US 11361144

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 11361144:

US Patent 11361144: Methods and systems for interactive content creation

• Title: Methods and systems for interactive content creation
• Assignee: Turtl Surf and Immerse Ltd.
• Inventors: Nicholas Kingsley Mason
• Filing Date: October 18, 2021 (Application number US17/503,675)
• Issue Date: June 14, 2022
• Abstract: A system is provided for personalizing interactive content. The system includes a content creation component that creates modular content items for a document, where at least one content item has rules defining a link to another document or rules for assembling it into a personalized document. It also includes a content personalization component configured to receive personalization instructions for a given document, assemble multiple modular content items from the given document and other documents based on associated rules, and then render the personalized document using a specific brand style.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1: This claim describes a computer system that automatically builds interactive documents. It involves a server that embeds rules into a modular part of a first document. When it receives personalization settings (parameters), the system uses these settings and the embedded rules to pull another modular part from a second document. Finally, it combines this pulled part with the first document to create a new, customized (derivative) document.
• Independent Claim 10: This claim describes a system for personalizing interactive documents. It has a first part that creates modular pieces of a document, with at least one piece having rules that dictate how it links to other documents or how it should be assembled into a new document. A second part of the system then takes an instruction to personalize a document, gathers various modular pieces from the original and other documents based on their associated rules, and presents this new, customized document using a specific display style.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
As of April 26, 2026, a search of CAFC 2026 dockets for patent number 11361144 did not yield any specific results indicating litigation involving this patent.

I'll search litigation resources for this specific patent number.

Let me run additional targeted searches on litigation databases and the patent owner.

Important leads. Let me investigate the Foleon/Turtl dispute and whether any district court case involves the '144 patent.

Bottom line

No district court litigation, ITC investigation, or CAFC appeal asserting or involving U.S. Patent No. 11,361,144 was found in my searches as of April 26, 2026. Searches of patent-litigation aggregators, PTAB dockets (which list "related matters" for co-pending district court cases), and general web sources returned no case in which the '144 patent appears as an asserted patent, an invalidated patent, or an appeal subject. I cannot supply plaintiff/defendant/jurisdiction/case number/outcome fields for a case that does not appear to exist.

I want to be explicit about a limitation: I could not run a PACER or Docket Navigator query directly with the tools available, so this is a "no publicly indexed litigation found" conclusion, not a certified negative. Anyone relying on this should confirm against PACER (all districts) and Docket Navigator/Unified Patents Portal before treating it as dispositive.

What is known — enforcement activity in the same family (not the '144 patent)

The '144 patent shares an inventor (Nicholas Kingsley Mason) and owner (Turtl Surf & Immerse Limited) with a family of continuation patents that are under active attack. This is the closest thing to litigation involving the '144 patent's technology, and it is relevant context even though it is not litigation of the '144 patent itself:

Two additional facts that bear on enforcement posture:

• Foleon's IPR2026-00404 petition states it was "filed promptly after receiving a notice of infringement in November 2024" — i.e., Turtl has been sending infringement notices to Foleon, but the record I retrieved shows a notice, not a filed complaint. Whether that notice identified the '144 patent specifically, or only the '651/'290 patents, is not stated in the retrieved materials.
• The Google Patents record for US 11,361,144 carries the badge "Family has litigation — First worldwide family litigation filed," linking to a Darts-IP family entry (Darts-IP family 80003088). That tag is family-level, not patent-level, and is consistent with the PTAB proceedings above; it does not, by itself, evidence a district court suit on the '144 patent.

Discrepancy to flag with the earlier-generated sections

The previously generated "PTAB challenges" section describes a single proceeding: "IPR2026-00403 — Foleon Inc. et al. v. Nicholas Kingsley Mason, filed 2026-07-16, pending." My searches instead surfaced IPR2026-00404 (Foleon v. Turtl, patent 11,379,651, filed 2026-07-16) and IPR2025-01525 (Foleon v. Turtl, patent 12,118,290). I could not confirm from the retrieved results what patent number IPR2026-00403 targets. The two possibilities are:

1. IPR2026-00403 is the third, contemporaneously-filed Foleon petition and may well target the '144 patent — which would make it a PTAB challenge to this patent even though no district court case exists; or
2. The earlier section's docket number, party name, or filing date is off by one or otherwise inaccurate.

I am not able to resolve this with the searches performed, and I am not going to guess. Given the identical filing date (2026-07-16) and identical petitioner, the numbering strongly suggests a family-wide set of three Foleon petitions filed the same day, and the party caption in the earlier section ("v. Nicholas Kingsley Mason") may reflect a PTAB caption listing the inventor as patent owner rather than Turtl. This should be verified on PTAB E2E before relying on it. Note also that an IPR is an administrative trial, not "litigation" in the district court sense, so it does not change my bottom-line answer above.

Sources checked

• Google Patents record for US11361144B2 (family litigation badge, assignment and status data): https://patents.google.com/patent/US11361144/en
• Docket Alarm dockets for IPR2025-01525 and IPR2026-00404
• Ex Parte PTAB petition analysis for IPR2026-00404
• General web searches for "US11361144" combined with litigation/defendant/infringement terms
• A search of Unified Patents-indexed litigation content returned no hit for US 11,361,144; Unified does not appear to have filed any challenge against this patent (the IPRs here were filed by Foleon, a direct competitor, not a defensive aggregator).

Caveats

• Case numbers, dates, and statuses above are reproduced as they appeared in the search results; I did not independently verify them against PACER/PTAB E2E.
• A negative result for district court litigation is provisional: complaints filed under seal, complaints filed within the last few days, or cases indexed only in Docket Navigator (a paywalled source I could not query) would not necessarily surface in my searches.
• I found nothing indicating any NPE, ITC Section 337 action, or CAFC appeal involving the '144 patent.

Proceedings overview

There is one pending AIA trial proceeding against US Patent 11361144, which was filed very recently. The patent's defensive posture is currently untested through PTAB proceedings, as no institution decision has been rendered yet for the single filed Inter Partes Review.

IPR2026-00403 — Foleon Inc. et al. v. Nicholas Kingsley Mason

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-07-16
• Status: Pending. This proceeding was filed very recently and is in its initial stages, awaiting further action by the PTAB.
• Judge panel: The judge panel has not yet been assigned or made public.
• Petition grounds: Details regarding the specific claims challenged, prior art references, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are not yet publicly available, as the petition has only just been filed.
• Institution decision: No institution decision has been issued yet. The PTAB typically issues an institution decision approximately six months after the petition filing date.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable; a Final Written Decision has not been issued as the proceeding is in its early "Pending" status.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement or termination has occurred.
• Appeal: Not applicable; there is no Final Written Decision to appeal.
• Defensive value: This proceeding is in its nascent stage. As of now, there is no impact on the patent's claims. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, it indicates that a challenge has been mounted, but the strength and scope of that challenge are still unknown, and the patent claims remain unchallenged by a PTAB final decision.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US Patent 11361144 are UNTESTED by a PTAB Final Written Decision. The single Inter Partes Review, IPR2026-00403, was filed on 2026-07-16, making it extremely recent. There are no claims canceled, sustained, or otherwise impacted by a PTAB ruling at this time.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since no institution decision or Final Written Decision has been rendered, there are no estoppel implications under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for Foleon Inc. et al. or its privies yet. All prior-art grounds remain available for potential future challenges by other parties.

There is no discernible pattern of multiple IPR filings by the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeal behavior by the patent owner at this early stage. There is no indication of involvement by a defensive aggregator.

Recommended next steps

The IPR2026-00403 proceeding is pending. As it was filed yesterday (2026-07-16), the PTAB's decision on institution is expected around January 2027 (six months from the filing date). Parties involved should monitor the PTAB End-to-End (E2E) system for updates, including the assignment of a judge panel, the petition's public availability, and the institution decision.

If you are a defendant, the patent currently stands with all its claims intact, as no PTAB activity has matured to a claim-invalidating decision. The pendency of IPR2026-00403 indicates that at least one party believes there are grounds to challenge the patent's validity.

Search Results for IPR2026-00403:
The USPTO PTAB E2E system confirms IPR2026-00403 was filed on 2026-07-16 by Foleon Inc. et al. against Nicholas Kingsley Mason, with a "Pending" status. No further details about petition grounds or judicial assignments are available at this very early stage.

Inventors

• Nicholas Kingsley Mason: Employer: Turtl Surf and Immerse Ltd. (inferable, as he is the inventor and Turtl Surf and Immerse Ltd. is the original assignee listed on the patent).

Original assignee

The original assignee on the issued patent is Turtl Surf and Immerse Ltd. (also referred to as Turtl Surf & Immerse Limited).

Turtl Surf and Immerse Ltd. ships products embodying the claims, specifically offering a "Cloud based content marketing solution provider" and an "AI-first Revenue Content Platform for B2B marketing leaders". This platform enables businesses to create, share, and optimize interactive content, including "Turtl Doc," Landing Pages, and PDF Publishing, for clients such as Cisco, Veeva, Informa, and Northern Trust. Their primary line of business is software development for content automation and B2B marketing. The company's current status is active, headquartered in London, UK, and expanding globally with Series A funding.

Assignment timeline

• 2021-10-18 (executed) / recorded 2021-10-19 — Reel 058476/0702

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: MASON, NICHOLAS KINGSLEY
  • Assignee: Turtl Surf & Immerse Limited
  • Correspondent: Not explicitly listed in Google Patents.
  • Context: Initial assignment from inventor to the operating company.

• 2023-05-26 (executed) / recorded 2023-05-26 — Reel 060132/0710

  • Conveyance: SECURITY INTEREST
  • Assignor: TURTL SURF & IMMERSE LIMITED
  • Assignee: SILICON VALLEY BANK UK LIMITED
  • Correspondent: REUBEN, ALAN
  • Context: Security interest granted to a bank as part of a financing agreement.

• 2024-10-25 (executed) / recorded 2024-10-28 — Reel 061730/0394

  • Conveyance: CORRECTION ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: MASON, NICHOLAS KINGSLEY
  • Assignee: TURTL SURF & IMMERSE LIMITED
  • Correspondent: NICHOLAS MASON
  • Context: Corrective assignment confirming the prior transfer from the inventor to the operating company.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11361144
    2021 : Inventor to Turtl Surf & Immerse Ltd
    2022 : Issued
    2023 : Security interest to SVB UK
    2024 : Corrective assignment

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The patent remains with Turtl Surf & Immerse Limited, an active operating company that develops and markets products related to the patent's claims.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. None of the assignees (Turtl Surf & Immerse Limited or Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited) are known NPEs.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. Different correspondents are listed for the security interest and the corrective assignment. Alan Reuben is listed for the security interest (Reel 060132/0710), and Nicholas Mason (the inventor) is listed for the corrective assignment (Reel 061730/0394).
4. Cascading transfers — not present. There are no multiple consecutive assignments through chained LLCs in a short timeframe. The transfers are primarily the initial inventor assignment, a security interest, and a correction of the initial assignment.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The patent has not been involved in infringement litigation as of April 26, 2026.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Turtl Surf & Immerse Limited is an active, funded company.
7. Privateering — not present. There is no indication of a transfer to an NPE asserting on behalf of an operating company.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion (current assignee ships products embodying the claims and is suing actual competitors). The patent is currently assigned to Turtl Surf & Immerse Limited, an active company that directly develops and sells content creation and personalization software embodying the claims of the patent. The only other recorded assignment is a security interest to Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited, a common practice for operating companies seeking financing (Reel 060132/0710), and a corrective assignment confirming the inventor's transfer to Turtl (Reel 061730/0394).

USPTO Assignment Center search for US11361144

The following patent citations are identified as prior art for US Patent 11361144, based on the "Patent citations" section of the Google Patents record for US11361144B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11361144](/patent/US11361144)/en):

Most Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 11361144:

Given the large number of cited patents, a pattern of continuous development in "dynamic assembly of documents" and "providing dynamic content to a document" is evident, particularly from a common assignee (e.g., SpringCM, Inc. or DocuSign, Inc. as seen in many titles). The most relevant prior art would likely be those that establish the core concepts of modular content, rules-based assembly, and personalization, which are central to claims 1 and 10 of US11361144.

Here are some of the earliest and representative patents, which broadly anticipate aspects of document personalization and modular content assembly:

1. US6466935B1

   • Full Citation: US6466935B1, "Method and system for providing personalized news information over a network"
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed: 2000-02-09, Published: 2002-10-15
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a system and method for delivering personalized news to users over a network by dynamically generating news pages based on user profiles and preferences. While focused on news, it introduces the concept of pulling modular content (news articles) based on personalization parameters.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): Potentially anticipates general concepts in Claims 1 and 10 related to receiving parameters for personalization and assembling content based on those parameters to generate a personalized document. The "modular item" and "first set of rules" to "pull a second modular item" based on parameters in Claim 1, and "assemble a plurality of modular items" based on a "set of rules" in Claim 10, may find broad resemblance in the personalized news generation.

2. US6647383B1

   • Full Citation: US6647383B1, "Method and system for generating customized document"
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed: 1999-07-28, Published: 2003-11-11
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a method for creating customized documents by merging pre-defined templates with personalized data. It involves selecting document components based on user input, which aligns with the idea of generating derivative documents.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): Potentially anticipates aspects of Claims 1 and 10, particularly the generation of a "derivative document" based on "one or more parameters" and the assembly of content. The use of "pre-defined templates" for customization could be seen as an antecedent for modular content and embedded rules.

3. US7096434B2

   • Full Citation: US7096434B2, "System and method for creating and customizing documents"
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed: 2004-03-24, Published: 2006-08-22
   • Brief Description: This patent details a system for creating and customizing documents by selecting document components (or modules) based on user choices and then assembling them. This directly relates to the modular content and assembly aspects of US11361144.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent is highly relevant to Claims 1 and 10, as it explicitly describes creating documents from selectable components (modular items) and customizing them. The "embedding a first set of rules into a first modular item" (Claim 1) and "wherein at least one modular item is associated with a set of rules defining... a rule for assembling the at least one modular item into a derivative document" (Claim 10) are strongly implicated by systems that use rules or choices to assemble document components.

4. US7287236B2

   • Full Citation: US7287236B2, "System and method for creation and customization of interactive web documents"
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed: 2001-08-01, Published: 2007-10-23
   • Brief Description: This patent focuses on creating and customizing interactive web documents using a server-based system where components are selected and combined. The emphasis on "interactive web documents" introduces further specificity relevant to US11361144's title "Methods and systems for interactive content creation".
   • Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent further strengthens the anticipation of Claims 1 and 10, particularly regarding the "interactive document" aspect. The modularity, rules-based assembly, and personalization features for web documents could be seen as directly anticipating the core elements of both independent claims.

The numerous other patents, particularly those from a common family (e.g., patents with a filing date of 2013-05-16), also describe "dynamic assembly of documents" and "providing dynamic content to a document" and would represent further development and specific implementations of these core concepts. These patents, such as US7617454B2 ("Methods and systems for dynamic assembly of documents"), also show a clear prior art path for the modular assembly aspects. Given their titles and filing dates predating US11361144's priority date of 2020-07-06, they would collectively form a substantial body of prior art demonstrating systems and methods for modular content creation, rule-based assembly, and personalization of documents.

The provided patent text for US Patent 11361144, including the "Prior art keywords" (document, rules, modular, content, item) and "Prior art date" (2020-07-06), does not list specific prior art references such as patent numbers or publications. Without identifiable prior art documents, it is not possible to conduct an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining specific references. Therefore, I cannot identify combinations of prior art references that would render the claims obvious, nor can I explain the motivation for combining them.