties" and single‑sensor limitations as fallback positions. Each is addressed by art already on the '995 face:

Key observation on the crowd claim: JP 2011‑076316 already discloses camera zoom keyed to a detected crowd condition — i.e., it collapses the "type → imaging‑range" idea for the very event type (unusual crowd) that dependent claims 5/10/15 recite. Combined with an IR sensing element, it is a strong standalone § 103 ground for those dependents.

7. Anticipated patentee rebuttals, and how they fare

1. "The claims require estimating the size of the entire event, not merely selecting a preset." This is the patentee's best argument, but it is a claim‑construction argument, not a § 103 one. The granted text of claims 1/6/11 does not recite estimating event size; it recites identifying type and controlling a predetermined imaging range. If the patentee imports the size‑estimation step from the spec to preserve validity, they narrow the claims (helping the accused infringers) while simultaneously conceding that the literal claim is the broader, easier‑to‑invalidate form. Under the broadest reasonable/ Phillips construction, the type→range lookup is met by the art above.
2. "No reference teaches imaging range (zoom/FOV) selected by event type." Largely true of each reference individually — and this is the strongest non‑obviousness point. The counter is that the KSR combination (Leblond's type‑dependent response + Grandeye's automatic zoom + Alarm.com's mapping) supplies it, and that the claimed result is a predictable aggregation. This is the crux on which the outcome turns; a real IPR would rise or fall here, and additional primary art tying FOV/zoom to event classification would materially harden the ground. ⚠️ Candidates I could not verify and that should be pulled: WO 2013/140671 A1 / JP 2013‑196655 A (Hitachi Kokusai, Fire detection system and fire detection method — fire‑type‑specific camera response), US 8,974,514 B2 (Verizon, Thermal activity detection and response), and US 2017/0237942 A1 / JP 2017‑539114 A (NEC, Monitoring system, monitoring method and storage medium, priority 2014‑10‑30).
3. § 102(b)(2)(C) common‑ownership disqualification. The NEC‑owned references on the face (US 2017/0237942 A1; WO 2013/174737 A1/J.P. family; US 2016/… "Monitoring device") may be disqualified as prior art under the common‑ownership exception if the subject matter and the claimed invention were commonly owned by NEC as of 2015‑02‑17. Do not build a ground on NEC's own art without first checking the ownership record. (This does not affect Leblond, Grandeye, Alarm.com, Brasfield, or Fujifilm.)
4. Secondary considerations. None are of record in the patent. In the 2024 E.D. Tex. campaign NEC is a practicing entity, so commercial‑success and long‑felt‑need narratives are conceivable but unsupported on the present record. Absent contemporaneous evidence (e.g., praise, copying, licensing‑driven demand), these carry little weight. ⚠️ The post‑2024 status of 2:24‑cv‑00720 / ‑00722 / ‑00881 is unverified (my docket data ends late 2024), and I found no CAFC appeal for the '995.

8. Bottom line

• § 103 is met for independent claims 1/6/11 on a combination of Leblond (US 2011/0013018 A1) + Grandeye (US 2006/0056056 A1), with Alarm.com (US 9,781,348 B1) as the mapping/actuation bridge. The only element not squarely in a single reference is the type→zoom(FOV) coupling; the KSR rationales (same field, express invitation in Leblond, predictable aggregation, finite predictable solutions) supply the bridge.
• All dependent claims are independently vulnerable: claim 3/8/13 to routine design choice; claims 4/9/14 to Brasfield; claims 5/10/15 to Fujifilm JP 2011‑076316 (crowd→camera zoom); claims 2/7/12 to the mature acoustic‑classification art (corroborating art unverified here).
• Principal risk to the theory: Leblond and Grandeye were before the examiner (both carry the examiner‑cited asterisk on the '995 face), which invites a "same art, same examiner, no rejection" narrative — though that is weakened because the '995 is a continuation whose claims were rewritten mid‑family toward type‑driven imaging‑range selection, a claim set the examiner may not have revisited against that combination.
• Action items before relying on this: (i) obtain the 2025‑08‑19 certificate of correction to fix claim 1's text; (ii) verify the Alarm.com provisional (62/074,563) support for the relied‑upon mapping disclosure; (iii) verify the common‑ownership status of the NEC references; (iv) retrieve the four unverified references in § 7(2)/(3).