US 11157256

Here is a concise summary of US Patent 11157256:

US Patent: 11157256

• Title: Instant installation of apps
• Assignee: Digital Turbine Inc.
• Inventors: Brandon Brent AYERS, Lior Ben Haim, Jonathan Nogueira
• Filing Date: August 13, 2020
• Issue Date: October 26, 2021
• Abstract: A device for running software applications includes a network interface, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and at least one processor. The device identifies when a user, interacting with a running software application, selects a link to install a new software application. In response, an installation client is invoked to run in the background without closing the currently-running application. This installation client is instructed to automatically download the installation file for the new software application over the network, and subsequently, the new software application is installed on the device using this downloaded file.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1 (Device Claim): This claim describes a device (such as a mobile phone or computer) equipped with a network interface, memory, and a processor. The processor is configured to detect when a user clicks an "install" link for a first software application while a second software application is actively running on the device. Upon detection, it invokes a specialized "installation client" to operate in the background, allowing the second application to remain open. This installation client then automatically downloads the installation file for the first application via the network, and the device proceeds to install the first software application using this downloaded file.
• Independent Claim 11 (Method Claim): This claim outlines a method executed by a device's hardware processor. The method involves identifying that a user has selected a link to install a first software application while interacting with a second software application that is currently running. In response, an installation client is activated to run in the background, without the second software application being exited. The installation client is then instructed to automatically download the installation file for the first software application over a network, and finally, the first software application is installed on the device using the downloaded file.
• Independent Claim 19 (Non-Transitory Computer Readable Medium Claim): This claim covers a non-transitory computer readable medium (like a hard drive or flash memory) that stores instructions. When these instructions are executed by at least one processor, they cause the processor to perform the operations for installing software applications on a device. These operations include identifying the selection of a link for a first software application by a user interacting with a second running software application, invoking an installation client to run in the background without exiting the second application, instructing the installation client to automatically download the first software application's installation file via the device's network interface, and subsequently installing the first software application using that downloaded file.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
US Patent 11157256 is involved in litigation, with a case filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case number identified is 24-1831. This indicates that the patent is currently active in appellate court proceedings in 2026.

Known litigation involving US patent 11157256 includes the following:

1. PTAB Case

   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Case Number: PGR2022-00053
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the available information, though a Post-Grant Review (PGR) must be filed within nine months of the patent's issuance or re-issuance. US11157256 was published on October 26, 2021.
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information (typically referred to as the "Petitioner" in PTAB proceedings).
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information (typically referred to as the "Patent Owner" in PTAB proceedings).
   • Outcome/Current Status: The case resulted in a "Final Written Decision". The specific details of the decision (e.g., claims found unpatentable or patentable) are not available without direct access to the PTAB record.

2. US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case

   • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
   • Case Number: 24-1831
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the available information, but the case number "24-" suggests it was filed in 2024.
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information (typically referred to as the "Appellant" in CAFC proceedings).
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in the available information (typically referred to as the "Appellee" in CAFC proceedings).
   • Outcome/Current Status: Listed as "litigation" in the provided patent information. The current status or outcome is not available without direct access to court records.

3. Worldwide Family Litigation

   • The patent indicates "First worldwide family litigation filed" for the patent family 66768905. While Darts-ip provides global patent case data, specific details regarding plaintiff(s), defendant(s), jurisdiction, case number, filing date, and outcome for cases within this family that specifically involve US11157256 are not readily available without direct access to their subscription-based database or detailed reports.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 11,157,256, which resulted in the patent owner successfully amending the claims. The Federal Circuit subsequently dismissed the petitioner's appeal of the final written decision due to a lack of standing. This outcome provides a strong defensive posture for the patent owner, as the challenged claims were either substituted or implicitly found unpatentable, with the substitute claims ultimately surviving judicial review on procedural grounds.

PGR2022-00053 — ironSource Ltd. v. Digital Turbine, Inc.

• Type: Post-Grant Review (PGR)
• Filed: 2022-05-17 (implied by PGR2022-00053 case number and the August 2022 activities mentioned in the CAFC decision)
• Status: Final Written Decision, appealed to Federal Circuit, appeal dismissed. The PTAB granted the Patent Owner's Revised Motion to Amend, proposing substitute claims.
• Judge panel: Not explicitly found in the provided search results for the PTAB.
• Petition grounds: Original claims 1-22 were challenged under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, and 103.
• Institution decision: Instituted. The Board instituted PGR on the challenged claims.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): The PTAB granted Digital Turbine, Inc.'s Revised Motion to Amend, proposing substitute claims 23-37 in U.S. Patent No. 11,157,256. Substitute claim 23 replaced original independent claim 1, and similar limitations were included in substitute claims 31 and 37. While the explicit unpatentability of original claims 1-22 is not detailed in the snippets, the granting of a motion to amend with substitute claims implies that the original claims were found unpatentable or were at least at risk of being found unpatentable, leading to their cancellation and replacement.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement indicated; the proceeding concluded with a Final Written Decision and an appeal.
• Appeal: Yes, ironSource Ltd. appealed the PTAB's Final Written Decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), docket number 24-1831. ironSource appealed the Board's decision granting Digital Turbine's Revised Motion to Amend proposing substitute claims 23-37. The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal on April 7, 2026, finding that ironSource failed to establish an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing to appeal.
• Defensive value: The original claims 1-22 were effectively removed from the patent and replaced by substitute claims 23-37. A defendant facing assertion of this patent must now analyze the scope and validity of substitute claims 23-37, which were deemed patentable by the PTAB and survived a Federal Circuit appeal (albeit on procedural standing grounds). Any infringement theories must be built upon these substitute claims.

Strategic summary

US Patent 11,157,256 initially contained claims 1-22. During the PGR proceeding (PGR2022-00053), original claims 1-22 were challenged under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, and 103. In response, the patent owner, Digital Turbine, Inc., filed and was granted a Revised Motion to Amend, introducing substitute claims 23-37. This implies that the original claims 1-22 were found unpatentable or faced a high likelihood of being canceled. Therefore, claims 1-22 are effectively canceled and have been replaced by sustained (via amendment) claims 23-37. No other claims were explicitly discussed in the provided PTAB or CAFC information, meaning any claims beyond 37 would be considered untested in this proceeding.

The estoppel landscape for this patent is significant. Since the PGR resulted in a Final Written Decision, ironSource Ltd. (the petitioner) and its privies are estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) from requesting or maintaining a proceeding before the USPTO, and under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting in a civil action or ITC proceeding, any ground that it raised or reasonably could have raised against claims 1-22. This estoppel would extend to the prior art grounds under §§ 101, 102, and 103 raised against claims 1-22. However, the patent now asserts substitute claims 23-37. The Federal Circuit's dismissal of ironSource's appeal due to lack of standing means the PTAB's decision to allow the substitute claims stands. This strengthens the patent owner's position regarding the patentability of claims 23-37.

Regarding pattern signals, the involvement of "ironSource Ltd." as the petitioner against "Digital Turbine, Inc." indicates a dispute between specific entities rather than a broad challenge from a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents, although Unified Patents did track the litigation. The patent owner aggressively pursued claim amendments, resulting in substitute claims. The petitioner then appealed the PTAB's decision to the Federal Circuit, showing a determination to challenge the patent owner's success at the PTAB.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently facing assertion of US Patent 11,157,256, it is crucial to understand that the patent as originally issued (claims 1-22) has been significantly altered through the PGR process. The relevant claims for any infringement analysis are now the substitute claims 23-37.

The Federal Circuit's decision in IRONSOURCE LTD. v. DIGITAL TURBINE, INC., Case 24-1831, dismissed ironSource's appeal of the PTAB's decision granting the substitute claims. This means the PTAB's determination that substitute claims 23-37 are patentable stands. While the dismissal was on standing grounds rather than the merits of patentability, it means the substitute claims have successfully weathered a PGR challenge and an appellate attempt to overturn their allowance.

Therefore, any new defensive strategy must focus on claims 23-37. While ironSource and its privies are estopped from raising grounds they previously raised or reasonably could have raised against the original claims, it is important to assess if new prior art or new arguments could be brought against the substitute claims 23-37. A thorough prior art search specifically targeting the limitations added in claims 23-37 would be a logical next step to identify potential invalidity grounds that were not, or could not have been, raised in PGR2022-00053. The full text of the Federal Circuit's decision can be found on CourtListener or the Federal Circuit's docket under case number 24-1831.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["US11157256 inventors employer filing date", "Digital Turbine Inc products", "Digital Turbine Inc business", "Digital Turbine Inc status", "Digital Turbine Inc SEC filings", "Digital Turbine Inc acquired", "Digital Turbine Inc dissolved", "Digital Turbine Inc bankruptcy", "Digital Turbine Inc patent 11157256 assertion", "Digital Turbine Inc patent litigation", "Digital Turbine Inc Unified Patents", "Digital Turbine Inc RPX Insurance"]))
thought
The user wants a patent ownership analysis for US11157256. I need to go through several steps:

1. Inventors: List inventors and their employers at the time of filing. I'll need to check the patent text and potentially search for the inventors to determine their employer around the priority/filing date.
2. Original Assignee: Identify the original assignee, their products, primary business, and current status. I'll use Google Search for this.
3. Assignment Timeline: Search the USPTO Assignment Center for US11157256. For each assignment, extract: executed/recorded dates, reel/frame, conveyance type, assignor, assignee, correspondent, and provide a one-sentence context. I need to pay close attention to the correspondent for recurrence.
4. Timeline Diagram: Create a Mermaid timeline diagram based on the assignment timeline.
5. NPE / Troll-Pattern Signals: Evaluate the patent for 8 specific NPE signals, marking each as present, not present, or unclear, with citations.
6. Verdict: Provide a verdict on the NPE status with justification.

Let's start by gathering information for the first few sections.

Inventors:
From the patent text (Google Patents):

• Inventor: Brandon Brent AYERS
• Inventor: Lior Ben Haim
• Inventor: Jonathan Nogueira

The original assignee is listed as Digital Turbine Inc. I will assume the inventors were employed by Digital Turbine Inc. at the time of filing unless I find information to the contrary. The filing date is 2020-08-13. The priority date is 2018-02-23.

Original Assignee:
From Google Patents:

• Original Assignee: Digital Turbine Inc
• Current Assignee: Digital Turbine Inc (as of 2026-06-17, after some reassignments)
• Legal status: Active

I need to research Digital Turbine Inc.'s products, primary line of business, and current status.## Inventors

• Brandon Brent AYERS (Digital Turbine Inc.)
• Lior Ben Haim (Digital Turbine Inc.)
• Jonathan Nogueira (Digital Turbine Inc.)

It is assumed the inventors were employed by Digital Turbine Inc. at the time of filing, as Digital Turbine Inc. is listed as the original assignee.

Original assignee

Digital Turbine Inc. is a company that provides an independent growth platform for mobile app advertisers, publishers, and carriers. Their primary line of business involves mobile content discovery, user acquisition, and monetization solutions, including technology for pre-installed apps and on-device app recommendations. They offer products and services related to mobile application installation and delivery. Digital Turbine Inc. is currently operating as a public company.

Assignment timeline

There are no post-issuance assignments recorded for US11157256 on the USPTO Assignment Center as of 2026-06-17.

The Google Patents legal events section shows some assignments:

• 2020-09-27 (executed) / Not recorded on USPTO Assignment Center —
  • Conveyance: Reassignment
  • Assignor: NOGUEIRA, JONATHAN, AYERS, BRANDON BRENT, BEN HAIM, LIOR
  • Assignee: DIGITAL TURBINE, INC.
  • Context: Assignment of inventors' interest to original assignee.
• 2021-02-27 (executed) / Not recorded on USPTO Assignment Center —
  • Conveyance: Reassignment (Security Interest)
  • Assignor: DIGITAL TURBINE, INC.
  • Assignee: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., AS ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT
  • Context: Security interest granted to Bank of America.
• 2025-08-29 (executed) / Not recorded on USPTO Assignment Center —
  • Conveyance: Reassignment (Release of Security Interest)
  • Assignor: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., AS ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT
  • Assignee: DIGITAL TURBINE, INC.
  • Context: Release of security interest from Bank of America.
• 2025-08-29 (executed) / Not recorded on USPTO Assignment Center —
  • Conveyance: Reassignment (Security Interest)
  • Assignor: DIGITAL TURBINE, INC.
  • Assignee: BLUE TORCH FINANCE LLC
  • Context: Security interest granted to Blue Torch Finance LLC.

Note: While Google Patents surfaces these events as "reassignments" with specific dates, the USPTO Assignment Center (which is the primary source for this analysis) shows no recorded assignments for US11157256. This means these events, if they occurred, were either not recorded with the USPTO Assignment Division or are recorded under a different application or publication number not directly linked to the issued patent 11157256 in the public search interface.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US11157256
    2018 : Priority date
    2020 : Filed by Digital Turbine Inc
    2021 : Issued to Digital Turbine Inc

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The patent remains with the operating company, Digital Turbine Inc.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Digital Turbine Inc. is an operating company, not a known NPE. There are no known NPEs in the listed assignment chain.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. Since no assignments are recorded on the USPTO Assignment Center, there is no correspondent information to analyze for recurrence.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. There are no recorded assignments in the USPTO Assignment Center.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While the Google Patents record indicates "Family has litigation" with a PTAB case and a US case filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, without specific assignment dates from the USPTO Assignment Center, it is not possible to determine if any unrecorded transfers occurred within 6 months prior to these litigations.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Digital Turbine Inc. is an active operating company.
7. Privateering — not present. There is no evidence of Digital Turbine Inc. transferring this patent to an NPE for assertion on its behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The current assignee is Digital Turbine Inc., an operating company, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Insufficient data. There are no assignments recorded in the USPTO Assignment Center for US11157256 (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). While Google Patents shows some internal reassignments and security interests, these are not formally recorded assignments of ownership with the USPTO Assignment Division. Without such records, it is not possible to adequately assess NPE patterns based on ownership changes, correspondents, or transfer timing. The patent appears to remain with the original operating assignee, Digital Turbine Inc.

Based on the provided full patent text for US11157256, there is no "References Cited" section listing prior art patents. The patent document mentions "RELATED APPLICATIONS," specifically noting that this application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/903,054, filed on February 23, 2018. This parent application is not considered prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for its continuation, as it is part of the same patent family and shares the same priority date.

Therefore, I cannot provide a list of patent citations, their publication/filing dates, brief descriptions, or which claims they potentially anticipate, as this information is not present within the provided patent text.

Obviousness Analysis of US11157256 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis aims to determine whether the claims of US11157256 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the priority date of February 23, 2018, based on the prior art described within the patent text and general knowledge in the field.

A significant challenge in this analysis is the absence of a "References Cited" list of specific patent or non-patent literature within the provided patent text. The "Prior art keywords" and "Prior art date" are available, and the "FIELD AND BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION" section describes the problem in the prior art. Therefore, this analysis will rely on a conceptual understanding of the prior art as described in the patent, combined with the general knowledge a PHOSITA would possess at the priority date.

Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA):
A PHOSITA in this field would be a software engineer or developer with several years of experience in mobile application development, advertising platforms, network protocols, and mobile operating system functionalities. They would be familiar with app distribution models, background processing, user interface design for mobile, and the economic drivers of mobile advertising, including ad conversion and fraud prevention.

Core Invention as Described by Independent Claims (1, 11, 19):
The independent claims (1, 11, and 19) generally describe a system and method for "instant installation" of a first software application on a device. This involves:

1. Identifying a user selecting a link for the first application while a second (current) application is running.
2. Invoking an installation client to run in the background without exiting the second application.
3. Instructing the installation client to automatically download the installation file for the first application over a network.
4. Installing the first application using the downloaded file.

The patent explicitly identifies the problem in the prior art: "The conversion problem arises when a user who indicated interest in installing the new app is redirected to an app store. This redirection interrupts user interaction with the current app and forces user attention to the app store, which may not be desired by the user. This often results in the user deciding not to install the new app or even to install a competing app advertised by the app store." [cite: The conversion problem arises when a user who indicated interest in installing the new app is redirected to an app store. This redirection interrupts user interaction with the current app and forces user attention to the app store, which may not be desired by the user. This often results in the user deciding not to install the new app or even to install a competing app advertised by the app store.]

The patent states its technical solution as: "to run an installation client in the background while the current app remains running in the foreground. Further interaction with the user relating to the installation process is processed by the installation client on the device, and is not forwarded to a different network element (e.g. app store server) for processing. In fact, any communication with an app store may be completely eliminated from the communication and operation flow." [cite: The technical solution is to run an installation client in the background while the current app remains running in the foreground. Further interaction with the user relating to the installation process is processed by the installation client on the device, and is not forwarded to a different network element (e.g. app store server) for processing. In fact, any communication with an app store may be completely eliminated from the communication and operation flow.]

Hypothesized Combination of Prior Art and Motivation to Combine:

For the purpose of this analysis, we will consider the following conceptual elements, understood to be known or readily apparent to a PHOSITA by the priority date:

• Prior Art A (App Store Redirection Model): It was well-known that clicking an ad for an app would typically redirect the user to an app store to complete the download and installation. This process interrupted the user's current activity. [cite: A significant problem with this flow is poor ad conversion. The conversion problem arises when a user who indicated interest in installing the new app is redirected to an app store. This redirection interrupts user interaction with the current app and forces user attention to the app store, which may not be desired by the user.]
• Prior Art B (Background Processes/Services): Mobile operating systems (e.g., Android, iOS) commonly allowed applications or services to run in the background to perform tasks like downloading, syncing, or updating, without interrupting the foreground user experience.
• Prior Art C (Deep Linking): Deep linking was a known technique for invoking specific applications or particular content within an application via a URI, rather than just opening a web page. This included custom URL schemes that could register an app as a handler.
• Prior Art D (Direct Download/Side-loading): It was known that application installation files (e.g., APKs for Android) could be obtained and installed directly from sources other than official app stores (e.g., developer websites, enterprise distribution, third-party app stores).
• Prior Art E (Minimally Invasive User Interfaces): Displaying temporary or non-interrupting user interface elements (e.g., banners, toast messages, overlay pop-ups) for notifications or quick confirmations was a common design pattern in mobile applications to maintain user context.

Obviousness Argument:

The independent claims of US11157256, which detail the instant installation of apps via a background installation client, would have been obvious to a PHOSITA by the priority date of February 23, 2018, by combining Prior Arts A-E.

1. Recognition of the Problem (Prior Art A): The patent itself articulates the "conversion problem" arising from app store redirection, noting its interruption of user experience and negative impact on ad conversion. [cite: The conversion problem arises when a user who indicated interest in installing the new app is redirected to an app store. This redirection interrupts user interaction with the current app and forces user attention to the app store, which may not be desired by the user.] A PHOSITA, motivated by the desire to improve user experience and increase ad conversion rates (a well-known commercial objective in mobile advertising), would be actively seeking solutions to this recognized problem.

2. Motivation to Eliminate Redirection and Maintain User Context: Given the problems described in Prior Art A, a PHOSITA would be motivated to devise a system that minimizes or eliminates the redirection to a separate app store. The goal would be to keep the user within the context of the second (current) application while the first (new) application is installed.

3. Applying Background Processing (Prior Art B): To achieve non-interruption, a PHOSITA would naturally consider using background processes or services (Prior Art B), which were widely implemented in mobile operating systems for tasks that should not disrupt foreground user interaction (e.g., large downloads). Thus, instructing an "installation client" to perform downloading and installation in the background is a predictable application of known technology to solve the problem of user interruption.

4. Implementing a Dedicated "Installation Client" and Deep Linking (Prior Art C): Instead of redirecting to a generic app store, a PHOSITA would conceive of a dedicated on-device "installation client" (perhaps a lightweight application or a module within an existing system app) to handle the custom installation flow. This client could be invoked directly using a deep link (Prior Art C), which was a known method for launching specific app functionality. Registering a dedicated deep link format for instant installs would be an obvious way to ensure the correct client is invoked.

5. Direct Download of Installation Files (Prior Art D): Since the objective is to bypass the app store, the PHOSITA would recognize that installation files (e.g., APKs) could be sourced directly from content delivery networks or private repositories (Prior Art D) rather than solely through the app store's infrastructure. This removes the app store as an intermediary, directly addressing the redirection problem.

6. Maintaining User Experience with Minimal Interaction (Prior Art E): For any necessary user interaction (e.g., confirmation of installation), the PHOSITA would leverage known techniques for minimally invasive user interfaces (Prior Art E), such as pop-ups or banners, that could appear over the second application without fully switching context. The patent itself describes such an approach, where "a portion of the display screen shows the current app (possibly dimmed or otherwise obscured as illustrated in FIG. 2B ), simulating a user experience of remaining in the context of the current app even during the brief period that the installation client runs in the foreground." [cite: In some embodiments the installation client operates in the foreground during some of the instant installation process (e.g. to obtain user confirmation of the instant installation as described below). Optionally, while the installation client operates in the foreground a portion of the display screen shows the current app (possibly dimmed or otherwise obscured as illustrated in FIG. 2B ), simulating a user experience of remaining in the context of the current app even during the brief period that the installation client runs in the foreground.]

Conclusion on Obviousness:
A PHOSITA, motivated to solve the well-understood problem of poor ad conversion and user interruption caused by app store redirection (Prior Art A), would have found it obvious to combine the known concepts of background processing (Prior Art B), deep linking to a dedicated client (Prior Art C), direct download of installation files (Prior Art D), and minimally disruptive user interfaces (Prior Art E). This combination would lead directly to the claimed invention of an on-device installation client that runs in the background to automatically download and install applications without redirecting the user to an app store or exiting the foreground application. The benefits cited by the patent (improved speed, usability, accuracy, control, and fraud protection) are all predictable results of such a combination, flowing from the elimination of the app store redirection step.