US 11537814

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number.

Let me check specifically for any Federal Circuit appeal involving this patent and its litigation.

Let me check for any PTAB/IPR proceedings and to confirm the independent claim set.

US Patent 11,537,814 — Analyst Summary

Search scope note: I searched for this exact number and its family/court identifiers. I did not find any Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docket for US 11,537,814, so I cannot confirm any CAFC 2026 appeal. What I did find is active 2024–2026 district-court litigation and a 2026 Markman dispute. Details and caveats below.

Bibliographic data (as reflected in the patent record)

Representative CPC: G06V10/774; G06F18/214; G06F18/2178; G06N3/0464; G06N3/09; G06N3/08; G06V20/20; G06F3/04847.

Abstract (verbatim)

"Identification means 71 identifies an object indicated by data by applying the data to a model learned by machine learning. Determination means 72 determines whether or not the data is transmission target data to be transmitted to a predetermined computer based on a result obtained by applying the data to the model. Data transmission means 73 transmits the data determined to be the transmission target data to the predetermined computer at a predetermined timing."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The specification is drafted in traditional Japanese "means"-style form, with parallel aspects: (a) a data providing system, (b) a data providing system with an operator display/transmit button, (c) a data collection system (grouped selection), (d) a data collection system (icon display), plus method and program aspects.

Claim 1 — Data providing system (the independent claim I was able to verify verbatim):

1. an identification unit that identifies an object indicated by data by applying the data to a machine-learning model;
2. a determination unit that decides, based on the result of applying the data to the model, whether that data is "transmission target data" to be sent to a predetermined computer; and
3. a data transmission unit that sends the data determined to be transmission-target data to that computer at a predetermined timing.

Verified dependent claims 2–7 add: (2) transmit when a derived reliability of the identification result is ≤ a threshold; (3) cross-checking an identification result with a different data providing system and transmitting when the results differ; (4) operator confirmation of a presented identification result; (5) transmit when accumulated capacity reaches a threshold; (6) transmit at a predetermined time; (7) transmit when a per-period erroneous-identification rate ≥ a threshold.

Data collection system — grouped selection aspect (from the Summary of Invention): A system of multiple data providing systems plus a collection device. Each providing system collects data at its installation location, identifies an object via the learned model, decides whether the data is transmission target data based on the model result, and transmits it. The collection device classifies the providing systems into groups based on an attribute of the data collection means, selects providing systems from each group upon an operator operation, and sends a data-transmission request to the selected systems; each providing system transmits upon receiving that request.

Data collection system — icon display aspect: Adds index-value transmission means in each providing system (sending an index of model identification accuracy) and, in the collection device, classification means plus icon display means that shows icons for each providing system in different modes per group and displays the received index value next to each icon; a data request means sends a transmission request to the providing system whose icon was clicked.

Method and program aspects: A data providing method (identify → determine → transmit at a predetermined timing); a data collection method (identify/determine per providing system; classify/select/request per collection device; transmit on request); and a data providing program for causing a computer to execute identification, determination, and data-transmission processing.

Uncertainty flag: I directly verified only claim 1 and its dependents 2–7 from an authoritative claim text. The independent claims for the data-collection-system, method, and program aspects are reproduced in the patent's Summary of Invention and analogous "Supplementary Note" language, but I did not independently confirm their exact issued claim numbers/language. Treat the claim-number mapping for those aspects as unconfirmed.

Litigation context (2024–2026) — relevant to validity/enforceability posture

• E.D. Tex. cases listed on the patent record: 2:24‑cv‑00720, 2:24‑cv‑00722, 2:24‑cv‑00881; E.D. Va.: 1:24‑cv‑01870.
• The Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists NEC Corporation v. YI Technologies, Inc., 2:24‑cv‑00722 (E.D. Tex.), with NEC characterized as a practicing entity.
• NEC Corporation v. Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd., 2:24‑cv‑00720 (E.D. Tex.): the '814 patent was one of six asserted patents, and it is the sole patent at issue in NEC's motion regarding means-plus-function construction. Per the 2026 decision text: NEC argued "identification unit," "determination unit," and "data transmission unit" were means-plus-function terms requiring CPU structure; Anker argued they were indefinite. The court's Markman Order issued June 26, 2026 adopted "specific and nuanced constructions for the unit terms that neither party advanced," and NEC sought (and was granted) leave to address those constructions (see Dkt. No. 214, E.D. Tex. 2026). The court construed the "identification unit" as "a general purpose processor programmed to calculate the reliabilities …," and the "determination unit" as a processor configured to apply both a reliability-threshold determination and a cross-system identification-comparison determination.
• IPR/PTAB: I found no IPR or PTO validity proceeding specifically against US 11,537,814. Searches surfaced NEC-related IPRs on other patents (e.g., Peloton v. NEC, IPR2023‑01240/‑01241 on US 9,769,427; Dell-related petitions on '265/other NEC patents), which are not the patent at issue and should not be conflated.

CAFC 2026 docket — status

The specific question asked was whether there is a CAFC 2026 docket for US 11,537,814. Based on my searches:

• No Federal Circuit appeal docket (2026 or otherwise) for this patent was found. I cannot state that no appeal exists; I can only say my searches did not surface one. Note that district-court matters involving this patent appeared to still be in pretrial/claim-construction and motion practice as of the most recent 2026 documents I retrieved, which is consistent with there being no appeal yet.
• The Federal Circuit 2026 materials my searches returned concerned different patents and parties (e.g., Greenthread IPR appeal notices, Contour IP v. GoPro, Spero v. Mercedes‑Benz, TJTM v. Google) and must not be attributed to the '814 patent.

Confidence: High on bibliographic data, abstract, and claim 1; high that no CAFC appeal for this number appeared in my searches; medium/low on the exact independent-claim numbering for the collection-system/method/program aspects; unknown as to any non-public or newly filed appeal that post-dates my searches.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 11,537,814. Let me start with the sources referenced in the patent record and other litigation databases.

I have initial results. Let me dig deeper into the specific case numbers and find details on the remaining cases.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 11,537,814

Important preliminary notes on method and confidence

• I interpreted "11537814" literally as U.S. Patent No. 11,537,814 B2 ("Data providing system and data collection system," NEC Corp., granted Dec. 27, 2022, filed as PCT/JP2018/017609 on May 7, 2018). I did not substitute similar numbers.
• I searched the Google Patents litigation links embedded in the patent record, the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, Unified Patents' litigation portal links, Justia dockets, and secondary sources (Laser Focus World, IP Law Daily/VitalLaw).
• Caveat: The patent record itself lists four litigation entries (three E.D. Tex. case numbers and one E.D. Va. case number), but two of those entries are the same case at different stages (an E.D. Va. declaratory-judgment action that was transferred to E.D. Tex.). I flag this explicitly below so you do not double-count.
• I found no CAFC appeal and no IPR/PGR at the PTAB specifically challenging the '814 patent.

Case 1 — NEC Corp. v. Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd. and Anker Innovations Ltd.

Sources: Google Patents litigation links (darts-ip family 68468492; Unified Patents portal cases 2:24-cv-00720/00722); Justia docket 2:2024cv00720 doc. 214; govinfo PDF of the same order; IP Law Daily, "PATENT—E.D. Tex.: Object-detection patents did not succumb to invalidity challenges" (Jun. 11, 2026).

Case 2 — NEC Corp. v. YI Technologies, Inc.

Sources: Stanford NPE Litigation Database, patent 11537814 (lists only this case); Ex Parte complaint analysis, 2:24-cv-00722; Laser Focus World, "Photonics IP Update: September 2024."

Case 3 — Power Mobile Life, LLC and Fantasia Trading, LLC v. NEC Corporation

Sources: Justia docket 2:2024cv00881; RPX litigation document (DJ of non-infringement of the '814 patent, dated Oct. 24, 2024); Ex Parte case summary 2:24-cv-00881.

Items I deliberately excluded (so you don't misattribute them)

• NEC Corp. v. Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:26-cv-00847 (E.D. Tex.), filed September 18, 2026 — a second NEC suit against Anker. The six patents asserted there are U.S. 12,423,985; 10,223,619; 12,641,315; 10,706,336; 10,552,713; and 11,144,776. The '814 patent is not among them, so this case does not involve US 11,537,814. (Reported by 知产财经/sohu, Sept. 22, 2026.)
• The First-to-File Darts-IP family link (family 68468492) and the four Unified Patents portal URLs in the Google Patents record correspond to the three distinct proceedings above — the E.D. Va. and E.D. Tex. entries are the same action before and after transfer.

Summary

Three distinct proceedings involve US 11,537,814:

1. NEC v. Anker Innovations — 2:24-cv-00720 (E.D. Tex.), filed 9/3/2024 — active; §101 dismissal denied 6/4/2026; trial set 9/11/2026.
2. NEC v. YI Technologies — 2:24-cv-00722 (E.D. Tex.), filed 9/3/2024 — active; no final outcome found.
3. Power Mobile Life/Fantasia Trading v. NEC — 1:24-cv-01870 (E.D. Va.), transferred to 2:24-cv-00881 (E.D. Tex.), filed 10/24/2024 — voluntarily dismissed 12/5/2024.

No CAFC appeal and no PTAB post-grant challenge specific to the '814 patent were identified. If you need certified docket sheets or the complaints themselves, PACER (txed and vaed) and CourtListener RECAP would be the authoritative next step.

I'll start by verifying the structured-data default with targeted web searches for any AIA proceedings the ODP may not have indexed.

Let me run more targeted searches to confirm the absence and identify the litigation context.

Let me do a final targeted check for any recent or Unified Patents-filed challenge and any Federal Circuit appeal.

PTAB / AIA Trial Analysis — US 11,537,814 B2

Patent: US 11,537,814 B2 ("Data providing system and data collection system"), application 17/053,587, PCT/JP2018/017609 filed 2018-05-07, granted 2022-12-27, assignee NEC Corp, inventor Tetsuo Inoshita, adjusted expiration 2038-12-30.

Sourcing note. The "PTAB proceedings on file" block supplied for this task is the canonical USPTO Open Data Portal list and reports zero (0) AIA trial proceedings for this patent. I ran targeted web searches to catch anything the ODP ingest might have missed (patent number, assignee, inventor, petitioner, and the co-pending litigation captions below). Those searches surfaced no IPR, PGR, CBM, or derivate proceeding on US 11,537,814. No proceeding numbers appear anywhere in this report because none exist to report — inventing one would be a fabrication.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0 — 0 active, 0 with claims invalidated, 0 with claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials. The patent has never been challenged at the PTAB, so the bottom-line defensive posture for a defendant is the opposite of "hardened": the claims are wholly untested in an AIA forum, and the prints on this patent are entirely those of an asserted, in-suit patent — NEC is actively enforcing it in district court (four 2024 filings, see below) and the only validity fight so far is a claim-construction/means-plus-function fight, not a PTAB trial.

Proceedings

None. There are no proceedings to itemize. Because the required per-proceeding template (petitioner, panel, grounds, institution decision, FWD, settlement, appeal) has no subject matter, I am not populating it; doing so would require inventing data.

The litigation facts that matter instead

The absence of PTAB activity is not the whole story — this patent is in active assertion, which is the real defensive fact pattern:

Source (docket links from the patent record): Unified Patents litigation portal — E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00720, 2:24-cv-00722, 2:24-cv-00881, E.D. Va. 1:24-cv-01870. Case list corroborated at the Stanford NPE Litigation Database.

One notable substantive development, from a secondary source (Justia docket summary, Doc. 214, NEC v. Anker, 2:24-cv-00720): after a Markman hearing on 2026-02-03 and expert discovery closing 2026-05-29, the court issued a Markman order on 2026-06-26 construing the "identification unit," "determination unit," and "data transmission unit" terms of claim 1 as means-plus-function terms — adopting constructions that neither party proposed. NEC then moved for leave to address those constructions. See Justia docket summary, 2:24-cv-00720. I could not independently verify this docket entry against the court's PACER/ECF, and the corpus dates involved are unusual — treat the procedural detail as reported, not confirmed.

Strategic summary

Claim status. No claim of US 11,537,814 has been canceled, disclaimed, or held unpatentable in any AIA proceeding, and none has been upheld there either — every claim is UNTESTED at the PTAB. That is materially different from a "hardened" patent: there is no FWD to quote and no cancellation certificate to point at. The patent issued 2022-12-27, so its PGR window closed around 2023-09-27 and CBM is unavailable (CBM requires, inter alia, a pre-AIA "covered business method" patent — not this one). The only AIA vehicle still theoretically open is IPR.

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel running against anyone, because § 315(e) estoppel attaches only after a final written decision — and none exists. Conversely — and this is the crucial point for a current defendant — the § 315(b) one-year clock is likely the operative bar, not estoppel. If you were served with an NEC complaint asserting the '814 patent in 2024, your one-year window to file an IPR almost certainly expired in 2025, and you are now barred from petitioning at all. Joinder under § 315(c) is not a lifeline because joinder is only available into an instituted IPR, and there is none to join. Net effect: for the 2024-served defendants, the PTAB door is probably closed, and the validity fight runs in the district court (or via ex parte reexamination, which carries no § 315(b) bar). A defendant not yet served — or served late — may still have a live IPR window; check your service date before assuming you're barred. Note also that all prior-art grounds remain fully available in the district court; nothing has been "raised or reasonably could have been raised" in an IPR.

Pattern signals. No repeated petitioner (there are no petitioners), no PTAB appeals, and no defensive aggregator appears in the chain on this patent — no Unified Patents-filed IPR surfaced in my searches, and the only Unified Patents presence is the neutral docket-linked litigation database. NEC's enforcement here looks like a co-ordinated multi-defendant campaign (four complaints across two districts in one year) rather than the troll-vs-aggregator dynamic that produces IPR clusters. The single most attackable feature visible so far is claim 1's functional, means-plus-function "unit" language, which the E.D. Tex. court construed narrowly and on its own terms — a construction that could cut either way on infringement but that gives a defendant a concrete 112 ¶ 6 indefiniteness/scope roadmap that no PTAB panel has yet tested.

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant served in 2024 asserting the '814 patent: assume you are time-barred under § 315(b) from filing an IPR and that no joinder target exists. Confirm your exact service date; if it is more than one year past, do not budget for an IPR. Redirect that spend to (a) district-court invalidity, (b) ex parte reexamination of claim 1 on the functional "unit" limitations, and (c) the § 112 indefiniteness attack the Markman order already flagged for the "identification unit / determination unit / data transmission unit" means-plus-function terms.
2. Because no FWD exists, there is nothing to link as a "claims canceled" disposition. Do not represent to a court, an adversary, or your own client that any claim of the '814 patent has been invalidated — it has not.
3. If you were served recently (or not yet served): verify the date and, if still inside the window, have counsel evaluate an IPR targeting claim 1 now — the means-plus-function constructions adopted in E.D. Tex. are fresh, non-final-elsewhere, and may supply a clean written-description/enablement or art-mapping theory.
4. For internal early warning: the absence of a PTAB challenge on a patent asserted in four 2024 suits is unusual and worth watching — serial defendants often push one of their number to petition. If a new IPR appears (likely styled IPR2025-00xxx or IPR2026-00xxx against US 11,537,814), it will be the first, and it would immediately create both a stay vehicle and § 315(e)(2) estoppel for the petitioner only. Monitor the PTAB E2E / PTAB portal and CourtListener for any newly docketed petition and any Federal Circuit appeal.
5. Verify before relying. My searches are consistent with the ODP "no proceedings" default, but ODP ingestion can lag. If this patent is outcome-determinative for you, pull the PTAB E2E docket for US 11,537,814 directly and confirm the zero count on the record before making a litigation-position decision.

I'll research this patent's assignment chain and litigation history before producing the analysis.

Let me verify the litigation targets and check for any post-issuance assignment records.

Let me attempt to pin down the specific reel/frame and confirm the inventor/assignee details in the USPTO record.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 11,537,814 B2

Patent: US 11,537,814 B2 — "Data providing system and data collection system"
Application: 17/053,587 (35 U.S.C. §371 national stage of PCT/JP2018/017609, filed 2018-05-07)
Issued: 2022-12-27 · Adjusted expiration: 2038-12-30 · Current assignee of record per Google Patents legal events: NEC Corporation

Source-access caveat (stated up front): USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov) is a JavaScript single-page application whose record detail is not exposed to the search tooling I have available. I was therefore unable to verify individual reel/frame numbers or the correspondent of record directly from the primary source. Everything below is grounded in (a) the Google Patents legal-events mirror supplied in the authoritative full text, and (b) court filings that themselves address NEC's chain of title. Where I could not confirm a datum, I say so rather than guess. Verify reel/frame at the Assignment Center search page linked in the Verdict.

Inventors

Unusual-pattern note: None of the classic fire-sale precursor signals appear here. There is a single inventor, not a multi-inventor team, so the "all inventors departed within 12 months" heuristic is not meaningfully testable. The inventor never appears as an assignee of record, and there is no evidence of inventor-held rights surviving to a third party. The inventorship profile is typical of a Japanese corporate PCT filing (employer-owned from filing).

Original assignee

• Entity on the face of the patent: NEC Corporation (7-1, Shiba 5-chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-8001, Japan) — named as applicant at PCT filing and as assignee of the recorded inventor assignment.
• Primary line of business: NEC is a large, diversified Japanese ICT/electronics operating company (network infrastructure, biometrics and video-analytics/surveillance, AI, computing). It is a genuine manufacturer and services vendor, not a licensing shell.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? NEC is an operating company in the relevant technical space (AI/ML-based video surveillance and object detection), and it is asserting these patents as a practicing-entity plaintiff. However, I have not verified that an NEC-branded product specifically practices the '814 claims, and the specification describes the claimed system generically (a camera + computer that curates training data). I flag this as not independently confirmed rather than assuming product-practice.
• Current status: Operating / active. NEC Corporation remains a going concern and is the current owner of record. No bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition of NEC's patent estate is of record for this patent.

Cross-check that NEC still owns it: In Anker's own declaratory-judgment complaint (Power Mobile Life, LLC et al. v. NEC Corp., E.D. Va. 1:24-cv-01870, later transferred to E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00881), plaintiffs state at ¶9: "On information and belief, NEC is the current assignee and owner of the Asserted NEC Patents. NEC is the assignee listed on the face of the NEC Patents." That is a defendant's admission, not a substitute for the USPTO record — but it corroborates that no third-party transfer is on record.

Assignment timeline

The Google Patents legal-events mirror for this patent contains exactly one recorded assignment:

• Execution date not shown in the mirror / recorded 2020-11-06 — Reel/frame: could not be verified (record exists; number not retrievable in this session)
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (per the event text: "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: INOSHITA, TETSUO (sole inventor)
  • Assignee: NEC CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable from the mirror. (No recurrence finding can be made — see signal 3 below.)
  • Context: Routine inventor-to-employer assignment filed in connection with national-stage entry of the PCT application (US application 17/053,587 has a 2020-11-06 receipt date, matching the recording date). This is a housekeeping link in the chain, not an arm's-length acquisition. Note the execution/recording-date nuance: for a 2018-filed PCT, the underlying assignment document may have been executed in 2018 while only recorded at national-stage entry in 2020; the mirror shows only the 2020-11-06 recording date.

There are no post-issuance assignments of record. No transfer to an IP-holding LLC, no security agreement, no merger, no license, no release, no correction. The chain begins and ends at NEC Corporation.

Google Patents legal-events chronology (for completeness):

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11537814
    2018 : Filed as PCT by NEC Corp
    2020 : Inventor Inoshita assigns to NEC Corp
    2022 : Patent issued to NEC Corp
    2024 : NEC sues Anker and YI Technologies
         : Anker files declaratory judgment suit
    2026 : EDTX case proceeds toward trial

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Litigation context (2024–2026) — relevant to the pattern read

• NEC Corp. v. Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd. et al., 2:24-cv-00720 (E.D. Tex., filed 2024-09-03). The '814 patent is one of six asserted. On 2026-06-04, Judge Gilstrap denied Anker's Rule 12(c) §101 motion as to the '526 and '814 patents (claims held directed to an abstract idea at Alice step one but survived step two on NEC's pleading of unconventionality). Markman on the "unit" terms issued 2026-06-26. Trial activity continued into a new, second NEC suit against Anker, 2:26-cv-00847 (filed 2026-09-18) asserting six different patents.
• NEC Corp. v. YI Technologies, Inc., 2:24-cv-00722 (E.D. Tex., filed 2024-09-03) — '814 also asserted against YI/Kami camera products.
• Power Mobile Life, LLC et al. v. NEC Corp., 1:24-cv-01870 (E.D. Va., filed 2024-10-24; transferred 2024-11-04 to E.D. Tex. as 2:24-cv-00881) — this is a declaratory-judgment action brought BY Anker-side entities (Power Mobile Life, LLC and Fantasia Trading, LLC d/b/a AnkerDirect), against NEC. Important disambiguation: "Power Mobile Life, LLC" is a defendant-side/Anker-side vehicle, not an assignee in NEC's chain. It should not be read as an NPE in this patent's ownership record; it appears in litigation trackers only because the DJ plaintiff's name is LLC-formatted.
• Commercial backdrop: NEC reportedly sent Anker a licensing demand covering ~80 US patents in June 2024, and filed suit ~3 months later after negotiations failed. This is a large-operating-company monetization/assertion campaign, which is a distinct pattern from NPE trolling — but it is a licensing-program pattern worth noting, since the number of asserted patents (6, then 6 more) is a small subset of the demand.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion

Justification: The chain of title contains a single recorded assignment — the inventor Inoshita → NEC Corporation, recorded 2020-11-06 — and no transfer to any IP-holding entity, NPE, or defensive aggregator ever occurred; NEC remains the assignee of record and its ownership is corroborated by Anker's own DJ complaint (1:24-cv-01870 ¶9) stating NEC is "the current assignee and owner" listed on the patent face. Current assignee NEC Corporation is a large practicing operating company (classified as a product company / practicing entity by the Stanford NPE Litigation Database) that is suing rival surveillance-product makers Anker and YI Technologies directly and in its own name (2:24-cv-00720 and 2:24-cv-00722, both filed 2024-09-03) rather than through a licensing proxy. Notably, the first suit landed roughly four years after the only assignment, so no pre-litigation transfer signal is present, and no NPE signal of any kind is supported by the record.

What this is not: It is not an NPE chain (no shell transfer, no known asserter, no cascading LLCs, no privateering, no bankruptcy sale). The one positive caveat is pattern-adjacent rather than NPE: NEC operates a broad patent-assertion/licensing program (an ~80-patent demand letter preceding litigation), which resembles a large-cap operating-company monetization campaign more than classic troll conduct. I also could not verify the recorded correspondent or reel/frame, so signal 3 is a genuine data gap rather than a negative finding.

Verify at the primary source:

• USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 11537814)
• Legacy USPTO Assignment Search: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11537814B2/en
• Stanford NPE Litigation Database entry for this patent (lists NEC as "Product company"): https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/11537814
• RPX Empower docket, NEC v. Anker: https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txedce-[232678](/patent/232678)-nec-v-anker-innovations-technology

I'll research US patent 11537814 and its cited prior art. Let me start with searches.

Let me dig deeper into the specific citations for this patent.

Let me try to find the citation section directly and the PCT family documents.

Analysis of US 11,537,814 B2 — Prior Art / Citation Review

Important methodological note up front (please read): The user's instruction is to retrieve the "each patent citation" for US 11,537,814 from the USPTO database and map them to § 102. I ran targeted searches, but I was unable to retrieve the actual "References Cited" / "Patent Citations" list (Form PTO-892 / the front-page citations section) for US 11,537,814 within this session. Per my operating rules, I will not fabricate citation numbers. Below I give (a) the bibliographic facts I did verify, (b) the only prior art the patent document itself identifies (the "PTL 1/2/3" references in the Background Art), and (c) an explicit statement of what remains unverified and how to complete the § 102 analysis.

1. Verified bibliographic data for the target patent

These facts are confirmed by the authoritative full text provided and by search results (Google Patents / Justia):

2. Prior art identified inside the patent (the "PTL" references)

The specification's Background Art cites three references, abbreviated as PTL 1, PTL 2, and PTL 3. The provided full text of US 11,537,814 does not include the numeric citations for these PTLs, and my searches did not surface them.

What the patent says about each reference (verbatim characterizations):

I cannot give the publication numbers or dates for PTL 1–3 with confidence, so I am not going to guess them. They are almost certainly Japanese patent applications/publications (given "FAX/OCR device" subject matter and NEC's practice), but the specific JP numbers were not in the retrieved material.

3. What citation data I could NOT verify (and why this blocks a rigorous § 102 mapping)

What the user is asking for — "each patent citation for 11537814" with full citation, dates, description, and the anticipated claims — is the front-page "References Cited" (U.S. Patent Documents + Foreign Patent Documents + Non-Patent Literature) as determined by the examiner (Form PTO-892) and/or the "Patent Citations" table on Google Patents.

• My searches returned other patents' citation lists (e.g., US 11,234,366; US 10,537,560; US 11,162,716 — all chemically/technically unrelated) and unrelated web content, not the list for US 11,537,814.
• The authoritative full text supplied in the prompt ends before reproducing the Citations section, and the "Definitions"/summary excerpts do not contain it.

Conclusion: I do not have a reliable, verifiable list of the examiner-cited references for US 11,537,814. I will not invent one.

4. Claim structure (to frame any § 102 analysis)

Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that a single prior-art reference disclose every element of the claim, arranged as in the claim. From the disclosure's "Supplementary Notes" (which mirror the patent claims), the independent claims are:

1. Data providing system — identification means (apply data to machine-learned model) + determination means (decide if data is "transmission target data" based on the model result) + data transmission means (transmit at a predetermined timing).
2. Data providing system (display-control variant) — as above + display control means for a transmission-instruction button and an index value of identification accuracy; transmission triggered on button click.
3. Data collection system — plurality of data providing systems + collection device with classification means (group by collection-unit attribute), selection means, and data request means.
4. Data collection system (icon variant) — adds index value transmission means and icon display means.
5. Data providing method; 6. Data collection method; 7. Data providing program.

Dependent-claim subject matter (each a candidate § 102 hook): reliability ≤ threshold determination; cross-system identification disagreement; operator confirmation; capacity/time/erroneous-identification-rate triggers; model/feature-value transmission to the collection device.

5. Honest assessment of the § 102 question

Because I could not verify the actual cited references, I cannot responsibly state which reference anticipates which claim. Anything I wrote here mapping specific patent numbers to specific claims would be fabrication, which the operating rules forbid.

What I can say with confidence:

• PTL 1 is, on its face, the reference most likely to have been the basis of a § 102 or § 103 rejection of the first independent claim (it discloses machine-learning data selection based on an information-amount threshold), but the claimed "apply data to a learned model → determine transmission-target based on the model result → transmit at a predetermined timing" architecture appears narrower than mere information-amount filtering.
• PTL 2 and PTL 3 are, on their face, directed to FAX/OCR UI and recognition-rate counting — i.e., they map to the display-control and index-value limitations (claims 2/3 and the icon variant), not to the core ML-identification pipeline. They are more plausibly cited as § 103 secondary references or as § 102 art for the UI-dependent dependent claims.

6. Recommended next steps to complete the requested analysis

To produce the exact deliverable (full citation + date + description + § 102 claim mapping for each cited reference), retrieve one of these authoritative sources directly:

1. USPTO Patent Center / Public PAIR for application 17/053,587 — "References Cited" and Form PTO-892 (examiner citations), plus the IDS (applicant citations, i.e., PTL 1–3).
2. USPTO Patent Full-Text (patft) / PatentsView API front page for US 11,537,814.
3. Google Patents → US11537814B2 → "Citations" and "Cited By" tables.
4. Espacenet / Global Dossier for the family (PCT/JP2018/017609) — the International Search Report (Form PCT/ISA/210) will list the examiner's X/Y/A-categorized references for the parent PCT, which is often the richest single source here.

If you can paste the front-page "References Cited" list (or the ISR), I will immediately:

• normalize each citation (number, kind code, date),
• describe each reference, and
• map each to the specific independent/dependent claims it could anticipate (§ 102) or render obvious (§ 103), element by element.

I'll ground this in the prior-art material actually present on the patent page (PTL 1–3 and the admitted background art), and try to identify the references before analyzing. Let me search.

The PTL references aren't identified by number in the page text I have. Let me try to resolve them and find the cited references on the patent's own citations list.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 11,537,814 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Basis: The prior-art material appearing on the patent's own page (the Background Art / "Definitions" narrative reciting PTL 1–3, the admitted general identification system, and the front-page cited references). Criticality date used: May 7, 2018 (PCT/JP2018/017609 filing date, which the record treats as the priority/filing date).

A. Scope and integrity flags (please read before relying on the analysis)

A1 — Date contradiction (flagged as required). This task states the current date is April 26, 2026. The previously generated sections in this file rely on events dated June 4, 2026 (denial of Anker's Rule 12(c) motion), June 26, 2026 (Markman Order), and a September 11, 2026 trial setting — all of which post-date the stated "current" date. Those earlier sections also post-date the system date of 2026-09-30 in the header. I will not resolve this; I use the prior-art analysis on its own terms (art must predate May 7, 2018) and separately note the 2026 claim-construction posture. Treat the litigation chronology in the earlier sections as carrying its own date-integrity caveat.

A2 — PTL 1/2/3 are not numerically identified on the page. The page's "Definitions" section describes three references only as PTL 1, PTL 2, PTL 3. It gives no publication numbers. The Justia record for this patent lists foreign references cited on the face of the patent — JP 11‑341210 (Dec. 1999); JP 2009‑005314 (Jan. 2009); JP 2016‑76073 (May 2016); JP 2017‑117139 (Jun. 2017); WO 2010/047019 (Apr. 2010); WO 2016/152053 (Sep. 2016) (https://patents.justia.com/patent/11537814) — but I could not confirm which, if any, of these correspond to PTL 1, 2, or 3, and I decline to guess. Per the operating rule, I do not auto-correct or invent identifiers. Everything below is keyed to the descriptions on the page, not to assumed numbers.

A3 — Ambiguity in the PTL 1 characterization. The page states PTL 1 "selects data of which a value of an information amount is lower than a predetermined threshold value." That is factually unusual (active-learning practice usually targets high-information/hard examples). I take the text literally and analyze its consequences below, because the direction of that threshold materially affects the motivation-to-combine argument.

B. Legal standard and level of ordinary skill

• Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966): scope/content of prior art, differences, PHOSITA level, secondary considerations.
• KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007): combination is obvious where a POSITA would have had a reason to combine known elements with a reasonable expectation of success; the "predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions" suffices. MPEP 2143 collects exemplary rationales (design incentive, known technique to improve similar device, predictable variation, market/industry trend).
• Claim construction is pre-trial and functional. Per the earlier sections, the district court (E.D. Tex.) construed the "unit" terms as means-plus-function requiring processor structure (35 U.S.C. §112(f)), with "identification unit" = a general-purpose processor programmed to calculate reliabilities, and "determination unit" = a processor configured to apply both a reliability-threshold determination and a cross-system identification-comparison determination. If that construction holds, the claim scope is essentially a programmed general-purpose processor performing the disclosed algorithms — which generally strengthens a § 103 case (programming a known processor to perform known functions) but requires the ground to cover both determination branches.

PHOSITA (proposed): a bachelor's in EE/CS (or equivalent) plus ~2 years, or a master's plus ~1 year, in machine learning / computer vision, familiar with CNN object-detection inference outputs (softmax/confidence scores), training-data curation and "hard-example" mining, and networked camera/cloud data aggregation. This is a modest level of skill; the asserted art is squarely within it.

C. Prior-art inventory actually on the page

D. Claim mapping and §§ 103 grounds

Ground 1 — Claim 1 (and claim 2): background art + PTL 1

Claim 2 (transmit when derived reliability ≤ threshold) is the most obvious claim in the set: it is the direct union of the background art's reliability output with PTL 1's "compare-to-threshold-and-select" teaching. A POSITA would have every reason to use the model's own confidence as the trigger, because it requires no additional computation and directly targets samples the model found hard.

Ground 2 — Claims 5, 6, 7: + routine triggers / PTL 3

• Claim 5 (transmit when accumulated image capacity ≥ threshold): a predictable design choice for network/storage management. MPEP 2144.04 (obvious design choice).
• Claim 6 (transmit at a predetermined time): scheduled uploads — ubiquitous; predictable variation.
• Claim 7 (transmit when a per-period erroneous-identification rate ≥ threshold): PTL 3 expressly teaches counting a recognition rate. Computing the error rate (1 − recognition rate, or erroneous clicks ÷ images) and comparing to a threshold is the predictable inverse/complement of PTL 3's count. Motivation: PTL 3's counting exists precisely to monitor and improve recognition performance, which is the same objective the '814 patent pursues; a POSITA would weaponize that count as an upload trigger.

Ground 3 — The button/index-value system claim (+ claim 4): background + PTL 1 + PTL 2

• PTL 2 discloses the transmission-instruction button (display control means).
• PTL 3 supplies the "index value indicating identification accuracy of the model" (recognition rate) to be displayed with the button.
• Motivation: both PTL 1 and PTL 3 address improving a statistical/recognition model; giving the operator a button plus a live accuracy indicator is the established supervisory-control pattern for a semi-automatic pipeline, and MPEP 2143's "known technique to improve a similar device in the same way" rationale applies. Claim 4 (present result to operator; transmit when operator confirms) is likewise met by PTL 2's operator-driven transmission instruction.

Ground 4 — Claim 3 (cross-system disagreement): weakest; needs art not on this page

Claim 3 requires sending the data to a different data providing system, receiving its identification result, and designating the data as transmission-target when the two results differ. This is the machine-learning technique of query-by-committee / disagreement-based active learning. None of the references described on this page (background art, PTL 1, PTL 2, PTL 3) expressly discloses inter-system result comparison. A § 103 rejection of claim 3 resting only on the page's art would therefore be thin, and the patentee would likely rebut with the absence of any teaching to build a multi-system cross-checking architecture. If the defendant/examiner can add a query-by-committee reference (a well-documented technique predating 2018), claim 3 becomes far more vulnerable — but that art is not in the section provided.

Interaction with the Markman construction (flag A2 / Section B): if the "determination unit" is construed to require both the reliability-threshold branch and the cross-system-comparison branch, then Ground 1 alone will not invalidate even claim 1, because it omits the cross-system branch. That construction, if correct, materially raises the bar and makes claim 3 (and claim 1 as construed) the patent's real defensive wall.

Ground 5 — Data-collection-system aspects (grouping / selection / request; icon display)

E. Motivation-to-combine synthesis (KSR rationales)

1. Same field, same problem (design incentive). PTL 1 (select data to improve a statistical model), PTL 3 (count recognition rate to improve OCR), and the admitted background art (train/identify with an ML model) all aim at model accuracy. The '814 patent's stated object — "easily collect data that can contribute to generation of a model with high identification accuracy" — is the same objective, so combining is not merely permissible but the natural course.
2. Known technique, predictable result. Replacing PTL 1's abstract "information amount" with the model's own reliability score is a substitution of a known metric with a reasonable expectation of success — no new hardware, just using an output the identification unit already computes.
3. Predictable variation. Time-based, capacity-based, and threshold-based upload triggers (claims 5–7) are routine network-design variations.
4. Market/industry trend. Centralized collection of edge-camera data to retrain models was a well-established 2018 industry practice; the aggregation architecture is conventional.

F. Weaknesses the patentee will press (and how strong they are)

Secondary considerations (unaddressed on the record): no evidence of unexpected results, licensing, or industry praise specific to these claims was identified. The patent's own "advantageous effect" (easily collecting useful data) is the expected consequence of the combination, which weakens a nexus argument.

G. Bottom line

Confidence: High on the framework and on Grounds 1/2/4 (claims 2, 7, 5, 6) — these follow from the page's own admissions plus literal PTL descriptions. Medium on Ground 3 (button/index claim). Low on claim 3 and on the collection-system grouping claims, because the page supplies no reference teaching inter-system result comparison or classification-by-camera-attribute. Unresolved and outcome-determinative: (i) the numeric identities of PTL 1/2/3 (flag A2), and (ii) whether PTL 1's selection is directed at low- or high-information data (flag A3) — this single ambiguity drives the teaching-away defense to claim 2.

Authoritative next steps: obtain the file wrapper (USPTO PatentCenter, App. 17/053,587) and the certified ISR for PCT/JP2018/017609 (dated Jul. 24, 2018 per the Justia record) to fix the PTL numbers and the examiner's actual art; obtain the certified Markman Order (Dkt. 214 / E.D. Tex. 2026) to fix the "determination unit" construction, which determines whether Ground 1 can reach even claim 1.