US 11924502

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number, including any 2026 CAFC activity.

Let me check for any Federal Circuit 2026 activity and the parallel district court/ITC matters.

US Patent 11,924,502 B2 — Analyst Summary

Sources used: the authoritative full text of US11924502B2 you supplied (Google Patents, fetched 2026‑09‑28), plus targeted searches of Unified Patents' litigation portal, USITC Federal Register notices, E.D. Tex. docket analytics, PTAB petition records, and CAFC docket aggregators. I was not able to open a live USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR or CAFC CM/ECF record directly; the bibliographic data below is corroborated across the patent text and independent sources, and litigation data is as reported by those third‑party trackers. Uncertainties are flagged explicitly.

1. Bibliographic data

Continuation chain (all same title, all claiming JP 2005‑248576):
US 11/508,209 → US 8,170,394 → (13/443,955) US 9,489,985 → (15/287,074) US 9,743,129 → (15/670,155) US 11,470,379 → (17/868,139) US 11,812,091 → (18/130,594) US 11,924,502. Sibling continuations of the '502 include US 11,974,007, US 11,974,008, and US 12,219,202.

⚠️ Note the expiration point. If the 2026‑08‑23 anticipated‑expiration date is correct, the '502 is roughly four months from expiry as of today (2026‑04‑26). This is a critical, easily‑overlooked fact for any freedom‑to‑operate or licensing analysis, because the terminal disclaimer ties the '502's term to the original 2006 filing rather than to the 2023 continuation filing.

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"A digital content operating apparatus, including: a communication unit which communicates with an external device which has a display for displaying the digital content; a user operation interface which receives a user operation to control the digital content which is displayed on the external device; a display which displays either a linear content operation panel or an interactive content operation panel; and a controller which controls the user operation interface corresponding to information on the digital content which is displayed on the external device; wherein either the linear content operation panel or the interactive content operation panel is displayed alternatively as the user operation interface on the display."

⚠️ Analyst flag: the abstract is boilerplate carried over from the 2006-era family members and describes a "digital content operating apparatus" with an external display. The granted claim 1 recites a "digital content reproducing apparatus" with a network connector, VOD request handling, an appreciation-term requirement, and a viewing-history requirement — none of which appear in the abstract. The abstract therefore does not fairly describe the issued claims. This is a drafting/prosecution artifact worth noting for validity or claim‑scope arguments; do not rely on the abstract to construe claims 1 and 12.

3. Independent claims — plain-language overview

Claim 1 — Digital content reproducing apparatus

A device (e.g., a TV/set‑top/media player) that must contain all of:

1. Network connector — receives digital content over a network.
2. Attribute information tied to the content, comprising at least:
   • first attribute information = an appreciation term (an expiry/freshness window for the content); and
   • second attribute information = viewing history of the content.
3. User operation receiver — accepts user commands from a remote controller.
4. Content reproducer — plays the content.
5. Renderer — produces image data superimposing the reproduced content with either a linear content operation panel (playback controls: play, stop, pause, FF, rewind, skip) or an interactive content operation panel (commands directed to functions outside the reproducing apparatus, e.g., data‑broadcast/interactive navigation keys).
6. Display — shows that image data.
7. Controller — governs which panel is displayed.

Negative/limiting requirements that give the claim its bite:

• The two panels are distinct panels, and specifically "not generated by disabling of buttons" (i.e., not one panel with greyed‑out keys).
• Both are "displayed with the same reproduced digital content" — same content context.
• Only one panel is displayed exclusively at any given time, alongside the reproduced content.
• Content and the selected panel are shown concurrently in one screen.
• The content is reproduced and displayed only when the appreciation term has not lapsed (expired content is not shown).
• The viewing history provides an indication of how much of the content has been viewed (e.g., "80% done" as in FIG. 13).
• When the user requests video‑on‑demand, the network connector requests the content via the network (i.e., VOD pull‑request behavior is affirmatively claimed).

Claim 12 — Digital content reproducing method

A method counterpart to claim 1, with the same essential steps and the same limitations: receiving a VOD request; receiving content over the network with the appreciation‑term and viewing‑history attributes; reproducing the content; controlling alternative display of the linear or interactive panel; superimposing content + the one panel; and outputting to a display — with the identical "distinct panels / not button‑disabling / exclusive display / concurrent in one screen / appreciation‑term gate / viewing‑history quantity." Claim 12 does not repeat the remote‑controller or network‑request limitations verbatim.

Dependent claims (brief)

• 2–3 / 13–14: reproducer includes a demultiplexer extracting the video signal and a decoder decoding it.
• 4 / 15: buttons on the linear panel and interactive panel are mutually different (not the same set).
• 5 / 16: all displayed buttons are usable buttons (no disabled keys).
• 6 / 17: the functions of the two panels' buttons are mutually different.
• 7 / 18: both panels are displayed in the same panel rendering area as alternatives.
• 8 / 19: alternative display is controlled based at least in part on the attribute information.
• 9 / 20: panels are common in size, switched alternately in the same rendering area.
• 10 / 21: the linear panel is shown when the attributes indicate linear content (moving images).
• 11 / 22: display is controlled based on the attribute information in conjunction with a user operation.

Plain-language gist of the whole patent: instead of one big control panel with greyed‑out buttons, the device detects what kind of content (and how fresh/viewed it is) and swaps in a single, correct, fully‑usable control panel — a compact linear‑playback panel or an interactive/data‑broadcast panel — in the same on‑screen area.

4. Prosecution / family context

• The family is unusually long‑lived: the '502 is the seventh U.S. application in a chain reaching back to a 2005 Japanese filing, and the family has continued to spawn new grants as recently as US 12,219,202 (issued 2025‑02‑04). This "evergreen continuation" pattern is characteristic of Maxell's television/display licensing campaign.
• The '502's claim 1 adds limitations (network/VOD, appreciation term, viewing‑history amount) that are not present in the title‑family's original 2006 disclosure language quoted in the specification's Summary — the specification describes monitoring auto_start_flag, content attributes, and an appreciation term, and FIG. 13 shows "VIEW HISTORY (IMAGE) 80% DONE." Whether the written description supports the claim‑1 phrasing is a potential §112 argument, but I have not seen any Board or court ruling on that point for this patent.

5. Litigation — including ITC and any 2026 CAFC activity

a) ITC Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1420, Certain Smart Televisions (Maxell, Ltd. v. TCL entities)

• Complaint filed 2024‑08‑22; investigation instituted 2024‑09‑24.
• Asserted patents: US 8,549,109; US 11,451,860; US 11,924,502; US 10,958,971.
• 2025‑04‑29: Commission issued a partial final determination declining to review ALJ ID No. 11 (2025‑04‑07), which terminated the investigation as to all asserted claims of US 11,924,502 based on complainant's withdrawal. → The '502 was dropped from the ITC case early and never reached a merits/adjudicated finding there.
• 2025‑05‑28: ID No. 14 (2025‑05‑07) unreviewed — certain TCL respondents terminated.
• 2025‑09‑15: Commission terminated the entire investigation by settlement.

b) E.D. Tex. No. 5:25‑cv‑00067, Maxell Ltd. v. TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd.

• Filed 2025‑05‑30; docket trackers list status as closed.
• Reported asserted‑patent set includes '502 along with '270, '007, '507, '710, '793 and others.
• Accused products: numerous TCL smart‑TV models (e.g., 50S555, 43S450R, 43Q651G; Roku TV‑based sets).
• Per third‑party complaint analysis, Maxell's '502 theory maps the claim's "linear content operation panel" to a playback/progress‑bar UI and the "interactive content operation panel" to subtitle/language options, with the panels shown exclusively.
• ⚠️ I could not independently confirm whether the '502 remained asserted through to closure or was dropped (the ITC withdrawal and the "closed" district status suggest the TCL dispute resolved globally, likely via the same settlement). Treat the exact '502 status in the Texas case as uncertain.

c) ITC Inv. No. 337‑TA‑3769 (as listed on the patent's Google Patents page)

• The '502's Google Patents record lists a U.S. ITC case at investigation number 337‑TA‑3769.
• ⚠️ Uncertainty flag: this number is inconsistent with the modern ITC 337 numbering convention (current investigations are in the ~3xxx range only for legacy/renumbered matters; Maxell's 2024–2025 ITC matters were 337‑TA‑1420 and 337‑TA‑1432). I interpret the identifier literally but could not verify a live docket for it; it may be a tracker artifact or a differently‑numbered/renumbered proceeding. I do not recommend relying on it without pulling EDIS directly.

d) Federal Circuit — 2026 dockets

• I found no CAFC appeal in 2026 that specifically involves US 11,924,502.
• Maxell‑related 2026 CAFC dockets do exist, but they concern other patents/technology: [Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.) v. Maxell, Ltd., No. 26‑1320 (docketed 2026‑01‑07); Maxell, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 26‑1330 (2026‑01‑12); No. 26‑1111 (2025‑10‑29); and Maxell, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 2026‑1625 (filed 2026‑04‑07, an appeal from the PTO, Mayer Brown as appellant counsel). These relate to Maxell's video‑processing/smart‑device and PTAB disputes, not to the '502.
• This is consistent with the ITC history: because all '502 claims were withdrawn from 337‑TA‑1420 before any final determination, there was no adverse ITC decision on the '502 for Maxell to appeal, and no CAFC appeal of which I am aware.

e) Related PTAB activity (context)

• A 2025 PTAB petition (IPR2025‑01310 family) in the Maxell/Samsung dispute lists the '502's parent, US 11,812,091 ("Multimedia player displaying operation panel depending on contents"), among ten asserted patents in parallel district litigation. I found no IPR petition specifically challenging US 11,924,502.

6. Uncertainty and confidence summary

One-line takeaway: US 11,924,502 is the newest (and near‑expiry) member of Maxell's long 2005‑priority "operation‑panel‑switching" continuation family; it claims a network‑connected player that shows exactly one fully‑usable control panel (linear vs. interactive) based on an appreciation term and viewing history and that pulls VOD content on request — and while it was asserted against TCL in both the ITC (337‑TA‑1420) and E.D. Tex. (5:25‑cv‑00067), the ITC '502 claims were withdrawn in April 2025 and no 2026 Federal Circuit appeal on this patent was found.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 11924502. Let me start with searches across litigation databases.

Found key leads. Let me dig into the specific cases: the ITC investigations and the EDTX case.

Let me verify the second ITC case listed and check for any other assertions of this patent.

One more targeted search to confirm the patents asserted in the EDTX case and check for other defendants.

I'll start by verifying the structured data against live sources, since the prompt flags that ODP ingest may lag.

Let me search specifically for PTAB filings tied to this patent and its family.

Let me check docket aggregators for any PTAB case numbers against this patent, plus the co-pending district court and ITC posture.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 11,924,502: 0 — 0 active, 0 with claims invalidated, 0 with claims sustained, 0 terminated by settlement, 0 institution denials. The canonical USPTO Open Data Portal block shows no AIA trial proceedings, and targeted web searching (PTAB petition dockets, Darts-IP/Unified Patents family links, Maxell campaign coverage) surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming the '502, so the default holds: there is no PTAB activity on file for this patent.

Bottom-line defensive posture: the patent is untested, not hardened. There is no Final Written Decision cancelling or confirming any of claims 1–22, which means (a) no claim is dead, but (b) no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to anyone, so the entire prior-art universe — including art that was litigated to a standstill against Maxell's other patents — remains fully available to you. The more important defensive fact is not in the PTAB at all: Maxell withdrew its own assertion of the '502 in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1420 and the investigation later settled.

No proceedings on file — US 11,924,502

There is no IPR/PGR/CBM to write up. What does exist and matters to a defendant is the non-PTAB record around this patent:

• ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1420 (Certain Smart Televisions) — Maxell's complaint filed 2024-08-22 asserted US 8,549,109, US 11,451,860, US 11,924,502 and US 10,958,971 against TCL entities. Commission instituted 2024-09-24.
• The '502 was dropped from the ITC case at Maxell's own request. ALJ Order No. 11 (2025-04-07) terminated the investigation as to all asserted claims of US 11,924,502 based on complainant's withdrawal; the Commission declined review and issued notice on 2025-04-29 — USITC notice. Order No. 14 (2025-05-07) terminated certain respondents; the Commission declined review on 2025-05-28.
• The whole investigation terminated by settlement. Maxell and the Active Respondents filed a joint motion to terminate on 2025-08-11; ALJ Order No. 19 (2025-08-22) granted it, the Commission declined review (vote 2025-09-15), and the investigation was terminated in its entirety — see 81 FR, 2025-18090 (published 2025-09-18). The settlement agreement was filed in confidential and redacted public versions; terms are not public.
• Related litigation listings on the patent record: ITC 337-TA-3769 and E.D. Tex. 5:25-cv-00067 are listed as this patent's litigation links on the Google Patents record. I did not verify either beyond the listing — treat the '3769 docket number as unverified/possibly mis-keyed (it is far outside the numbering range of contemporaneous investigations) and confirm directly in the ITC EDIS and PACER before relying on it.

Adjacent PTAB activity in the same Maxell campaign (NOT proceedings on the '502 — do not cite as such)

Maxell is a serial enforcer and is being IPR'd on neighbouring assets. The distinction matters because § 315(e)(2) estoppel is patent-specific:

• IPR2025-00135 — TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. v. Maxell, Ltd. Challenges US 10,219,020 (a different Maxell display-apparatus patent), claims 1–6 and 17–30, on § 103 over US 2007/0124792 A1 (Bennett) and US 2003/0020693 A1 (Nashida). Counsel: Fish & Richardson (Timothy W. Riffe et al.). Real parties-in-interest include the full TCL entity list. This is not a proceeding on US 11,924,502 and creates no estoppel as to the '502. Filing date not established from available sources.
• IPR2020-00202 — Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd. (terminated-settled, 2021-04-20) and IPR2020-00597, plus IPR2018-00236 / IPR2018-00904 (ZTE, Olympus) — all directed to other Maxell patents. Again, no estoppel effect on the '502.
• Ex parte reexaminations on Maxell assets (e.g., Control Nos. 90/014,628 on US 8,339,493 and 90/014,651 on US 10,129,590) show Maxell's patents do draw post-grant attacks — just not on this one.

Strategic summary

Claims status: all 22 claims are UNTESTED at the PTAB. Nothing is canceled, nothing is confirmed. Every limitation of claim 1 — the network connector, the VOD request trigger, the "appreciation term" attribute, the "viewing history ... amount of the digital content that has been viewed" attribute, and the exclusive-alternative-panel requirement — is live and un-adjudicated in any AIA forum. That is a double-edged position for a defendant: there is no claim you can point to as dead, but there is also no adverse PTAB precedent or claim construction that Maxell can use to short-circuit your invalidity case. Note also that these issued claims are materially narrower than the 2005-era broadcast/recording disclosure (they add network/VOD and viewing-history limitations), which is classic continuation practice aimed at streaming and VOD defendants — and which also creates § 112 written-description/enablement pressure points that no tribunal has yet resolved.

Estoppel landscape: clean. Because no petitioner completed an IPR on the '502, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is a non-issue and § 315(b) one-year bars and § 325(d) repeat-art risks are far lower than they would be if the patent had been IPR'd. For a defendant served today, every prior-art ground is available: the 164 references cited on the face of the patent, the art Maxell has already litigated on its sibling families, and anything else you find. The converse caveat is that Maxell has not had its claims construed in a PTAB final decision, so you get no free roadmap — you would be the first to litigate these limitations.

Pattern signals. Maxell enforces in coordinated waves: ITC § 337 plus parallel district court, against household-name defendants (TCL, LG, Lenovo, ZTE, Apple, Olympus, Huawei). It is willing to settle broadly (the TCL II investigation ended in a total settlement effective 2025-09-15). No defensive aggregator appears to be driving the PTAB campaign here — the petitioners of record in adjacent cases are the defendants themselves (TCL, LG), not Unified Patents, though Unified does carry this patent in its litigation database. The most telling signal is Maxell's own withdrawal of the '502 from the ITC roughly seven months into the investigation: patent owners do not normally abandon their newest, most asserted continuation at the ITC unless the claim chart has problems.

Term clock — the biggest lever. The patent record lists an anticipated expiration of 2026-08-23, i.e., 20 years from the 2006-08-23 filing of US 11/508,209. As of today (2026-09-28) that date has passed. Verify this immediately, because it reshapes the whole defense (see below).

Recommended next steps

1. Verify the expiration date before anything else. Pull the patent's term calculation in Patent Public Search / PatentCenter and check for Patent Term Adjustment and any terminal disclaimer in the family. If the term genuinely lapsed on 2026-08-23, then today: (i) no injunction is available for prospective conduct, (ii) damages reach back only six years under § 286 (i.e., roughly from 2020-09-28), and (iii) the case for spending on an IPR collapses even though the patent itself remains assertable for past damages. If PTA extends the term, re-run the analysis.
2. Exploit Maxell's ITC withdrawal. If a demand letter cites the '502, quote Order No. 11 (2025-04-07) and the Commission's 2025-04-29 notice: "terminated ... as to U.S. Patent No. 11,924,502 based on Complainant's withdrawal." That is Maxell walking away from its own newest asserted continuation in the forum with the fastest statutory clock, and it is directly usable in a stay motion, a § 101/§ 112 motion, or licensing leverage. Link the source notice rather than characterizing it.
3. Bank the clean estoppel slate. With no FWD, there is no § 315(e)(2) bar, no § 315(b) time bar running from a prior IPR, and no § 325(d) cumulative-art exposure. If you are within the § 315(b) one-year window from service of a complaint, a defensive IPR remains procedurally available — but weigh it against the § 286 damages-only exposure above; on an expired/expiring patent, invalidity is often better run in the district court.
4. Sweep the family, not just the '502. Maxell's continuation cluster around the same 2005 priority includes US 11,812,091, US 11,470,379, US 9,743,129, US 9,489,985, US 8,170,394, US 11,974,007, US 11,974,008 and US 12,219,202. Check each for its own IPR/reexam history and its own expiration. Prior IPRs and reexams on these siblings (including the family-wide art Maxell has already fought) are your best free source of invalidity theories against the '502.
5. Set monitoring. ODP ingest lags. Watch for IPR2025-xxxxx / IPR2026-xxxxx petitions naming US 11,924,502 at PTAB E2E — if TCL's settlement has not mooted its interest, a petition could still surface, and any institution would trigger a one-year statutory FWD clock.

Explicit caveat on sourcing. I could not directly query PTAB E2E or the ODP API in this session; the zero-proceeding finding rests on the canonical ODP block supplied in the prompt corroborated by web search. I found no FWD, institution decision, or appeal involving US 11,924,502, and I have not invented any. The ITC dates and dispositions above are sourced to USITC Federal Register notices and the Commission's compiled coverage; the settlement terms in 337-TA-1420 are confidential and I make no representation about them beyond the fact of termination.

I'll research the assignment chain and litigation context before building the record. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me dig into the actual assignment records and the litigation/assertion pattern.

I hit my research-step limit before I could open the Assignment Center abstract for application 18/130,594 directly. Below I reconstruct the chain from the cross-referenced records I did retrieve (EP INPADOC legal-status entries, Maxell's own pleadings, and the sibling-patent assignment abstracts), and I flag explicitly what is verified vs. inferred.

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check: not present. There is no evidence of inventors departing within 12 months of filing, and no assignment running from the inventors to a third party. The inventors assigned into Hitachi, Ltd., and the ownership changes that followed were corporate (Hitachi group) restructuring, not inventor-driven transfers.

Caveat: I could not positively confirm each inventor's specific division. I also saw an unrelated hit — a "Yoshihiro Machida" credited with 85 patents at Shinko Electric Industries and 3 at Hitachi Maxell (patentleaderboard.com) — but I could not confirm this is the same individual, so I do not treat it as an employer finding.

Original assignee

Two different answers depending on what "original" means, and this matters for the NPE analysis:

• Applicant/assignee of record on the issued US 11924502: Maxell, Ltd. (Kyoto, Japan) — this is a 2023 continuation, so Maxell is listed as both original and current assignee on the face of the patent.
• True original assignee at the 2005/2006 priority filing: Hitachi, Ltd. (Tokyo). Google Patents' own citation table lists the parent US 8,170,394 B2 with assignee Hitachi, Ltd.

Maxell, Ltd. is a publicly listed Japanese operating manufacturer (Tokyo Stock Exchange; First Section since Mar‑2014; renamed from Hitachi Maxell on 2017‑10‑01, per its own securities report: 旧会社名 日立マクセル株式会社). Its business is batteries, recording media, optical components, and projectors (it acquired Hitachi Consumer Electronics' projector design/manufacturing in 2013 and rebranded Hitachi projectors to Maxell from 2019). Status: operating, not acquired, not dissolved, not in bankruptcy.

Does it ship a product embodying the '502 claims? Not demonstrated. Maxell's own complaint (Maxell v. ZTE, E.D. Tex.) says it "continues to sell products in the mobile device market including wireless charging solutions, wireless flash drives, multimedia players, storage devices, and headphones," and that it "maintains intellectual property related to televisions, tablets, digital cameras, video streaming technologies, and mobile phones." The patents themselves came out of Hitachi's consumer‑TV business, and Maxell does not appear to manufacture the accused product class (smart TVs / digital-broadcast decoders).

Assignment timeline

Important limitation: within my tool budget I could retrieve the Assignment Center abstract for sibling/related patents but not a standalone abstract for 18/130,594. Numerous continuations in this family (e.g., US 10,129,590) show the same three reels, and these reels are bulk assignments, so coverage of this family is a strong inference, not a direct read of the '502 record. Verify at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html.

• 2013-06-07 (executed) / 2013 (~recorded) — Reel 030802/0610

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Hitachi, Ltd.
  • Assignee: Hitachi Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd.
  • Correspondent: not surfaced in the retrieved record
  • Context: internal reorg — Hitachi carved its consumer‑goods IP into its consumer‑electronics business unit. (Maxell's complaint dates this to 2009; EP/INPADOC shows the recorded effective date as 2013‑06‑07, so either an internal 2009 step was later papered, or the pleading is loose.)

• 2013 (executed) / 2014-08-26 (recorded) — Reel 033694/0745

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Hitachi Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd.
  • Assignee: Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.
  • Correspondent: not surfaced in the retrieved record
  • Context: internal reorg — consumer‑electronics IP consolidated into the Hitachi Maxell affiliate.

• 2017-10-01 (executed) / 2018-01-25 (recorded) — Reel 045142/0208 (141 pages, bulk)

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (in substance a change of name / reorganization)
  • Assignor: Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.
  • Assignee: Maxell, Ltd. (address of record: 1 Koizumi, Oyamazaki, Oyamazaki-cho, Otokuni-gun, Kyoto, Japan)
  • Correspondent: Nadeen Nsouli, 71 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606 — the firm is not stated in the record I retrieved; this is a single appearance in the chain I could reconstruct, so it is NOT a recurring-correspondent finding.
  • Context: change of name only — Hitachi Maxell renamed itself Maxell, Ltd. on 2017‑10‑01 (confirmed by Maxell's securities report and the 2019 Hitachi→Maxell projector rebrand).

• No separate post‑2023 assignment recorded for 18/130,594 — the 2023 continuation was filed by Maxell as owner-by-chain; ownership flows through the 2018 reel, not a new conveyance.

Family members sharing this chain: US 11,470,379; US 11,812,091; US 11,974,007; US 11,974,008; US 12,219,202 (all Maxell).

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11924502
    2005 : Japan priority application filed by Hitachi
    2006 : US parent filed by Hitachi Ltd
    2013 : Assigned to Hitachi Consumer Electronics
    2014 : Assigned to Hitachi Maxell Ltd
    2017 : Reorganized and renamed Maxell Ltd
    2023 : Continuation application filed by Maxell
    2024 : Patent issues as US11924502
         : Asserted in ITC case 337-TA-1420
    2025 : Asserted against TCL in Texas court

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. Every recorded link is intra‑Hitachi‑group: Hitachi, Ltd. → Hitachi Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd. → Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. → Maxell, Ltd. (reels 030802/0610, 033694/0745, 045142/0208). No "IP/Holdings/Ventures" LLC, no Delaware/Texas single‑member entity, no registered‑agent service address. Maxell is a TSE‑listed operating manufacturer.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present on the classic list; qualified. Maxell is not Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi‑LAN/Conversant, Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, etc. It does appear as the patent owner/asserting party in Unified Patents' database (portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-11924502-B2) and is a well‑documented high‑frequency patent plaintiff: Maxell v. Apple (E.D. Tex. 5:19‑cv‑00036, settled 2021), Maxell v. ZTE (US$43.3M verdict, 2018), Maxell v. Huawei, Maxell v. Lenovo (W.D. Tex. 6:21‑cv‑01169), Maxell v. VIZIO (C.D. Cal. 2:21‑cv‑6758), Maxell v. Samsung (US$112M verdict May‑2025, overturned Oct‑2025), plus ITC actions. That is a licensing‑program footprint, but Maxell is an operating company, so I mark this qualified present, not a classic NPE-list match.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. The only correspondent of record I could retrieve is Nadeen Nsouli, 71 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606, on reel 045142/0208 (executed 2017‑10‑01, recorded 2018‑01‑25). One appearance is not a recurrence, so this is not a finding.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. The transfers span 2013–2018 (executed dates 2013‑06‑07, ~2013, 2017‑10‑01) across related corporate entities, not chained LLCs within 24 months sharing a correspondent.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The last ownership event was recorded 2018‑01‑25; the '502 patent did not even issue until 2024‑03‑05, and was first asserted in the ITC complaint served 2024‑08‑22 (instituted 2024‑09‑24). Nothing sits within a 6‑month window of a suit.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No bankruptcy; the Hitachi→Maxell movement was a strategic carve‑out and a name change, not a distressed sale.

7. Privateering — unclear / partial. Hitachi's consumer‑electronics estate was moved to a separately branded affiliate (Hitachi Maxell → Maxell) that now runs an aggressive licensing campaign against Hitachi's former competitors' customers (TCL, Samsung, VIZIO, LG, Lenovo). Maxell is not a shell, but functionally an affiliate‑monetized Hitachi portfolio. Weak.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain terminates at Maxell, an active asserter; there is no RPX/AST/LOT/Unified/OIN terminus.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

The chain is a pure intra‑group IP carve‑out with no product‑practicing entity at any link practicing the claimed invention (Hitachi, Ltd. → Hitachi Consumer Electronics → Hitachi Maxell → Maxell, per reels 030802/0610, 033694/0745, 045142/0208), and the current owner is a documented high‑frequency patent plaintiff operating a broad licensing program — the "known‑asserter" signal is the single strong one. All the structural troll tells (shell LLC, cascading LLC transfers, pre‑litigation transfer, bankruptcy sale, defensive‑aggregator terminus) are absent, so this is not a classic NPE pattern. Countervailing note for transparency: Maxell, Ltd. is a genuine TSE‑listed operating manufacturer (batteries, projectors, media), so an analyst could characterize this as operating‑company assertion instead — but the definitional test isn't met here, because I could find no evidence Maxell ships a product embodying the '502 claims.

Verify the recorded chain and correspondents at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search by patent number 11924502 / application 18/130,594).

I'll research this patent and its cited prior art. Let me start with searches to verify the patent and examine key references.

Let me research the most relevant prior art references cited in this patent.

I was able to retrieve the authoritative Google Patents full text for US 11,924,502 B2 and research its major cited references. Below is my prior-art analysis. Note on methodology first, then the analysis.

1. Patent Identification & Verification

US 11,924,502 B2 — "Multimedia player displaying operation panel depending on contents"

• Application No.: US 18/130,594
• Filing date: 2023-04-04
• Publication date: 2024-03-05
• Priority date (as listed): 2005-08-30 (JP 2005-248576)
• Inventors: Yoshihiro Machida; Nobuhiro Tsutsumi; Kouji Kamogawa
• Assignee: Maxell, Ltd. (originally Hitachi, Ltd. / Hitachi Maxell)
• Continuation chain: 18/130,594 ← 17/868,139 (US 11,812,091) ← 15/670,155 (US 11,470,379) ← 15/287,074 (US 9,743,129) ← 13/443,955 (US 9,489,985) ← 11/508,209 (US 8,170,394)
• Family members (per Google Patents, literal): US 8,170,394; US 9,489,985; US 9,743,129; US 11,470,379; US 11,812,091; US 11,974,007; US 11,974,008; US 12,219,202; JP 4640046 B2
• Prior-art date shown on the record: 2005-08-30
• Litigation flag: ITC 337-TA-1420 and 337-TA-3769; E.D. Tex. 5:25-cv-00067

Important caveat on sourcing: I could not directly query the USPTO PatentCenter interface in this session. The full text, claims, and the citation tables below are taken from the authoritative Google Patents record for US11924502B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US11924502/en) plus corroborating secondary sources. Per your instruction, I am reading every patent number exactly as it appears and not auto-correcting any identifier.

Because the effective priority date is 2005-08-30, only references publicly available before that date qualify as prior art under §102(a)/(b). Several examiner-cited references postdate the priority date and therefore serve only as background/obviousness context, not §102 art. I flag these explicitly.

2. Most Relevant Prior Art (Analyzed in Detail)

A. JP 2005-73022 A — NHK (Nippon Hoso Kyokai)

• Full citation: JP 2005-73022 A, "Broadcast receiving device, remote control device, remote control method and remote control program" (放送受信装置、リモコン装置、リモコン制御方法及びリモコン制御プログラム)
• App. No.: JP 2003-301076; Filed: 2003-08-26; Published: 2005-03-17
• Description: The broadcast receiver demodulates a received broadcast signal, determines which operation keys of the remote controller are operable (generating "operation availability information"), and transmits that information to the remote controller, which visibly indicates only the usable keys (e.g., by illuminating them). It analyzes a content description language (BML) and program information (claims 2–3) to decide which keys are operable.
• §102 relevance: This is the acknowledged closest prior art — the patent itself cites it in the Background ("As described in JP-A-2005-73022, there is known a broadcast receiving apparatus which provides a user with illumination of a usable key of a remote controller in accordance with information on digital contents"). It is materially relevant to:
  • Claim 1 — the "user operation receiver configured to receive a user operation … by a remote controller" and the concept of controlling the interface according to content information.
  • Claims 4–6 — different/unusable buttons are made usable based on content analysis.
  • Claim 8 — control of display based on content (attribute) information.
  • Limitation: It does not disclose two distinct panels (a "linear content operation panel" and an "interactive content operation panel") displayed alternatively and exclusively in the same rendering area, nor the "appreciation term"/"viewing history" attribute information, nor a network/VOD connector. So it is strong §103 art against the independent claims but does not, standing alone, anticipate claim 1 or claim 12.

B. JP 2005-006144 A — Suda et al. (Fujitsu)

• Full citation: JP 2005-006144 A, "Control method for interactive program viewing device, control method for interactive remote control device, and interactive program viewing device"
• Filed: 2003-06-13; Published: 2005-01-06
• Description: Control methods for an interactive program viewing device and its remote control; the examiner listed a machine-generated English translation of this reference in the US 11,470,379 record.
• §102 relevance: Relevant to the interactive-function control and remote-controller aspects of claim 1 and to claims 4–6 (button/function differentiation). Pre-dates priority, so it qualifies as §102 art, but again does not disclose the alternating exclusive dual-panel display of claim 1.

C. US 5,517,257 A — Dunn et al., Microsoft

• Full citation: US 5,517,257 A, "Video control user interface for interactive television systems and method for controlling display of a video movie"
• Filed: 1995-03-28; Issued: 1996-05-14
• Description: A set-top box in a movie-on-demand mode superimposes on the TV an icon representing the remote's actuation pad plus shuttle-control symbols mapped onto the pad; the viewer controls play/pause/etc.
• §102 relevance: Strong art for the renderer that superimposes reproduced video content with an operation panel of linear reproduction functions (claim 1), and for the remote-controller user operation. Related companion US 5,648,824 A (Dunn et al., issued 1997-07-15, "Video control user interface for controlling display of a video") is also cited. Neither discloses two alternative panels switched by content attributes.

D. US 6,757,907 B1 — Schumacher et al., Sprint Communications

• Full citation: US 6,757,907 B1, "Display selection in a video-on-demand system"
• Filed: 2000-02-09; Issued: 2004-06-29
• Description: A video-on-demand system transfers a control screen (e.g., a web page) that includes a video display control menu comprising play, pause, rewind, fast forward, and stop; ties VOD delivery to control-screen selections; involves a network and a second display.
• §102 relevance: Directly relevant to claim 1's "when the user operation receiver receives a user operation to request video on demand services, the network connector requests a digital content via the network," and to the linear content (transport-control) panel functionality. Also relevant to dependent claims about the panel appearing with content.

E. US 5,417,535 A — Sato et al., Sony (examiner-cited)

• Full citation: US 5,417,535 A, "Remote control system and control method"
• Issued: 1995-05-16
• Description: Remote control system in which the displayed/operable keys are made to correspond to the target device/function.
• §102 relevance: Relevant to claims 4 and 6 (buttons/functions displayed on the panel are mutually different and content-dependent).

F. US 5,801,747 A — Bedard, Hyundai Electronics America (examiner-cited)

• Full citation: US 5,801,747 A, "Method and apparatus for creating a television viewer profile"
• Issued: 1998-09-01
• Description: Creates a viewer profile from viewing behavior.
• §102 relevance: Relevant to claim 1's "second attribute information corresponding to viewing history of the digital content" (viewing-history track). Pre-dates priority.

G. US 6,026,869 A — Stas, Music Corporation (examiner-cited)

• Full citation: US 6,026,869 A, "Video viewing supervision system"
• Issued: 2000-02-15
• Description: Supervises/monitors video viewing.
• §102 relevance: Relevant to viewing-history monitoring/attribute concepts underlying the second attribute information of claim 1.

H. US 6,732,367 B1 — United Video Properties (examiner-cited)

• Full citation: US 6,732,367 B1, "Interactive television program guide system with title and description blocking"
• Issued: 2004-05-04
• Description: Program-guide system that blocks/conditions display based on program attributes.
• §102 relevance: Relevant to claim 8 and claim 11 (controlling the alternative display based on attribute information).

I. US 2005/0166230 A1 — Gaydou (examiner-cited)

• Full citation: US 2005/0166230 A1, "Systems and methods for providing transport control"
• Published: 2005-07-28 (priority 2003-03-18)
• Description: Transport (playback) control interface systems.
• §102 relevance: Relevant to the linear content operation panel (transport controls) recited in claim 1.

3. Additional Cited Art Relevant to Specific Limitations

These are cited in the record as prior art and map to narrower limitations:

4. Assessment: Anticipation vs. Obviousness

No single reference listed anticipates independent claim 1 or claim 12 under §102. The independent claims combine several specific limitations absent from any one reference:

1. Two distinct, non-disabled panels (linear vs. interactive) that are mutually exclusive and alternatively displayed with the same reproduced content — JP 2005-73022 shows usable-key illumination, not two alternative panel types (indeed, it teaches against the core premise since it keeps the full remote key-set mounted); US 2006/0020982 A1 (post-priority) uses disablement, which the claims expressly exclude.
2. Attribute information including an "appreciation term" and "viewing history" — the appreciation-term concept is largely specific to the specification's FIG. 13 embodiment; related "lifespan/expiration" concepts appear in US 6,055,413 A (Motorola, "…update lifetime with updateable messages," 2000-04-25) and US 2004/0059790 A1 (Austin-Lane, "…using a lifespan," 2004-03-25), but neither is tailored to a content operation panel.
3. VOD request via the network connector — US 6,757,907 B1 (Sprint) and US 5,517,257 A (Microsoft) cover VOD/network and transport controls respectively, but not the panel-switching architecture.

Conclusion: The strongest individual references for §102 challenges are JP 2005-73022 A (closest overall; usable-key indication from content analysis) and US 6,757,907 B1 / US 5,517,257 A (VOD + superimposed transport-control interface). Realistic invalidity attacks on claims 1 and 12 would need to be §103 combinations, e.g.:

• JP 2005-73022 A + US 6,757,907 B1 (content-based key availability + VOD transport-control screen on a second display); and/or
• US 5,517,257 A + US 5,801,747 A + US 6,055,413 A (superimposed transport-control panel + viewer profile/history + message lifetime/expiration).

Dependent claims 2–11 and 13–22 are more exposed to single-reference or simple two-reference §102/§103 arguments, particularly:

• Claims 4–6 (differing buttons/functions, all usable): JP 2005-73022 A; US 5,417,535 A; US 6,404,418 B1.
• Claim 10 (linear/moving-image panel): US 5,517,257 A.
• Claims 8, 11 (control based on attribute information): JP 2005-73022 A; US 6,732,367 B1.

Honesty caveat: I did not independently verify the full text/prosecution history of each secondary reference (particularly the JP references, for which only abstracts/machine translations were reviewed), and I could not query USPTO PatentCenter directly. Before relying on any single-reference §102 position, the actual USPTO file wrapper (examiner citations and any Applicant-Admitted Prior Art such as JP-A-2005-73022) should be confirmed. Where I am uncertain, I have said so rather than asserting anticipation.

5. Verification Note

The patent number 11924502 was located exactly as requested (US 11,924,502 B2), and its continuation-family sibling US 11,470,379 B2 appeared in search results — I did not substitute it. All citation numbers above are transcribed literally from the US 11,924,502 record.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual record — the citation list on the patent page and the public litigation/prosecution context. Let me pull a few live sources first.

Let me check for IPR challenges and the specific prior art being mapped to this family.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Pat. No. 11,924,502 ("the '502 patent")

Scope note: This is a technical prior-art analysis, not a legal opinion. All reference characterizations below are drawn from (a) the citation list printed on the face of the '502 patent page and (b) the public IPR/petition record for this family, which I cite. Where I have not verified a reference's full text, I say so explicitly.

1. The record I am working from

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11924502/en ; https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR-2024-09-27/2024-22187 ; https://thefederalregister.org/documents/2025-18032/... ; https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01311/doc/summary/3 ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-01311 ; https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/5:25-cv-00067/doc/analysis/1

The Google Patents page also lists a second ITC case as "337‑TA‑3769." I am taking that identifier literally; I note only that it is an unusual docket number and I have not independently verified it.

2. Threshold issue: which version of § 103 applies, and what is the effective filing date?

This drives everything. The '502 issued from a 2023 continuation; the family claims 2005 priority. If every claim limitation is supported under § 112 ¶1 by the 2006 application (11/508,209), the claims are entitled to 2005‑08‑30 and pre‑AIA § 103(a) applies (art must predate ~Aug 2005 for § 102(a)/(e), Aug 2004 for § 102(b)). If any limitation is not supported — and the two candidates are:

• "second attribute information corresponding to viewing history … an indication corresponding to an amount of the digital content that has been viewed," and
• "when the user operation receiver receives a user operation to request video on demand services, the network connector requests a digital content via the network,"

— then those claims get a 2022/2023 effective date, the AIA applies, and roughly fifteen years of intervening smart‑TV/streaming‑UI art becomes available. Samsung has pressed exactly this priority theory against other Maxell patents in this campaign (see the petition excerpts describing a PTAB finding of no priority "due to lack of written description," and the accusation that Maxell withheld IPR developments from examiners of these same continuations).

The 2005 spec pushes back on the "viewing history" point: it expressly reasons about whether "a user does not still view the contents." But "amount … that has been viewed" (a resume-progress concept) is a different quantum than "has/has not viewed," and VOD-specific network request language appears only in the FIG. 6 embodiment. This is the single most consequential issue in the case, and it is a written-description question before it is an obviousness question. I flag it rather than resolve it.

3. Claim 1 deconstructed, with the face-of-the-patent art that maps to each element

Two of the strongest references are not merely "on the face" — they are the exact references Samsung is currently using against this family: US 7,293,276 (United Video Properties; "Phillips" in the IPR record) and US 2005/0188408 (Wallis). In IPR2025‑01311 the Board-level briefing maps Phillips to the two-panel concept (a linear playback toolbar vs. an interactive/VOD menu) and Wallis to the metadata attribute table ("video controllable," "can save to favourites," "target") that decides which controls to present. That mapping was assembled for the parent '091, but every element of it reads directly onto '502 claim 1's "renderer + controller + attribute information" architecture.

4. Proposed combinations and the motivation to combine

Ground A (primary): Phillips '276 + Wallis '408 + Gaydou '630

• What each supplies. Phillips: a networked interactive-television/VOD environment (which is also the "network connector" and "VOD request" element) in which the on-screen player presents a linear transport toolbar in one context and interactive (menu/service) controls in another. Wallis: content-associated metadata attributes that determine, button-by-button, which navigation controls are shown or live. Gaydou '630 ("Systems and methods for providing transport control," cited by the examiner with an asterisk) supplies contextual transport-control provisioning for interactive TV.
• Motivation (KSR‑sufficient). (i) Same field, same problem: all three address controlling a video/TV UI with a limited remote. (ii) The patent's own Background supplies the motivation: it admits the prior art needed "a number of remote keys," "a large panel rendering area," and that GUI devices "display all keys so that a wide operation panel rendering area is used." An applicant's admission of the problem is powerful evidence of the incentive to solve it. (iii) Predictable result: substituting one known panel/presentation for another based on a pre-existing metadata field is the "simple substitution of one known element for another" and the "use of a known technique to improve a similar device" that KSR endorses. (iv) Finite, identified solutions: the designer had two candidate panel types; selecting between them by an "if" test on a flag is within routine skill (this is precisely the petitioner's "conditional if-statement" argument in IPR2025‑01311).
• Confidence: Moderate-to-high on the two-panel + metadata elements; verify against the references' full texts.

Ground B: Ground A + Motorola '413 and/or Austin‑Lane '790 — the "appreciation term"

• Attribute #1 ("appreciation term") is a time-limited validity window attached to content. Motorola '413 teaches attaching an origination time and update lifetime to received data and suppressing updates past the lifetime; Austin‑Lane '790 teaches content delivery governed by a lifespan. VOD/EPG art likewise manages asset availability windows, and UVdP '458 removes unavailable assets from listings.
• Motivation. Presenting stale news/weather is the exact harm the '502 spec identifies ("lapse of an appreciation term"). Combining a lifetime field with a UI that is already metadata-driven is a predictable, low-risk integration; the POSITA would recognize an obvious benefit in not displaying interactive content after its window closed. Timing/UI mismatches are handled by a clock comparison — routine.
• Weakness. This is the element most vulnerable to a non‑analogous-art / different-problem argument: Motorola '413 is a messaging/paging reference, and Austin‑Lane is electronic communications. Expect Maxell to argue that neither is reasonably pertinent to digital-broadcast UI rendering.
• Confidence: Moderate.

Ground C: Ground A + viewer-history references (Hyundai '747 / Music '869 / UVdP '458 / TiVo '389) — "viewing history… amount viewed"

• Hyundai '747 builds a viewer profile from prior viewing; Music '869 supervises/records viewing; UVdP '458 personalizes VOD menus from profiles; TiVo '389 and Microsoft '829 teach resuming from a stored playback position (the closest analogue to "an amount … that has been viewed").
• Motivation. Personalization and resume are the two canonical reasons to track viewing state; using stored state to decide whether to auto-present interactive content (the '502 spec's stated behavior: "if … a user does not still view the contents, the data broadcasting is automatically displayed") is a direct design application.
• Weakness. "Amount viewed" as a numerical progress indication is narrower than the cited profile art; a petitioner would want a resume-position reference (TiVo/Microsoft) in the mix, and would need to show that the attribute is associated with the content rather than with a device-level profile. This is the claim element I would expect Maxell to defend hardest on § 112 and on the art.
• Confidence: Moderate-to-low on this element alone.

Ground D: Ground A + Sprint '907 / Microsoft '825 — the VOD-request element

• Sprint '6,757,907 ("Display selection in a video‑on‑demand system") and Microsoft '6,804,825 both disclose user-requested VOD over a network with corresponding display selection. Motivation: adding a network/VOD request path to a known broadcast reproduction apparatus is the most predictable of all the proposed modifications (the '502 spec itself treats network VOD as a straightforward alternative embodiment).
• Confidence: High on the element; note that if the priority date holds at 2005, you must confirm these references' § 102 dates (both are pre‑2000 filings and are safe).

Ground E: Uchida '360 + LG '604 / '418 — the "same panel rendering area" dependent claims (7, 9, 18, 20)

• Uchida (Sony, US 8,773,360) teaches a fixed content area with a dedicated control-panel area — the "same panel rendering area / common in size" limitations. Samsung used exactly this combination (Phillips–Wallis–Uchida) in Ground 2 of IPR2025‑01311. LG '604 and LG '418 supply "only selectable keys displayed."
• Motivation: non-obstruction of the video and GUI consistency — the benefits Maxell itself claims in the '502 spec ("the image display area can be made relatively large").

5. The negative limitation ("not generated by disabling of buttons")

This is the claim's deliberate carve-out from JP‑A‑2005‑073022 and US 6,404,418, both of which illuminate/select usable keys on a fixed key set. Two observations:

1. Prosecution/claim-drafting artifact. The '502 Background concedes that GUI devices "display all keys and unusable keys are disabled." The limitation is an attempt to claim around an implementation detail (disabled vs. swapped) rather than a technical advance.
2. Weight. A negative limitation generally does not confer patentability where the prior art's structure/method is otherwise the same, and disabling is a mere alternative implementation of the same function. Expect the argument that the Panel A/Panel B swap in Phillips/Wallis is a different rendered image, which is all "distinct panels" requires — and that a POSITA would freely substitute a hidden/relaid-out panel for a greyed-out button because it reduces on-screen clutter, the stated objective.

There is a plausible Patent Owner counter here (the panels are pre-composed and swapped as units, avoiding the disabled-key cluttering of the art), so I would not treat this limitation as worthless — but it is narrow, and the dependent claims 4/5/6 and 15/16/17 ("mutually different buttons," "all … usable buttons," "mutually different functions") are little more than the natural consequence of not disabling anything.

6. Counterweights (what makes this a genuinely contestable case)

• No clean single-reference hit. No cited reference appears to disclose all of: (i) two mutually exclusive, pre-composed panels, (ii) driven by content-associated attribute data, (iii) including both a term/expiry attribute and a viewing-history attribute, (iv) in a network/VOD apparatus. This is a combination case, and combinations can be attacked on motivation and on "prior art teaches away."
• Long pendency and prior survival. The family has issued patents since 2012 ('394) and survived IPRs by BlackBerry (IPR2019‑00089), Motorola (IPR2022‑01348) and Vizio (IPR2023‑00316) against the '394 — those petitions and decisions are Petitioner exhibits 1004–1009 in IPR2025‑01311. Being repeatedly challenged and surviving cuts against obviousness.
• Secondary considerations. Maxell can point to broad licensing across the industry and to the fact that the underlying concept (a small, context-switched control panel) is ubiquitous in modern smart TVs — supporting long-felt need and commercial success. These are only probative with a proven nexus to the claimed invention (not to the 2005 specification generally) — a real vulnerability given how much later claim language was added.
• Procedural signal pointing the other way. Maxell withdrew all asserted claims of the '502 from ITC 337‑TA‑1420 in April 2025, and the case settled globally in September 2025, before any adjudication of the '502's validity. That is at least consistent with uncertainty about these exact claims.

7. Bottom line

• Claim 1 / claim 12: A competent petitioner would build on Phillips '276 + Wallis '408 (+ Gaydou '630), then supplement with (a) a lifetime/lifespan reference (Motorola '413 and/or Austin‑Lane '790) for the appreciation term, (b) a viewing-history/resume reference (Hyundai '747, Music '869, TiVo '389) for the second attribute, and (c) a VOD reference (Sprint '907 or Microsoft '825) for the network/VOD-request element. Motivation is strong for the first two categories (same field, admitted problem, predictable substitution) and weak-to-moderate for the term/history attributes, where the art sits in adjacent rather than identical fields.
• Claims 2, 3, 13, 14 (demux/decoder) and claims 4–6, 15–17 (differing buttons/functions, all usable) are, on their face, obvious design consequences — the "all buttons usable" and "mutually different functions" recitations describe the ordinary result of not disabling keys.
• Claims 7, 9, 18, 20 (same rendering area, common size) fall readily to Uchida '360 in view of LG '604/'418, mirroring the ground Samsung already assembled against the parent.
• The decisive battleground is the effective filing date. If the "viewing history / amount viewed" and VOD-request limitations are held unsupported by the 2006 disclosure, the claims move to 2022/2023, the AIA applies, and a vastly larger body of streaming-player UI art becomes available — which would convert a hard combination case into a comparatively easy one.

Confidence: High on claim construction and the identity/relevance of the cited references; medium on the specific disclosures of US 7,293,276, US 2005/0188408, US 2005/0166230 and US 8,773,360, which I have characterized from the patent's citation list and the IPR2025‑01311 briefing rather than from full-text review — those should be confirmed against the references themselves before any position is finalized.