US 11002520

Patent Overview — US11002520B2

Title: Automated detonation of fireworks

Patent number / application: US11002520B2; application US15/690,736; earlier publication US20180066927A1; also identified as US201715690736A.

Assignee: Titan International Technologies Ltd (original assignee). The source records a later reassignment to Pyromart Inc. (2021-09-14) and a further reassignment back to Titan International Technologies, Ltd. (2024-01-26).

Key dates: Priority date 2016-09-02; filing date 2017-08-30; publication of application 2018-03-08; grant/publication of the patent 2021-05-11. Anticipated expiration listed as 2037-08-30. Inventor: Kevin Wu.

Purpose (from the supplied text): The disclosure "relates to fireworks or pyrotechnics and, one aspect, relates to fireworks detonation and control systems for automated fireworks displays or shows." The prior-art keywords listed are "fireworks, mobile device, mobile, firing, selectable," indicating the described subject matter involves selecting and firing fireworks via a mobile device.

Plain-language scope: The supplied excerpt describes a system for automated fireworks displays in which fireworks are fired under control associated with a mobile device, with firing events that are selectable. Classifications point to fireworks (F42B4/00, F42B4/24, F42B4/06), electric fuzes and fuze-setting (F42C11/00, F42C17/00), remote/proximity detonation (F42C13/00), and mobile-phone remote control of appliances (H04M1/72415), consistent with a mobile-app-controlled fireworks firing arrangement.

Source URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11002520](/patent/US11002520)/en (fetched 2026-09-24).

What the excerpt does not establish:

• It provides no text of the claims, so the precise legal scope (specific claim limitations) is not established here.
• It does not establish any litigation, its outcome, validity, or enforceability; the source only notes a litigation-data link and makes no legal conclusions.
• It does not establish the content of cited prior art or the reasons for allowance.
• It does not establish details of the later family applications (e.g., US16/938,137; US17/139,145; US17/884,497; US18/236,605) beyond their listed priority links.
• The excerpt omits the full description and any drawings; those portions are not summarized here.

Note: The "Definitions" text supplied is truncated mid-sentence ("...birthd"), so no further detail from it is asserted.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 11,002,520 across patent litigation databases and court sources.

Let me search litigation-specific databases and the patent's family litigation records.

I found a strong lead. Let me verify which patents are asserted in the Titan v. COBRA case.

I'll research PTAB proceedings on US 11,002,520, starting with the canonical structured data and then verifying via web sources.

Let me search for proceedings tied to the patent family and any litigation-driven IPRs.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 11,002,520: 0. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal AIA trial API) returns an empty set, and my independent web checks surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming US 11,002,520 — or any of its continuations (US 11,733,009; US 11,709,037; US 12,158,328; US 12,553,693).

Breakdown by status: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials.

Bottom-line defensive posture: the patent has never been tested at the PTAB. That cuts both ways for a defendant. On the plus side, there are no canceled claims to hide behind — nothing in this patent is dead, so a validity challenge has to be built from scratch, not borrowed from a prior FWD. On the minus side, there is also no narrowing amendment, no cancellation, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel binding on anyone, and critically the most likely challengers are now time-barred. Cobra Firing Systems and the Phantom entities were served in May 2024 in Titan Int'l Techs., Ltd. v. Cobra Firing Systems, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00861 (D. Nev.), which means their own § 315(b) one-year windows closed in May 2025 — before the district case itself closed on 2025-07-17. So the patent has survived, but by default and timing, not by adjudication. This is the "no one ever fired a shot" posture, not the "patent has survived two IPRs and is hardened" posture.

Proceedings on file

None. No proceeding is available to profile: there is no petition number, no institution decision, no Final Written Decision, no termination, and no PTAB appeal to report. I am deliberately not filling in the templated fields (judge panel, grounds, FWD verdict, estoppel) because doing so would require inventing a docket. If your workflow displays this section as blank, that blank is the finding.

Two caveats on the negative result, stated honestly:

• The ODP structured feed is the canonical source here and it is empty, but ODP ingest lags filing by weeks. A petition filed in very recent weeks may not yet appear. My web searches (including targeted queries on "Cobra Firing Systems" + PTAB and "11,002,520" + IPR) returned nothing on point.
• I did not have a completed search pass against PTAB E2E / the PTAB API keyed to the full continuation family before my search budget ran out. Re-check https://ptab.uspto.gov/ (PTAB E2E) and the PTAB API at https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/ before treating "zero" as final.

Non-PTAB events that matter for a future challenge

These are not AIA trials and I am not labeling them as such — but they shape the validity picture:

• Third-party prior-art submission during prosecution. The reference list of the related '037 patent includes "Hoffman, Michael F. (Hoffman Warnick LLC); Letter Re: U.S. Appl. No. 15/690,736; pp. 1-36, filed Apr. 19, 2021" — i.e., a 36-page third-party submission against the application that became the '520 patent, filed roughly three weeks before it granted on 2021-05-11. That submission is a ready-made prior-art roadmap for a petitioner. (Visible via https://patents.justia.com/patent/[11709037](/patent/11709037).)
• Competitor art already in the record from that submission and the PCT search: FireTEK/Firetek Compact mobile-phone firing material (2016), the Official Cobra™ Firing Systems Facebook group post (2014-05-24), Firejunkie videos (Vimeo, 2014), "Remote Bluetooth Firework Igniter" (Instructables, 2015), Pyromate SmartShow, OmegaFire, Infinity Visions Visual Show Director, and machine translation of CN 105872251 A (Wang et al.). Note the irony: Cobra-branded material from 2014 is cited in the patent's own file.
• District court litigation, not PTAB. Titan Int'l Techs., Ltd. v. Cobra Firing Systems, LLC, 2:24-cv-00861 (D. Nev., filed 2024-05-07, closed 2025-07-17). Document 63 (2026) is an exceptional-case / attorney-fee ruling under Octane Fitness finding Titan "repeatedly violated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules," including filing an untimely amended complaint, suing Cobra "[e]ven after it was informed that Cobra did not make, use or sell the accused products," and suing Phantom Fireworks of Pahrump "even after being informed no such party exists." See https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2:2024cv00861/[168487](/patent/168487)/63/.
• Federal Circuit appeals — from the district court, not from the PTAB. No. 25-1950 (docketed 2025-07-22, Titan as appellant; https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1950) and No. 26-1731 (docketed 2026-04-23, appeal from D. Nev. 2:24-cv-00861). These are not Rule 1295 appeals of an FWD; nothing about them creates or defeats PTAB estoppel.

Strategic summary

Claim status: entirely CANCELED = 0, SUSTAINED = 0, UNTESTED = everything. Every claim of the '520 patent remains as issued. I decline to list "surviving claims" or a claim count because the authoritative full text provided here truncates before the claims and I have not verified the printed claim set — verify against the printed patent at https://patents.google.com/patent/US11002520/en before you quote a claim number back to opposing counsel. The practical consequence of the empty PTAB docket is that there is no adjudicated, narrowed claim set to test an infringement theory against, and no FWD disposition to quote in a demand-letter response. The patent is only ever been narrowed by prosecution, and even there the record shows a contested third-party submission.

Estoppel landscape. Because no AIA trial was ever instituted, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is a non-issue — for everyone. No petitioner, real party in interest, or privy is barred from any ground in a civil action. Conversely, the flip side of § 315(b) is live and adverse to the known defendants: Cobra was served 2024-05-10 and the Phantom defendants on 2024-05-28 (per the D. Nev. docket), so Cobra and the Phantom entities cannot file an IPR now — their one-year windows expired in May 2025. If Titan re-asserts the '520 patent against a new defendant, that defendant carries a fresh, unexpired § 315(b) clock and a fully open prior-art field. That is the clean play. Note also that CBM review is unavailable (statutory sunset for new petitions, and a fireworks firing module is not a covered business method anyway), so IPR is the only realistic AIA vehicle, and the '520 patent is well past the 9-month PGR window.

Pattern signals. Three observations from the record:

1. Continuation-heavy family hardening. Titan has stacked continuations on the same disclosure — US 11,733,009 (filed 2020-07-24), US 11,709,037 (filed 2020-12-31), US 12,158,328 (filed 2022-08-09), US 12,553,693 (filed 2023-08-22) — all nominally "Automated detonation of fireworks." That is the classic posture of a patent owner with perceived invalidity exposure who wants fresh claim sets to keep asserting after any single claim set falls. It also means knocking out the '520 alone may not end the campaign.
2. No defensive aggregator. Nothing in the docket or family history shows Unified Patents, RPX, or any other third-party challenger in the chain. The one known challenger was a commercial defendant (Cobra/Phantom) that litigated in district court and never petitioned.
3. The patent owner has been the aggressor and has not fared well procedurally. Titan's district court case was dismissed and it was hit with an exceptional-case finding, then appealed (25-1950, and again in 26-1731). An owner litigating from that posture may be more inclined to settle cheaply — and less inclined to run a PTAB defense to an FWD.

Recommended next steps

• Treat "no PTAB activity" as the operative fact and say so plainly in any defense memo. There is no FWD to cite, no claim to point at as canceled, and no estoppel to rely on. Any representation that a claim of the '520 patent has been invalidated at the PTAB would be false.
• If you were served with a complaint asserting the '520 patent, calendar your § 315(b) deadline immediately — it is one year from service, and the D. Nev. timeline shows how fast it runs out. File the IPR before that date or you lose the forum entirely.
• If you are evaluating a challenge, start with the file. The 36-page Hoffman Warnick third-party submission against App. No. 15/690,736 (filed 2021-04-19) is already on the record, as is the 2014 Cobra Facebook material, FireTEK's 2016 phone-controlled Compact product literature, and CN 105872251 A. Pull the prosecution history from USPTO PatentCenter and confirm what the examiner actually relied on versus what was merely listed — a § 102/§ 103 petition built on art the examiner did consider needs an explanation of why he misapprehended it. PatentCenter: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/.
• Re-verify the empty docket before filing or relying on it. Check PTAB E2E (https://ptab.uspto.gov/) and the PTAB API (https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/) for the '520 patent and each continuation (11,733,009 / 11,709,037 / 12,158,328 / 12,553,693). Recent filings may not yet be in the ODP feed used above.
• Track the two CAFC appeals — 25-1950 and 26-1731 — not for validity rulings (they are district-court appeals) but because the Octane Fitness fee ruling in Doc 63 signals an owner litigating on weak factual footing against the wrong defendants. Those are useful bargaining facts.

Flags on the prior sections. The previously generated "Litigation summary" is truncated and stops mid-investigation ("I found a strong lead. Let me verify which patents are asserted…"). It does not identify the asserted patents, so I cannot confirm from it whether the '520 patent itself was among the asserted claims in 2:24-cv-00861 — the docket references in my research point to the case but not to specific patent numbers in the complaint. If the assertion set matters to your analysis, verify it from the complaint and its Exhibit A rather than from the summary. There is no contradiction between the two sections; the litigation summary is simply incomplete, and the PTAB section above stands on the ODP structured feed.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11002520/en (authoritative full text) · https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1950 · https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2:2024cv00861/168487/63/ · https://patents.justia.com/patent/11709037 (third-party submission citation) · https://ptab.uspto.gov/ · https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/

I'll research the assignment record and ownership chain for US 11,002,520.

Assignment & Ownership Reconstruction — US 11,002,520 B2

Source note / data limitation (read first): I was unable to pull the raw reel/frame entries directly from Apple's Assignment Center search UI in this session — the Assignment Center and its assignment.uspto.gov mirror did not return machine-readable records through my queries. The chain below is reconstructed from Google Patents legal events, Justia assignee listings, Darts-IP family-litigation data embedded in the Google Patents record, and the Federal Circuit / District Court dockets. Where reel/frame and correspondent are unknown, I say so rather than fabricate. This does not mean there are no recorded assignments — there demonstrably are (three post-filing recordings appear in the Google Patents legal-events timeline).

A recurring identifier caution carried over from the earlier summary: the string 11002520 also matches European application 11002520.2 (MAN Truck & Bus Österreich) and EP 2 412 954 B1. Those are unrelated documents and are excluded here.

---

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check — NOT present: the classic red flag here would be all inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing. The opposite is true: Wu is the common thread across the inventor, the original assignee, and the successor assignee (see Timeline). There is no evidence of inventor flight, and no second inventor to compare against. Inventor residence is reported as Hong Kong in related family records but is not stated on the '520 face (carried-over caveat from the prior summary).

---

Original assignee

• Entity: Titan International Technologies, Ltd. (original assignee; currently listed as current assignee again as of the 2024 back-transfer).
• Primary line of business: consumer/prosumer pyrotechnics and remote fireworks-firing hardware + software. The patent's own disclosure describes a physical kit — fireworks (2), a firing module housing (202) with ports (220) and detonators (30), detonation wires with fuse-connection assemblies (52), a D-cell battery cavity (228) — plus a mobile app (100).
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Yes, strong evidence. The "Titan-FireFly" iOS app (App Store ID 1217380616) is published under developer "Kevin Wu," advertises "design shows to music and set them off remotely," a "QR Code system," and explicitly markets the "Patented Process." This is a shipped commercial embodiment of the claimed mobile-control + firing-module concept.
• Current status: Appears to be operating (not dissolved, not in bankruptcy) and is currently an active patent plaintiff. The Google Patents legal-status field reads Active, with anticipated expiration 2037-08-30.
• Related operating entity: Pyromart Inc. — described by CB Insights as a pyrotechnics retail platform (online storefront, POS, inventory tools for fireworks retailers), founded 2022, based in Dover, Delaware. It held the patent from 2021 to 2024 and appears in the family as assignee on the continuations US 11,733,009 and US 11,709,037.

---

Assignment timeline

The following events are recorded/observable in the Google Patents legal-events record for the family. Reel/frame numbers and the recording correspondent were not retrievable in this session and are flagged as [unverified — Assignment Center lookup required]. Do not treat the absence of a reel/frame as the absence of a record.

• 2017-08-30 (filed) / recorded 2017-08-30

  • Conveyance: Assignment of interest (inventor → original assignee) — evidenced by the legal-event entry "Application filed by Titan International Technologies Ltd."
  • Assignor: Kevin Wu
  • Assignee: Titan International Technologies, Ltd.
  • Correspondent: [unverified]
  • Context: initial prosecution-stage assignment by the inventor to his own startup — an owner-operator filing, not a third-party acquisition.

• 2018-05-11 (executed) / recorded 2018-05-11

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: WU, Kevin
  • Assignee: TITAN INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES, LTD.
  • Correspondent: [unverified]
  • Context: confirms the inventor-to-company record ("ASSIGNMENT OF INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS). Assignors: WU, KEVIN").
  • Correspondent recurrence: cannot be flagged — correspondent not captured.

• 2021-09-14 (executed) / recorded 2021-09-14

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Titan International Technologies, Ltd.
  • Assignee: PYROMART INC. (a/k/a Pyromart Inc.)
  • Correspondent: [unverified]. Note: Foley & Lardner LLP appears as the prosecution firm of record on the sibling continuation US 11,733,009 — that is the patent-prosecution agent, not confirmed as the assignment-recording correspondent. Treat this as a lead, not a finding.
  • Context: transfer to a related operating/retail entity (Pyromart) sharing the same principal and the same pyromart.com domain — a brand/holding reorg, not an arm's-length fire-sale.

• 2024-01-26 (executed) / recorded 2024-01-26

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: PYROMART INC.
  • Assignee: Titan International Technologies, Ltd.
  • Correspondent: [unverified]
  • Context: back-transfer to the original family name, ~3.5 months before the first infringement suit (filed 2024-05-07). This is a pre-litigation ownership consolidation — likely to place title in the asserting entity. Same-principal, so it reads as a standing/venue housekeeping step rather than a true shell shuffle.

• 2024-05-07 — (not an assignment; docket marker) First infringement suit: Titan International Technologies, LTD v. COBRA Firing Systems, LLC et al., No. 2:24-cv-00861 (D. Nev.).

• 2025-07-22 — (not an assignment; docket marker) Federal Circuit appeal docketed, No. 25-1950.

Family-wide note: Later continuations issued in the names of both entities — US 11,733,009 B2 and US 11,709,037 B2 appear on Justia as "Patents Assigned to Pyromart Inc.", while US 12,158,328 B2 (2024-12-03) and US 12,553,693 B2 (2026-02-17) list Titan International Technologies, Ltd. This confirms the two named assignees are being used interchangeably across the same family — consistent with common ownership rather than an independent NPE acquiring assets.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11002520
    2016 : Priority filing by Kevin Wu
    2017 : Application filed
    2018 : Assigned to Titan International Technologies
    2021 : Issued as US 11002520
         : Assigned to Pyromart Inc
    2024 : Reassigned to Titan International
         : Infringement suit filed D Nev
    2025 : Federal Circuit appeal docketed

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT (on available evidence). There were transfers, but between two entities that share the inventor/principal and the pyromart.com domain, with a shipped product (Titan-FireFly app) attributed to the same operator. Pyromart does carry a Dover, Delaware address (8 The Green, STE 4000) — which is a well-known registered-agent/virtual-office address and a genuine shell tell — but a Dover business address is not sufficient to call it a shell when a real retail/app business and product exist. Evidence: App Store listing (developer "Kevin Wu," kevin@pyromart.com, Dover DE address); CB Insights Pyromart company profile (retail platform). Rated not present, with the Dover-address caveat noted.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. Neither Titan International Technologies, Ltd. nor Pyromart Inc. appears on the enumerated NPE lists (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, DGC, Spangenberg entities) or as a documented Unified Patents / RPX high-frequency plaintiff in the sources surfaced.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (insufficient data). The three recorded assignments are [unverified] for correspondent. The only firm name found is Foley & Lardner LLP as prosecution counsel on a sibling continuation (US 11,733,009) — that is prosecuting-patent work, not assignment recording, and a single appearance is not a recurrence signal. Cannot make a call without the Assignment Center correspondent fields. This is the single most important gap to close.

4. Cascading transfers — WEAKLY PRESENT (borderline). Three transfers across ~6 years (2018 → 2021 → 2024), i.e. not the <24 months chained-LLC cascade pattern the signal targets, and the endpoints share a common principal. Counted as a weak/borderline signal only.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — PRESENT. The back-transfer to Titan International Technologies, Ltd. was executed 2024-01-26, roughly 3.5 months before the first infringement complaint was filed 2024-05-07 (D. Nev. 2:24-cv-00861). This falls squarely inside the 6-month window and reads as title consolidation to enable assertion. Caveat: because transferor and transferee are same-principal, this is housekeeping rather than an arm's-length NPE transfer — but the timing signal itself is objectively present.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding for Titan or Pyromart surfaced; no docket association with a Kodak/Nortel/Polaroid-style asset sale.

7. Privateering — UNCLEAR / not established. The suit is against actual competitors (Cobra Firing Systems, a fireworks-firing-hardware maker; Phantom Fireworks, a national retailer). That pattern is more consistent with a direct operating-company assertion than with an operating company hiring a third-party NPE to assert on its behalf. No SEC filing or Patent Progress / EFF coverage documents a privateering arrangement.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at the original family name, which is currently asserting.

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Titan International Technologies, Ltd. (and its sibling assignee Pyromart Inc.) is an operating fireworks-firing-hardware/app business — the Titan-FireFly App Store product markets the "Patented Process," Pyromart is an operating retail platform, and the same-filing inventor Kevin Wu sits behind both named assignees (App Store developer page, kevin@pyromart.com; CB Insights Pyromart profile). The suit is against direct competitors in the fireworks-ignition market (Cobra Firing Systems; Phantom Fireworks), not against unconnected end-users of an unrelated technology — the hallmark of a genuine competitor dispute rather than an NPE campaign. The one signal that would otherwise tilt toward NPE — the 2024-01-26 pre-litigation back-transfer to the asserting entity, executed ~3.5 months before the 2024-05-07 filing — is a same-principal title consolidation, not an arm's-length shell acquisition, so it is not enough to move the verdict. The Dover, Delaware address (8 The Green, STE 4000) is worth noting but, absent evidence of no-product / single-purpose-LLC status, is not dispositive.

Confidence: moderate. The verdict rests on the product evidence and the identity overlap between inventor and assignees. The two open items that could change the picture are (a) the assignment correspondents, which were unretrievable and which — if they show a known NPE-recording attorney — would sharpen the analysis; and (b) confirmation of the exact reels/frames.

Verify here: USPTO Assignment Center — search patent 11002520 · assignment.uspto.gov mirror · Google Patents legal events for US 11002520 B2 · Justia assignee page — Pyromart Inc.

---

Cross-reference flag against prior sections

Prior sections reported the assignment chain as Titan (2018) → Pyromart (2021-09-14) → Titan (2024-01-26) and listed the current assignee as Titan. That is consistent with what I found and is now anchored to Google Patents legal events and the Justia assignee page. No contradiction. The one additive nuance is that the family's continuations split between the two named assignees (Pyromart on US 11,733,009 and US 11,709,037; Titan on US 12,158,328 and US 12,553,693), reinforcing common ownership.

I'll research the prior art citations for US Patent 11,002,520 B2. Let me search multiple sources.

Let me get the complete citation lists from Justia and Google Patents.

Let me get the full details of the referenced-cited lists, including foreign documents and non-patent literature.

I hit the search-step limit before completing the final verification queries. Below is my analysis based on what I was able to retrieve, with explicit confidence flags where I could not confirm details.

---

Prior Art of US 11,002,520 B2 — Cited References Analysis

0. Scope, method, and identifier discipline

• Patent examined (literal): U.S. Patent No. 11,002,520 B2, "Automated detonation of fireworks," inventor Kevin Wu, original assignee Titan International Technologies Ltd., app. 15/690,736, filed Aug. 30, 2017, priority Sep. 2, 2016, granted May 11, 2021.
• Look-alikes excluded (not this patent): European application 11002520.2 (MAN Truck & Bus Österreich, EP 2 412 954) and any other "11002520" strings that are not the U.S. patent. I did not return those.
• Source of the citation lists: Google Patents and a Justia record for US 11,002,520 (its "Referenced Cited" table), plus the citation/NPL lists surfaced from the sibling continuations US 11,709,037 and US 11,330,009‡ (same specification and shared prosecution history).
• Important caveat on what "cited" means: The "Referenced Cited" list on a U.S. patent front page mixes (a) references the examiner applied, and (b) references the applicant submitted in an IDS or that a third party submitted (see the Hoffman Warnick third-party letter of Apr. 19, 2021 in the file). Mere listing ≠ a § 102 rejection and ≠ anticipation. I flag below where I can vs. cannot distinguish.

‡ Minor identifier note: I literally saw "US11733009" in the search results but the "1" / "7" sequence may reflect a typographical render; the granted number is US 11,733,009 B2 per the family record I already summarized. I flag this rather than silently "correcting" it.

---

1. Referenced Cited — U.S. Patent Documents (as listed for US 11,002,520)

Foreign patent document: CN 203881228 (Oct. 2014) — a Chinese utility-model registration seen in the list. I could not retrieve the complete foreign-document list for '520 before hitting the search cap; treat this as partial.

---

2. Non-Patent Literature (NPL) — from the shared family/prosecution record

These NPL items appear in the citation lists of the '520 family and are, in my view, the substantively most dangerous art for the software/UI claims:

• Costin et al., "A Dangerous 'Pyrotechnic Composition': Fireworks, Embedded Wireless and Insecurity-by-Design," ACM Conf. on Security and Privacy in Wireless and Mobile Networks, Oxford, Jul. 2014 — wireless firework firing, security.
• Greatscottlab, "Remote Bluetooth Firework Igniter," Instructables, Sep. 15, 2015 — Bluetooth-controlled firework igniter (phone/remote → igniter).
• MK802 and iPhone: a fireworks remote control, Internet of Things and Tiny PC, Aug. 2, 2012.
• FireTEK materials: "Fireworks with a Smart Phone (FireTEK Compact)" (pyrotalk, Apr. 30, 2016); FireTEK product/spec pages (Jan. 21, 2016); FireTEK FAQ (Jan. 13, 2016); FireTEK release note re DMX/Timecode (Aug. 15, 2016).
• Cobra Wireless Firing Systems — "Cobra Show Creator" (Wayback, May 10, 2015); Cobra site snapshot (Dec. 31, 2015); "Official Cobra Firing Systems Facebook Group" (May 24, 2014); "Cobra Basics—Automated Show" (Nov. 20, 2020).
• Firejunkie (Andrew) videos: "Manual Control," "Options," "Program Basics," "Rack Organizer" (2014).
• Infinity Visions, "Visual Show Director," v8.3.0 (Nov. 13, 2015).
• ShowSim, "Plan . . . Script . . . Fire! Show Scripting with Simulation!" (Mar. 30, 2004).
• Pyroworks, "Electric Igniters" (Apr. 13, 2014); Pyromate materials (date not captured).
• OmegaFire — RFRemotech/Guangzhou Aifusheng, "Internet Control Firing System" (May 20, 2016).
• Fireworks Forum threads (Jan. 2, 2015; Jul. 5, 2016); CN 105872251 A (Wang et al.) machine translation (ip.com, Aug. 17, 2016).
• Various igniter videos ("How to use Talon Firework Igniters," Jul. 2, 2013; "Falcon or Talon Igniter Clip," Dec. 24, 2014; "Falcon II by QuantumFire," Sep. 5, 2011).

Prosecution artifacts (not prior art, but context):

• Third-party submission letter — Hoffman, Michael F. (Hoffman Warnick LLC), Re: U.S. Appl. No. 15/690,736, pp. 1–36, filed Apr. 19, 2021 (plus related letters Jul. 28, 2020 and a Dec. 27, 2019 filing).
• ISR/WO for PCT/IB2017/001055 (Dec. 25, 2017) and IPRP/WO (Mar. 14, 2019) — the international search opinion on the same family.

---

3. Most Relevant Prior Art and Potential § 102 Mapping

The '520 has an effective filing date of Sep. 2, 2016 and is AIA-governed, so § 102 analysis is under § 102(a)(1) (patented/published/on-sale/publicly used before the effective filing date) and § 102(a)(2) (U.S. patents/applications effectively filed before that date). A reference anticipates only if it discloses every element of the claim.

I group the art against the four claim families I identified earlier (fireworks kit; mobile control system ≈ claims 13–19; method; and CRM/mobile-application). Confidence note: I do not have the verbatim text of independent claims 1 and any others, so the "claims potentially anticipated" column is a family-level judgment, not a verified claim-by-claim mapping.

3A. Utility patents/applications most likely to bear on § 102 (device/kit claims)

References that are NOT § 102 prior art against the '520:

• US 10,260,846 B1 (Fish), Apr. 16, 2019 — filed Sep. 15, 2016 (after the Sep. 2, 2016 effective date); it cannot be § 102(a)(1) (not "before") and, being filed after, not § 102(a)(2) either. Likely cited as related/background or in an IDS.
• US 2021/0010789 A1 (Wu), Jan. 14, 2021 and the Wu design patents (D841,678; D856,461; D901,617) — the inventor's/assignee's own later work; not prior art (and the design registrations are ornamental, not anticipatory of utility claims).
• All D-number design patents (D540,318; D696,265; D713,416; D753,685; D768,707; D781,311; D789,382; D791,123; D797,099; D805,541) — ornamental GUI/housing designs; relevant, if at all, only to ornamental/GUI aspects, not § 102 anticipation of the utility claims.

3B. NPL most likely to bear on § 102 for the software/show-design/proximity claims

These are the references most on-point for the mobile-control-system / method / CRM families (show designer, audio-timeline detonation, manual firing screen, proximity zone):

---

4. Bottom line

1. The single most relevant prior-art family for § 102 purposes is the pre-priority ("before Sep. 2, 2016") NPL cluster on smartphone/app-controlled firing systems — specifically Cobra "Show Creator" (2014–2015), FireTEK (Jan.–Apr. 2016), Greatscottlab Bluetooth igniter (Sep. 2015), Firejunkie (2014), and Infinity Visions Visual Show Director (2015). These directly address the distinguishing features of the '520 (mobile-app show design + wireless firing module), and any of them disclosing every element could anticipate the corresponding method/CRM/mobile-control claims under § 102(a)(1).
2. Among U.S. patents, US 8,365,665 B2 (Risner, 2013) is the clearest fireworks-igniter-system reference, and the US 8,118,157 / 7,688,566 / 6,966,260 / 6,874,424 / 5,627,338 group are the plausible hardware/ignition antecedents (titles/dates verified only for the first; the rest are flagged unverified).
3. Pre-AIA/AIA timing traps: US 10,260,846 (Fish) and US 2021/0010789 (Wu) are not § 102 art; US 2016/0337963 (Nabki) and US 2016/0360116 (Penha), published after the priority date, are only susceptible to § 102(a)(2) and only if effectively filed before Sep. 2, 2016.

---

5. Uncertainty / confidence notes (explicit)

• I could not verify the complete foreign-document list nor the exact NPL list on the face of US 11,002,520 itself. The NPL above is drawn from the shared family/prosecution record (siblings US 11,709,037 and US 11,330,009‡); the overlap is very high because they share a specification and file, but a few items may differ. Confirm against the '520 file wrapper / patent front page.
• Claim-by-claim § 102 mapping is provisional. I do not have the verbatim text of independent claims 1 and others; the "claims potentially anticipated" entries are family-level judgments.
• Descriptions marked "not verified" are exactly that — I did not fetch their abstracts, so I do not assert what they disclose. I have not fabricated titles for them.
• I could not distinguish examiner-applied references from IDS/third-party-submitted references from the sources available; the citation list is a mix, and listing alone does not equate to a § 102 rejection.
• I hit the tool-step limit on my last three verification queries; no results were returned for them.

I'll verify key reference content before building the § 103 grounds.

Obviousness Analysis — US 11,002,520 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Read-first caveat (carried from the Prior Art section): the authoritative text supplied truncates before the claims, so I am working at the claim-family level (kit / mobile control system / method / CRM), with the one verified data point being the mobile-control-system family (claims 13–19). Every ground below is therefore provisional on claim language and should be re-mapped once the printed claims are pulled from https://patents.google.com/patent/US11002520/en. I am not repeating the bibliographic, assignment, or litigation content of prior sections — only referencing it where it bears on § 103.

Identifier note (no auto-correction): the Prior Art section flagged the string "US 11,330,009" as a possible typographical render of the family continuation; the Patent Summary lists US 11,733,009 B2 (app. 16/938,137). I use the summary's number and do not re-verify it here.

---

1. Framework applied

AIA § 103; Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966) (scope/content, differences, PHOSITA level, secondary considerations); KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (a combination of known elements according to known methods is obvious where it yields no more than predictable results; "design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations"). Rationales are keyed to MPEP § 2143 (A)–(G).

PHOSITA: a person with a bachelor's in electrical/mechanical engineering or equivalent, plus 2–4 years in consumer pyrotechnic ignition hardware and wireless control, or a software developer with 2–4 years in pyrotechnic show-design/firing-system applications. The references themselves supply the level of skill: FireTEK was shipping a smartphone app over a Bluetooth firing module in Jan–Apr 2016, and Cobra was scripting pyromusicals in 2014–2015 — so the POSITA was demonstrably capable of cross-domain (hardware + app + show software) integration.

Analogous art — no barrier. Every reference below is in the field of pyrotechnic ignition and/or pyrotechnic show design, or is reasonably pertinent to the safety problem the specification itself identifies. There is no field-of-endeavor gap to exploit.

Applicant admission supplying motivation. The '520 Background states that private shows "can be dangerous, especially when the individuals manually ignite fireworks and then quickly try to get clear prior to detonation," and that "serious injuries… are… common." That is the patentee's own statement of the known problem and is usable as evidence that the remote-ignition motivation was known, not invented. It aligns directly with Risner's stated object ("a very safe fireworks igniter system which… ensures fuse ignition at a safe distance").

Reference dating (all qualify under § 102(a)(1), and pre-AIA § 102(b)): ShowSim (2004); EP 1 953 493 A1 (2008); Risner US 8,365,665 (EP pub. 2012; US grant 2013-02-05); Cobra FB group (2014-05-24); Firejunkie videos (2014); Costin et al. (Jul. 2014); Cobra Show Creator (2015-05-10); Greatscottlab (2015-09-15); Infinity Visions VSD (2015-11-13); FireTEK (2016-01-13/21; 2016-04-30). All pre-date the 2016-09-02 effective filing date.

---

2. Ground-by-ground combinations

Ground 1 — "Fireworks kit" family

Combination: FireTEK Compact (primary) + Risner US 8,365,665 + Cobra 18R2/18M (or Greatscottlab) + ordinary commercial assortment of firework types.

• FireTEK Compact as verified discloses a firing module with multiple outputs ("up to 99 modules" via master/slave), a Bluetooth link, and an app that "allows you to use your Smart Phone" for manual firing and show scripts — i.e., a module housing + plurality of detonators + receiver + app-based dynamic control.
• Risner supplies the per-channel detonator architecture: heater element (28AWG nichrome), fuse clamp that "biasingly molds the fuse against the heater element," microprocessor with receiver, coded signal, and a manual over-ride switch (the claimed "manual firing").
• Cobra 18R2/18M supplies the multi-port module housing (18 cues/module; up to 100 channels) and bidirectional continuity/arm-state.
• Different types of fireworks in a kit: KSR rationale (F) — a known commercial packaging variation with predictable results; the kit's contents perform no new cooperative function, so this is an aggregation of known articles selected by market demand (MPEP § 2144.04, "obvious design choice").

Motivation: Risner and the '520 Background both state the safety problem; the market already sold consumer assortments and consumer firing systems; FireTEK explicitly marketed the phone-control feature for consumer use (forum discussion frames ~30 ft Bluetooth range as "fine… for use with Consumer Fireworks").

---

Ground 2 — "Mobile control system" family (claims 13–19) — strongest ground

Combination: FireTEK Compact + Cobra Show Creator / Cobra Control Panel for Android + ShowSim (or Infinity Visions Visual Show Director).

Mapping the verified dependent claims:

• Manual firing screen with selectable icons corresponding to the ports → FireTEK ("if you just want to fire off a cue… connect to it then fire"; video of manually firing cues from a Samsung phone) and Cobra's Control Panel for Android ("Tap any cue to fire it").
• Show designer screen with selectable areas each corresponding to a port, arranged per sequence/pattern → Cobra Show Creator (load an MP3, "design your show by adding events to the waveform," STEP/Timed/Combined scripting) and ShowSim (timeline with music data and cue markers, cue placement directly on the graph, cue list).
• Firing icon that when engaged causes the control signals to execute the show → FireTEK script execution from the app; Cobra "press one button, sit back, and watch your show fire automatically."
• Housing indicators per port (dependent) → Cobra 18R2 firing memory: "Unfired cues display as green, fired cues as red, the last cue fired will blink red," plus arm-state feedback — this is close to anticipatory of the green/red per-port LED concept.
• Device-selection screen listing control-device profiles (dependent) → FireTEK's master/multiple-module addressing ("you can control only one module… if you choose modules with wireless option you can control up to 99") plus conventional Bluetooth pairing lists. KSR (C)/(E): selecting among a finite number of known devices with predictable results.

Motivation to combine (articulated): (i) FireTEK itself already combined phone + Bluetooth + module + show scripts, so the only delta is graphical show authoring on the phone; (ii) graphical audio-waveform authoring was a known technique in the same field since ShowSim (2004) and commercialized by Cobra Show Creator (2015) — KSR (C) "use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way"; (iii) the market force is explicit in the record: ShowSim marketed a "Backyard Edition" precisely because "even backyard hobbyists have access to this technology" — KSR (F); (iv) the hardware to run it (a smartphone) was already in the user's pocket, so the substitution of a phone for a PC/web client was predictable (KSR (B)).

Reasonable expectation of success: FireTEK's 30 ft Bluetooth range and Cobra's 2.4 GHz bidirectionality establish that the wireless link worked; ShowSim establishes that timeline+waveform cue placement worked. The combination is the union of two proven subsystems.

---

Ground 3 — Method family (authentication → profiles → connection → design → transmit)

Combination: FireTEK Compact (or Cobra) + Costin et al. (2014) + conventional account authentication (Facebook/Google OAuth, app-store account, password-protected pairing).

• FireTEK supplies: app opens → user selects/connects to a module → manual fire or scripted fire → transmit instructions.
• Costin et al. ("A Dangerous 'Pyrotechnic Composition': Fireworks, Embedded Wireless and Insecurity-by-Design," ACM WiSec, Jul. 2014) supplies the explicit motivation for the authentication and secure-connection limitations: the paper's thesis is that wireless firework systems are insecure by design and can be hijacked. That is a teaching toward adding user authentication and restricting signal reception to the intended receiver — i.e., toward precisely the claim elements.
• Conventional authentication (OAuth/social login, password-gated pairing) is a known technique applied to improve a similar device — KSR (C), MPEP § 2144.04.

Designation of "control device profiles" → FireTEK's multiple-module addressing and Cobra's module-address/mesh management are the hardware analog; storing per-module profiles in an app account is an obvious data-management step (KSR (F)).

---

Ground 4 — CRM / mobile-application family (audio-synced show design)

Combination: ShowSim (primary) + FireTEK Compact (secondary) ± Cobra Show Creator (secondary).

ShowSim alone is remarkably close on the software side: it discloses, as verified, a time line showing "music data and cue markers," the ability to "add cues or modify the positions of existing cues directly on the graph," a "scrolling sound graph to guide you in your cue placement," a bar graph indicating the duration of each effect, an effect/product browser list, simulation/preview ("proof read your shows"), and export to common firing-system formats. Map that onto the claim's "audio graphic + selectable firework list + selecting a point on the graphic to place detonation":

• audio graphic → sound graph / waveform with cue placement;
• selectable list of fireworks → effect browser / inventory list / Cobra's "Personal Fireworks Database";
• placing a detonation point at a selected time → "cue placement relative to time" on the ShowSim timeline;
• timing the fire to a song → ShowSim musical-show scripting; Cobra pyromusical support;
• transmitting control signals → FireTEK app/Bluetooth module execution.

Motivation: port ShowSim's PC workflow to the phone that controls the module (KSR (C), (F)); Cobra Show Creator already demonstrates the intermediate step (web-based, Chrome, "dynamic waveform… magnified up to 10 times allowing for the exact placement of cues down to the hundredth of a second").

---

Ground 5 — Fuse-connection-assembly dependent claims (hardware)

Combination: Risner US 8,365,665 + EP 1 953 493 A1 ("A firework electrical firing head") + Talon/Falcon clip-on igniter videos (2011–2014).

• Risner discloses a heater element inside a thermo insulator sleeve, a clamp (clamp plate + clamp spring) that secures the fuse against the heater, and a debris channel for fuse ash — structurally the same problem the '520's assembly solves.
• EP 1 953 493 A1 discloses a cover with a "fuse pushing positioning plate" that, when the cover is pressed closed, forces the firework lead wire into a slot and against a spirally wound resistance wire; the resistance wire is tungsten/nichrome/constantan. That is the '520's claim concept — hinged/closeable cover pinching the fuse onto a resistive heating element — in a firework-specific reference.
• The elastic/heat-resistant insert (silicone) is a simple substitution of a known material for a known purpose — MPEP § 2144.04; KSR (B). Bias-closed cover via torsion spring is a known technique (KSR (C)) and Risner's clamp spring already demonstrates the biasing concept.

---

Ground 6 — Manual-firing-screen dependents (arm → fire → fired transitions)

Combination: Cobra 18R2 firing-memory + Firejunkie "Manual Control" (2014) + conventional touch UI.

Cobra 18R2 discloses per-cue state indication (unfired/green, fired/red, last-fired/blinking red) and arm-state reporting from a handheld remote; Firejunkie's 2014 videos show manual-control screens for firing systems. The claimed "Arm" → swipe-to-engage → "fired" state machine is a design choice within a known interface paradigm; the swipe-to-confirm gesture was ubiquitous consumer-UI vocabulary well before 2016 (MPEP § 2144.04; KSR (F) — a safety-motivated UI variation with predictable result).

---

Ground 7 — Simulation, catalog/server, QR-scanning, geofence

These are the weakest-mapped from the supplied art, and I flag them rather than overclaim:

---

3. Why the POSITA would combine — the consolidated motivation

1. Same field, same problem. All references concern igniting consumer/professional fireworks from a distance. Risner's express object is safe ignition at a distance; the '520 Background concedes manual ignition is dangerous.
2. The art itself pointed at the phone. FireTEK (Jan–Apr 2016) already taught the phone-as-controller architecture with Bluetooth and scripted shows — the claimed platform, minus the graphical editor.
3. The graphical editor was a known technique in the same field. ShowSim (2004) and Cobra Show Creator (2015) taught waveform-based cue placement, product lists, and simulation. Applying a known technique to a similar device to obtain predictable results is the paradigm KSR (C) rationale.
4. Market force. ShowSim explicitly marketed a "Backyard Edition"; FireTEK's forum audience discusses consumer use; the market pull toward an affordable consumer pyromusical was documented, not speculative — KSR (F).
5. No new result. The combination produces the expected sum: an app designs the show, a wireless link carries the fire commands, a module ignites the fuse. There is no asserted synergy, no unexpected result, and no criticality of any parameter.
6. No teaching away. The only candidate is Costin et al.'s criticism of insecurity-by-design — but that reference criticizes the absence of security in order to motivate adding it, which supports (not defeats) the authentication and secure-pairing method limitations.

---

4. Anticipated rebuttals and where the patentee is strongest

• "The examiner already considered these references." The Prior Art section establishes these NPL items sit in the same family/prosecution record (including the 36-page Hoffman Warnick third-party submission of 2021-04-19), yet the patent granted 2021-05-11. Rebuttal: mere listing in an IDS or a 37 C.F.R. § 1.290 third-party submission is not a merits finding; a challenger must show what the examiner relied on (pull the file wrapper from PatentCenter). Expect the patentee to argue the examiner weighed the combination and allowed.
• Hindsight (KSR's own caution). Four-reference grounds are vulnerable to the In re Kahn "articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning" attack. Grounds 2 and 4 are best structured around two references each (FireTEK + ShowSim/Cobra Show Creator), which materially reduces the hindsight risk.
• Secondary considerations. The patentee can point to the Titan-FireFly iOS app marketing the "Patented Process" as evidence of commercial success. The challenger must attack nexus — i.e., show the success flows from the app's branding, distribution, and the unclaimed app features (QR code system, catalog) rather than from the claimed combination, and that any long-felt need for safe consumer ignition was already met by Risner (2013), Greatscottlab (2015), and FireTEK (2016).
• The weakest cells for the patentee are the audio-synced show-designer screen and the audio-timeline cue placement (buried in ShowSim 2004 and Cobra 2015) and the fuse-clamp-against-heating-element assembly (buried in Risner and EP 1 953 493 A1). The strongest cells for the patentee are the safety-zone enforcement before firing and the camera-overlay simulation, for which the supplied art does not, on its face, supply a clean pre-2016 reference.

---

5. Procedural flags carried from prior sections

• No PTAB estoppel and no canceled claims (per the PTAB section), so a § 103 ground here is unconstrained by any prior FWD — and unconstrained by § 315(e)(2) estoppel for any party.
• § 315(b) timing: the known defendants' one-year windows from May 2024 service expired in May 2025, i.e., these grounds are, practically speaking, available only to a new party with a fresh clock.
• Interplay with the fee ruling: the D. Nev. Doc 63 Octane Fitness exceptional-case ruling concerns the patentee's conduct, not validity. It does not strengthen or weaken the § 103 grounds above, but it does affect how much of a validity record the patentee is likely to fund.

---

6. Confidence statement

High confidence in the reference content verified in this pass (Risner's heater/clamp/receiver architecture; FireTEK Compact's phone/Bluetooth/manual-fire/script capability and its consumer framing; Cobra Show Creator's waveform-based pyromusical authoring and 18R2 green/red per-cue firing memory; Greatscottlab's phone-Bluetooth-resistor ignition; ShowSim's timeline/sound-graph/cue-list/simulation/export feature set; EP 1 953 493 A1's cover-pressed fuse-against-resistance-wire structure).
Medium confidence in the ground-to-claim mappings, because I could not verify the verbatim independent claims of US 11,002,520 — the mapping is at family level and should be re-run against the printed claims.
Explicitly not established: any anticipation-grade single reference; any pre-2016 geofence-before-firing reference; any QR-scanning reference; any camera-AR-overlay reference. Do not put those grounds in a pleading without supplementing the art.