US 12009865

I'll search for authoritative information on US patent 12009865, including USPTO records and any 2026 CAFC docket activity.

Let me refine the search toward litigation and CAFC docket activity, and toward the patent's current owner.

Let me dig deeper into the specific litigation involving 12009865 and check for any Federal Circuit (CAFC) 2026 docket activity.

Summary: US Patent 12,009,865 B2

Ground-truth note on identifiers (per your strict rule): I interpreted the number literally as 12,009,865 (granted as US 12,009,865 B2). All bibliographic data below is drawn from the authoritative patent text supplied in the prompt; the litigation/CAFC portion is drawn from live search and is flagged for uncertainty.

Bibliographic data

Assignment/ownership chain (from the patent record): NEC Corporation → NEC Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. (2024-03-21) → IP WAVE PTE. LTD. (2024-10-03) → PLS XLIV LLC (2025-11-13 corrective assignment) → RADIANT PATENTS LLC (2025-10-01, recorded as a "change of name"). The currently listed assignee is Radiant Patents LLC. (The ordering of the last two entries in the record is as presented by the source; I have not independently reconciled the sequencing.)

Family context: This patent is a continuation in a long chain — US 15/517,767 (→ US 10,097,275), national stage of PCT/JP2015/005059; then US 16/120,989 (→ US 10,361,789), US 16/438,161 (→ US 10,693,560), US 16/872,491 (→ US 10,924,188), US 17/148,829 (→ US 11,476,943), and this case; with a later continuation US 18/360,078 (→ US 12,126,385). International publication WO2016056220A1.

Abstract (verbatim substance)

The patent frames a problem: if an optical communication system switches modulation schemes depending on transmission conditions, "the power consumption increases and the control becomes complex." The proposed solution is an optical transmitter having: an encoding means that encodes digital signals (to be transmitted under a predetermined transmission condition over an optical carrier wave) using one of a plurality of encoding methods; an encoding control means that selects the encoding method corresponding to the transmission condition and drives the encoder accordingly; a mapping means that maps the encoder's output bits to modulation symbols; and an optical modulation means that modulates the optical carrier wave based on the symbol signals.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — An optical transceiver, comprising:

1. An encoder that encodes input digital signals using one of a plurality of encoding methods and outputs the encoded signals;
2. A controller that controls the encoder to select one of the plurality of encoding methods based on real-time optical transmission attributes of an optical carrier wave;
3. A mapper that maps the encoded digital signals to symbol signals and outputs them; and
4. An optical modulator that modulates the optical carrier wave based on the mapped symbol signals.

In plain terms: a single optical transceiver that dynamically picks its encoding scheme in real time according to what the optical carrier/transmission conditions are doing, then maps the coded bits to symbols and modulates the light. (Note: the granted claim recites an "optical transceiver" and "real-time optical transmission attributes," wording that differs from the "optical transmitter" / "predetermined transmission condition" phrasing of the specification's summary.)

Claim 10 — An optical communication method, comprising:

1. Encoding input digital signals by one of a plurality of encoding methods and outputting the encoded signals;
2. Controlling the encoding to select one of the plurality of encoding methods based on real-time optical transmission attributes of an optical carrier wave;
3. Mapping the encoded digital signals to symbol signals and outputting them; and
4. Modulating the optical carrier wave based on the mapped symbol signals.

In plain terms: the method counterpart to Claim 1 — a transmit-side process in which the coding scheme is chosen in real time from the carrier's transmission attributes, then bits are mapped and the optical carrier is modulated.

Dependent claims (brief):

• Claims 2–9 (depend from 1): encoding methods including at least two of BPSK, QPSK, 8QAM, 16QAM (cl. 2); transmission attributes include capacity, distance, error rate, and/or OSNR (cl. 3); changing the encoding method to balance distance vs. capacity (cl. 4); changing the method in real time per measurements (cl. 5); controller sets drive signals (cl. 6); symbol dimensions including optical phase, polarization, wavelength, or time (cl. 7); QAM partial-constellation mapping (cl. 8), with decreased symbol count or increased symbol distance (cl. 9).
• Claims 11–18 (depend from 10): the method analogues of the above (BPSK/QPSK/8QAM/16QAM; attributes; balancing distance/capacity; real-time change; drive signals; symbol dimensions; QAM partial constellations).

Litigation / CAFC 2026 docket — findings and uncertainty

• What I found: A 2026 district-court action, Radiant Patents LLC v. Nokia Corp, Case No. 2:26-cv-00074 (E.D. Tex., filed 2026-01-26), docketed as a patent-infringement suit. A secondary (AI-generated, third-party) complaint analysis of that case describes asserted patents in this family — specifically US 10,924,188 and US 10,361,789 (both ancestor continuations of 12,009,865), plus US 10,623,095 — with accused products described as Nokia optical networking/coherent engines (e.g., PSE-6s) implementing probabilistic constellation shaping. Source: ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:26-cv-00074.

• What I could NOT verify: I did not find authoritative confirmation that US 12,009,865 itself is asserted in that or any action, and I found no CAFC (Federal Circuit) 2026 docket entry specifically naming patent 12,009,865. I also could not directly query USPTO PatentCenter or the Federal Circuit's docket from this environment; my searches returned no primary-source record for a CAFC appeal involving this patent number. Given that two of its sibling patents are in the 2026 Nokia suit, an appeal touching this family is plausible, but I cannot state it as fact.

Bottom line on uncertainty: The patent's identity, title, inventors, dates, assignee, abstract, and claim set are well-grounded in the authoritative text you provided. Any CAFC 2026 activity specifically for 12,009,865 is unconfirmed — treat the litigation linkage as a family-level lead (via US 10,924,188 / US 10,361,789 in Radiant Patents v. Nokia), not a verified assertion of this exact patent. If you have PACER/PatentCenter or CourtListener access, I'd recommend confirming the case docket and the specific asserted patent numbers there.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 12,009,865. Let me search several litigation databases and sources.

Let me refine my searches with more targeted queries.

I found a key lead — Radiant Patents LLC (NPE) sued Nokia. Let me dig deeper into whether the '865 patent is asserted, and check other cases.

Based on my searches of patent-litigation databases (PAIR/assignment records via Google Patents, RPX Empower, Unified Patents, PACER mirrors, CourtListener, and the at-issue complaint itself), here is what I can confirm — and an important caveat about the specific patent number.

Bottom line

I could not confirm any litigation in which U.S. Patent No. 12,009,865 is itself an asserted patent. Its Google Patents record carries a "Family has litigation" flag and a Darts-ip link, but the family litigation I located asserts sibling patents (the '188 and '789 patents), not the '865. The '865 is a continuation member of the same family/specification. I flag this distinction because you expressly asked me not to return similar numbers as if they were the target.

The family litigation I did identify

Radiant Patents LLC v. Nokia Corp

• Plaintiff: Radiant Patents LLC (f/k/a PLS XLIV LLC), an NPE; described in reporting as an entity of MVRE LLC
• Defendant(s): Nokia Corp. (reporting references Nokia's optical networking products; complaint accuses the 1830 PSS/GX line and PSE/ICE optical engines)
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division; originally assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap)
• Case number: 2:26-cv-00074
• Filing date: January 26, 2026
• Nature of suit: 830 – Patent Infringement (35 U.S.C. §271)
• Current status: Open / pending litigation (as of the most recent data available)

Patents shown as asserted in that complaint (per the complaint's claim charts):

• U.S. Patent No. 10,924,188 (the '188 patent)
• U.S. Patent No. 10,361,789 (the '789 patent)
• Accused functionality: "probabilistic constellation shaping" (PCS) in Nokia's "super-coherent" optical engines
• Related Radiant/Nokia optical patents flagged in the same campaign: U.S. 10,623,095 (the '095), U.S. 11,431,431 (the '431), and U.S. 10,404,366 (the '366)

Sources:

• https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:26-cv-00074/radiant-patents-llc-v-nokia-corp
• https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:26-cv-00074/doc/analysis/16
• https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/news/90251-something-cool-is-coming (RPX Empower, March 8, 2026)
• https://patroll.unifiedpatents.com/contests/yJyADXbzCHGx7f9gv (Unified Patents Patroll, re U.S. 10,924,188)
• https://patroll.unifiedpatents.com/contests/fJpp6n7SYsQis8RvA (Unified Patents Patroll, re U.S. 10,404,366)

Why the '865 is family-relevant

Per the '865 specification and continuity data, US 12,009,865 B2 shares one specification and priority chain with the asserted siblings:

• Priority: JP 2014-209346 (Oct. 10, 2014) and JP 2015-088334 (Apr. 23, 2015); PCT/JP2015/005059 (Oct. 5, 2015)
• U.S. continuation chain: US 10,097,275 → US 10,361,789 → US 10,693,560 → US 10,924,188 → US 11,476,943 → US 12,009,865 → US 12,126,385
• Assignments: NEC Asia Pacific Pte Ltd → IP Wave Pte. Ltd. → PLS XLIV LLC → Radiant Patents LLC (change of name)
• Listing the '865 as a continuation on its face; the asserted '188 and '789 are its direct family members within the same specification.

Because the '865 shares the specification with the '188/'789, it is highly plausible it is part of the same monetization portfolio, but I could not verify it is currently asserted in any filed complaint. The most recent Radiant–Nokia complaint materials I retrieved chart the '188 and '789, not the '865.

Other leads checked (no '865 litigation found)

• No USPTO/PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR) naming 12,009,865 surfaced.
• No CourtListener/PACER docket separate from the Radiant Patents campaign surfaced that names 12,009,865.
• The Google Patents "Family has litigation" flag links to the Darts-ip family ID 67985773 and is consistent with the Radiant–Nokia family suit, not proof that the '865 claim is asserted.

Confidence / limitations

• High confidence: Radiant Patents LLC v. Nokia Corp, 2:26-cv-00074 (E.D. Tex.), filed 2026-01-26, open, asserting at least the '188 and '789.
• Low confidence / not established: That US 12,009,865 specifically has been asserted or litigated. I found no such case.
• I was unable to complete a fully exhaustive PACER/CAFC docket pull (tool limits), so I cannot rule out a very recent filing. If you need certainty, the definitive check is the patent-level litigation tab on Darts-ip (family 67985773) and a PACER docket search for "12,009,865" as an exhibit/asserted patent, plus the Radiant Patents campaign docket in E.D. Tex.

Recommendation: Treat the Radiant Patents LLC v. Nokia Corp action (2:26-cv-00074) as the family-level litigation of interest, but do not represent that the '865 itself is asserted unless you confirm it in the complaint or its exhibits.

I'll verify against the canonical source and check for any recently-filed proceedings the ODP may not have indexed, given the family's active litigation campaign.

Let me check for family-level PTAB activity and the Unified Patents Patroll contests flagged earlier.

Let me run two final confirmation searches — one on the specific patent number in PTAB contexts, and one on whether any family member has drawn an actual IPR petition.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 12,009,865: 0. The canonical USPTO Open Data Portal list supplied in this prompt returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding naming this patent — no active trials, no claims invalidated, no claims sustained, no settlements, no institution denials. My independent web searches (Google Patents litigation tab, PTAB/PTActs document hits, CourtListener/PACER mirrors, RPX Empower, Unified Patents Patroll) surfaced no AIA trial proceeding in which 12,009,865 is the challenged patent. Bottom-line defensive posture: the patent is entirely untested at the PTAB — every one of its 18 claims is "live" and un-adjudicated in an AIA forum. This is the opposite of a "hardened" patent; it is simply an unchallenged one, and an IPR/PGR filing window remains wide open.

Because there are zero proceedings, the per-proceeding sections below would be fabricated if populated. I therefore report the null result and the adjacent, verifiable signals instead.

No proceedings to report

• Type / Filed / Status / Panel / Grounds / Institution / FWD / Settlement / Appeal: Not applicable — no proceeding exists to describe.
• I did not find, and will not invent, an IPR, PGR, or CBM number for this patent. Treat any future-surfaced proceeding number as unverified until it appears on USPTO PTAB E2E or the PTAB's public docket.

Adjacent family-level activity — NOT PTAB proceedings (flagged for accuracy)

These are prior-art crowdsourcing contests and district-court litigation, not AIA trials. I list them so they are not mistaken for PTAB filings:

• Unified Patents "PATROLL" contests (crowdsourced prior-art search, not IPRs) run on sibling patents sharing this specification — e.g., US 10,924,188 and US 10,404,366, among others. Source: patroll.unifiedpatents.com/contests/fJpp6n7SYsQis8RvA; unifiedpatents.com/insights/2026/5/5/.... A PATROLL contest is a precursor signal — Unified sometimes converts identified art into an IPR petition — but no petition has been filed against the '865.
• Radiant Patents LLC v. Nokia Corp, No. 2:26-cv-00074 (E.D. Tex., filed 2026-01-26) — asserts family members including US 10,924,188 and US 10,361,789 (both direct ancestors of the '865 in the same continuation chain), plus US 10,623,095. The '865 itself is not among the patents identified as asserted in the complaint materials I retrieved. (Cross-reference: this is consistent with the previously generated litigation section, which likewise could not confirm the '865 is asserted.)

No direct-family IPR found: I also searched for an IPR/PGR against the nearest family members and found none naming 10,924,188, 10,361,789, 11,476,943, or 12,126,385.

Strategic summary

Claim status. Every claim of 12,009,865 — independent claims 1 and 10 and dependent claims 2–9 and 11–18 — is UNTESTED at the PTAB. Nothing has been canceled; nothing has been sustained in an AIA forum. Any statement that the patent has "survived IPRs" would be false; it has simply never been challenged there. Note also that because the '865's issued claims (reciting an "optical transceiver" and "real-time optical transmission attributes") depart from the specification's "optical transmitter / predetermined transmission condition" framing, the claim-construction ground is arguably favorable to a petitioner — an untested claim set with a prosecution-driven wording shift is often the most attackable kind.

Estoppel landscape. With no prior AIA proceeding, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to anyone on these claims. A defendant facing assertion today enjoys the full statutory arsenal: a § 102/§ 103 IPR, or — because the '865 is a continuation in a 2014-priority chain with a 2022 filing — a PGR-eligible or IPR challenge depending on the one-year § 315(b) bar clock running from service of any complaint. There is no estoppel carryover from the sibling-patent litigation unless the same petitioner/privy previously obtained an FWD on the '865, which has not happened. The § 315(b) one-year clock is the principal constraint: file within one year of service of an infringement complaint naming the '865.

Pattern signals. This is a classic untested-NPE-portfolio fact pattern: a patent that issued in 2024, was rapidly reassigned through a chain (NEC → NEC Asia Pacific → IP Wave → PLS XLIV → Radiant Patents), and is being asserted only through sibling patents while the '865 sits idle. Unified Patents is visibly active in the family (PATROLL contests on '188/'095/'431/'366), which is the single strongest signal that an IPR against this specification is being teed up — but as of today, none has been filed against the '865. There is no serial-petition history on this patent and no Federal Circuit appeal touching it.

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant: the absence of PTAB history is your opportunity. The claims are un-adjudicated and un-estoppeled — run a full § 102/§ 103 prior-art search now and evaluate an IPR petition. Because the '865 shares its specification with the already-asserted '188/'789, prior art that UnifIed has publicly charted against those siblings (via PATROLL) may be directly reusable here; pull those charts before commissioning new searches.
2. Watch the family. Unified Patents PATROLL contests on '188, '095, '431, and '366 are live/recent. If Unified converts identified art into an IPR on any family member, an IPR on the '865 is a likely next step — monitor USPTO PTAB E2E and Unified's insights page for a petition naming 12,009,865.
3. Calendar the § 315(b) bar. If a complaint asserting the '865 is served, you have one year (365 days) to file. Do not assume a stay in E.D. Tex.; confirm the bar date from the complaint and docket.
4. Verify independently before relying on this. The definitive check is the patent-level "Proceedings" tab on USPTO PatentCenter / PTAB E2E and a CourtListener search restricted to "12,009,865." I could not complete a fully exhaustive PatentCenter/PACER pull in this environment, so I cannot rule out a very recently filed petition not yet indexed by the ODP ingest — but as of the canonical structured data, the answer is zero proceedings, and I state that plainly rather than manufacture activity.

Confidence: High that no AIA trial proceeding on 12,009,865 exists on the record as of the ODP ingest and my searches. Medium that none has been filed in the last few weeks (indexing lag). Nothing in this report asserts a proceeding number, FWD, or appeal for this patent, because none exists to report.

I'll reconstruct the assignment record using the authoritative patent text plus live searches for the USPTO Assignment Center entries, reel/frame numbers, and correspondents of record.

I have strong leads on the NEC → IP Wave → Cloud Byte/Radiant assignment machinery. Let me pull the specific reel/frame entries and correspondents for this patent and its family.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 12,009,865 B2

Method note. I could not directly query assignmentcenter.uspto.gov from this environment. The reel/frame data below is reconstructed from (a) the patent's own Google Patents legal-events record — which reproduces the USPTO Assignment Database abstract text — and (b) a PTAB exhibit that reproduces USPTO Assignment Database abstracts for sibling patents in the same NEC portfolio. I have labeled every reel/frame as either '865-specific or family/sibling-level; do not treat the latter as the '865's own record without a docket pull.

Inventors

Pattern notes:

• Only two inventors on a fairly broad optical-transmitter disclosure — normal for NEC's optical transport R&D groups.
• No evidence of inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing; I found no inventor-side assignments or post-filing inventor transfers. This is not a case where the inventors themselves divested.
• The more interesting structural tell is not inventor-side but filing-side: the inventions are Japanese-origin, yet the US/PCT filings route through NEC Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. (Singapore), not NEC Corporation (Tokyo). Filing the family through a foreign subsidiary is what made the later bulk transfer of ~180–200 assets to a Singapore conduit (IP Wave) administratively clean.

Original assignee

• Named on the issued patent: NEC Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., 80 Bendemeer Road #05-01/02, Singapore 339949 (a wholly owned subsidiary of NEC Corporation, 7-1 Shiba 5-chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo). Google Patents lists "Original Assignee: NEC Asia Pacific Pte Ltd"; the USPTO record also shows an assignment from NEC CORPORATION to NEC Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. recorded 2024-03-21, i.e., the Japanese parent formally conveyed the family rights to the Singapore entity.
• Primary line of business: NEC is a large operating technology company; the family sits in NEC's optical transport / optical networking line (coherent transponders, WDM transport, submarine systems). NEC Asia Pacific is the regional operating/marketing and IP-holding subsidiary.
• Product embodiment: The specification's premise — a single transmitter that switches modulation/encoding depending on transmission distance and capacity — is squarely the design problem of commercial coherent optical transponders (adaptive modulation, SP-16QAM/PM-16QAM). NEC has shipped such systems. However, I have no product-level evidence tying a specific NEC SKU to these claims, and I did not find NEC asserting this patent. Treat "shipped an embodying product" as plausible-but-unverified.
• Current status: NEC Corporation is operating and solvent. NEC Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. appears "In Force"/active in IP-owner databases. No bankruptcy, no Chapter 7/11, no insolvency anywhere in this chain — this is a portfolio divestiture, not a fire-sale.

Assignment timeline

Chronological. Where the '865's own reel/frame is not published in the sources I reached, I say so and give the family-level entry instead.

1. 2014-10-10 — JP priority filing (not a US recordation)

• JP 2014-209346 filed (NEC Corporation); second priority JP 2015-088334 on 2015-04-23. PCT/JP2015/005059 filed 2015-10-05 → WO2016056220A1 → US national stage 15/517,767 (2017-04-07) → US 10,097,275.
• Context: internal NEC prosecution; no ownership change.

2. 2022-08-31 — US 17/899,786 filed by NEC Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. (continuation of 17/148,829). Applicant of record is the Singapore subsidiary. No assignment recorded at filing.

3. 2024-03-21 (recorded) — NEC CORPORATION → NEC ASIA PACIFIC PTE LTD.

• Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (see document for details)
• Reel/Frame: not exposed in the '865 legal-events record. Family-level comparator: the NEC parent→Singapore-sub leg of this portfolio was recorded at Reel 066124/0752 (executed 2023-12-13; recorded 2023-12-22; 90 properties) in a sibling file. Note the '865 posting date (2024-03-21) differs, so the '865 likely sits in a separate batch whose reel I could not verify.
• Correspondent: not exposed for the '865.
• Context: internal reorg / intra-group consolidation — parent conveying rights to the subsidiary that had filed the application.

4. 2024-06-11 — Patent granted (US 12,009,865 B2). No assignment.

5. 2024-09/10 — NEC ASIA PACIFIC PTE LTD. → IP WAVE PTE. LTD. (recorded 2024-10-03 per the '865 legal events)

• Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
• Reel/Frame: not exposed for the '865. Family-level comparator: the NEC APAC → IP Wave conveyor for this portfolio was recorded as Reel 066376/0276 (executed 2024-01-18; recorded 2024-01-27; 179 properties) in sibling files.
• Correspondent (family-level, and important): SUGHRUE MION, PLLC, 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 9000, Washington, DC 20006. Sughrue Mion is NEC's long-time outside patent counsel — i.e., the seller's own firm filed the recordation that moved ~180 NEC assets to the conduit. Same-suite address recurs on the next link (see #6).
• Context: bulk divestiture to a Singaporean holding/conduit entity (RPX characterized this as "former NEC assets passing through a Singaporean entity to a potential Delaware plaintiff").

6. 2024–2025 — IP WAVE PTE. LTD. → PLS XLIV LLC

• Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
• Reel/Frame: Reel 70575, Frame 77 — this is an '865-specific reel/frame citation, established by the corrective-assignment text quoted in the '865's own legal-events record. ⚠️ The cover sheet for this recording erroneously put patent numbers into the application-number field; the properties it purports to cover are expressly listed as "patent numbers 10924188, 10581518, 10200117 and 12009865" — i.e., US 10,924,188 (a sibling asserted against Nokia), US 10,581,518, US 10,200,117, and this patent, US 12,009,865.
• Execution date: not exposed. Recording date: not separately exposed by Google (see #7).
• Correspondent: not exposed for the '865. Family-level comparator: the IP Wave → Delaware-LLC legs were recorded with MR. DEREK M. RABY, 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 9000, Washington, DC 20006 (Reel 067944/0332, executed 2024-03-05, IP Wave → Cloud Byte LLC; 850 Library Ave., Suite 204, Newark, Delaware 19711). Same suite address as the Sughrue Mion entry in #5 — the recordation appears to run through one Washington office on both the sell side and the buy side.
• Context: transfer-to-asserter — asset moves from the Singapore conduit to a Delaware LLC in the NPE formation.

7. 2025-10-01 (recorded) — PLS XLIV LLC → RADIANT PATENTS LLC (change of name)

• Conveyance: Change of Name ("CHANGE OF NAME"; assignor PLS XLIV LLC). No new consideration implied.
• Reel/Frame: not exposed in the '865 legal-events record.
• Correspondent: not exposed.
• Context: change of name only — the Delaware LLC rebranded into the entity that would sue.

8. 2025-11-13 (recorded) — Corrective assignment, IP WAVE PTE. LTD. → PLS XLIV LLC

• Conveyance: Corrective Assignment — "TO CORRECT THE APPLICATION AND PATENT NUMBERS FOR PATENT NUMBERS 10924188, 10581518, 10200117 AND 12009865, WHICH WERE ERRONEOUSLY RECORDED AS APPLICATION NUMBERS PREVIOUSLY RECORDED ON REEL 70575 FRAME 77."
• Reel/Frame: recorded under a new reel/frame (not exposed); it corrects Reel 70575/Frame 77.
• Context: clerical clean-up of the chain of title to make standing/venue record clean — a hallmark step immediately before assertion campaigns.

9. 2026-01-26 — Radiant Patents LLC v. Nokia Corp., No. 2:26-cv-00074 (E.D. Tex.)

• Radiant Patents LLC (f/k/a PLS XLIV LLC), described by Unified Patents as "an NPE and entity of MVRE LLC," sued Nokia over "a subset of patents recently received from IP Wave Pte. Ltd." (RPX, 2026-03-08). Asserter activity documented by Unified's PATROLL on US 10,924,188, US 10,623,095, US 11,431,431 and US 10,404,366 — all in this same NEC/IP Wave tranche.
• ⚠️ Not corroborated for the '865 itself. As flagged in the earlier sections, I found no complaint charting US 12,009,865. What is now corroborated is that the '865 traveled in the same reel 70575/77 conveyance as US 10,924,188, the flagship asserted patent — so it sits in the same monetization tranche even though it is not (yet) a named asserted patent.

Authorization to stop condition not triggered: records do exist. But note that most of the '865's own recordations expose no reel/frame and no correspondent in the public legal-events view; only the corrective-assignment text gave me a verifiable '865-specific reel/frame.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 12009865
    2014 : Priority filed by NEC Corporation
    2015 : PCT application filed
    2022 : US continuation filed by NEC Asia Pacific
    2024 : Patent granted
         : NEC Corporation to NEC Asia Pacific
         : NEC Asia Pacific to IP Wave Pte Ltd
    2025 : IP Wave to PLS XLIV LLC
         : PLS XLIV renamed Radiant Patents LLC
         : Corrective record for reel 70575 frame 77
    2026 : Radiant Patents sues Nokia

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT. The chain exits an operating company and passes through a Singapore conduit (IP WAVE PTE. LTD.) into Delaware LLCs (PLS XLIV LLC → RADIANT PATENTS LLC) whose only visible activity is holding/enforcing this NEC optical tranche. Concrete corroboration: the Delaware LLC address of record is 850 Library Ave., Suite 204, Newark, Delaware 19711 (a Newark, DE registered-agent/mail-drop address used by many single-purpose LLCs), per the family assignment abstract for App. 15/072,558; and Unified Patents states on the record that Radiant Patents LLC is "an NPE and entity of MVRE LLC." Anchor '865-specific evidence: Reel 70575/Frame 77 conveyed this patent with US 10,924,188, US 10,581,518 and US 10,200,117 to PLS XLIV LLC.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT. Radiant Patents LLC (f/k/a PLS XLIV LLC) is not on the legacy lists (Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi-LAN, etc.), but it squarely qualifies under your "surfaced by Unified Patents or RPX as a high-frequency plaintiff" limb: it is the plaintiff in Radiant Patents v. Nokia, 2:26-cv-00074 (E.D. Tex., filed 2026-01-26), and its patents are the subject of multiple Unified Patents PATROLL contests (US 10,924,188; US 10,623,095; US 11,431,431; US 10,404,366) — all from the IP Wave tranche. Parent entity per Unified: MVRE LLC.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — PRESENT (family-level; verify for the '865). Two recordations in this portfolio share the correspondent address 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 9000, Washington, DC 20006:

• SUGHRUE MION, PLLC on the NEC Asia Pacific → [IP Wave] leg (Reel 066376/0276, executed 2024-01-18 / recorded 2024-01-27);
• MR. DEREK M. RABY on the IP Wave → Cloud Byte LLC leg (Reel 067944/0332, executed 2024-03-05).
  The shell LLCs change; the Washington suite does not. Caveat: these are sibling-file entries, and the '865's own cover sheets expose no correspondent in the sources I reached — verify at Assignment Center before relying on this for the '865 specifically.

1. Cascading transfers — PRESENT. Four entities in roughly 19 months on the '865's face: NEC Corporation → NEC Asia Pacific (recorded 2024-03-21) → IP Wave (recorded 2024-10-03) → PLS XLIV LLC (Reel 70575/77) → Radiant Patents LLC (change of name recorded 2025-10-01, with a corrective re-record 2025-11-13). Same conduit (IP Wave) fed both the Cloud Byte LLC cluster and the PLS XLIV/Radiant cluster, consistent with a single operator distributing one acquired portfolio across multiple Delaware plaintiffs.

2. Pre-litigation transfer — UNCLEAR (sequence consistent, dates not verifiable). The transfer to the asserting entity (Reel 70575/77) and the PLS XLIV→Radiant rename (2025-10-01) both precede the 2026-01-26 Nokia complaint, and the corrective recording (2025-11-13) lands ~10 weeks before suit — the classic "clean the record, then file" sequencing. But because the recording date of Reel 70575/77 itself is not exposed in the '865 record, I cannot show a ≤6-month assignment-to-suit window. Marked unclear rather than present.

3. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. Neither NEC Corporation nor NEC Asia Pacific is in insolvency; no Chapter 7/11, no §363 sale, no court-supervised auction. This is a voluntary corporate portfolio divestiture — economically a sale, legally not a fire-sale. (Contrast the Kodak/Nortel/Polaroid pattern.)

4. Privateering — UNCLEAR / leaning no-evidence. NEC (an operating company) did transfer into an assertion vehicle, which is the structural predicate for privateering. But I found no SEC 8-K/10-K disclosure, no license-back, and no evidence NEC directs or participates in the Nokia suit or shares recoveries. On the record available, this reads as an outright monetization sale to a repeat-player NPE operator, not NEC-waged privateering.

5. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. The inverse signal obtains: Unified Patents is running PATROLL crowdsourcing against this exact portfolio — i.e., the patent is being challenged by a defensive aggregator-paid prior-art effort, not neutralized by one.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two or more strong signals are met on the record itself: (i) a shell-entity transfer — Reel 70575/Frame 77 moved US 12,009,865 out of NEC Asia Pacific's Singapore sub, through IP WAVE PTE. LTD., into Delaware LLC PLS XLIV LLC, which then renamed to RADIANT PATENTS LLC (change of name recorded 2025-10-01) and now holds only an enforcement posture; and (ii) a known asserter at the end of the chain — Radiant Patents LLC, described by Unified Patents as "an NPE and entity of MVRE LLC," is the plaintiff in Radiant Patents v. Nokia, No. 2:26-cv-00074 (E.D. Tex., filed 2026-01-26), with this portfolio in PATROLL contests. The 2025-11-13 corrective assignment fixing erroneous property numbers on Reel 70575/77 — a title-cleaning step ~10 weeks before suit on the sibling patents — reinforces the assertion-driven structure, and the repeat correspondent address (2000 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 9000, Washington DC) across the sell-side and buy-side recordations at the family level fits the "lawyer stays, LLCs rotate" tell.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center (patent search for 12009865) and the ODP/PatentCenter "Assignments" tab; confirm (a) the reel/frame and correspondent on the NEC APAC → IP Wave leg for the '865 specifically, and (b) the recordation date of Reel 70575/Frame 77, which is the only '865-specific reel/frame I could substantiate. Supporting public sources: Unified Patents, 2026-04-29 and 2026-05-05; RPX Empower, 2026-03-08; RPX Patent Watch, 2024-07-28 and 2024-08-09 (insight.rpxcorp.com); PTAB Exhibit 1021 in IPR2025-01286 (USPTO Assignment Database abstract reproduced for sibling NEC/IP Wave patents).

Contradiction check against the previously generated sections

• The earlier Litigation summary correctly stated that the '865 is not confirmed as an asserted patent. Nothing here changes that verdict — I add only that the '865 and US 10,924,188 (asserted) share a single conveyance at Reel 70575/Frame 77, which the prior sections did not have.
• One internal ordering warning carried forward: the patent record lists the PLS XLIV → Radiant change of name (2025-10-01) before the IP Wave → PLS XLIV corrective assignment (2025-11-13). That is consistent (the original IP Wave→PLS XLIV recording at Reel 70575/77 must predate the rename), but it means the rename and the correction are not in strict conveyancing order as displayed; do not read the Google event list as a clean title sequence.

I'll research the prior-art citations for US 12,009,865. Let me start by verifying the patent and then examining the key cited references.

Let me verify the key references that are the strongest anticipation candidates.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 12,009,865 B2

"Optical transmitter, optical communication system, and optical communication method"
Appl. 17/899,786 · filed 2022-08-31 · granted 2024-06-11 · priority 2014-10-10 (JP 2014-209346) and 2015-04-23 (JP 2015-088334)

Strict-identifier note: I analyzed only 12,009,865. The citation list below is the one appearing on the face of the '865 patent (Google Patents "Citations (37)," cross-checked against the Justia "Referenced Cited" list at patents.justia.com/patent/12009865). Where the two sources differ (e.g., Justia lists granted number US 9,698,939 where Google lists its pre-grant publication US 2014/0369680 A1), I treat them as the same reference and say so. I did not substitute any similar numbers.

A. The legal frame that controls the § 102 answer

The '865 has an effective filing date of 2014-10-10 (earliest JP priority). Because that date post-dates 16 March 2013, AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) governs. A cited reference is § 102 prior art only if it was:

• § 102(a)(1): publicly available before 2014-10-10 (published/issued before that date); or
• § 102(a)(2): a U.S. patent, U.S. application publication, or PCT application designating the U.S. whose effective filing date is before 2014-10-10.

Consequence: several of the 37 citations post-date the '865 priority and therefore are NOT § 102 art unless the issued claims lose the 2014 priority (see § E). This is an important threshold filter the earlier sections did not address.

Also controlling from the previously generated sections: the issued claims were reworded to an "optical transceiver" and "real-time optical transmission attributes," versus the specification's "optical transmitter / predetermined transmission condition." That wording shift matters for both priority entitlement and § 102 matching (the preamble "transceiver" and the "real-time" limitation are the two hardest elements to read onto the prior art).

B. Reference list — full citation, dates, description, and potentially-anticipated claims

Legend — Tier 1 = plausible single-reference § 102 anticipation of an independent claim; Tier 2 = dependent-claim § 102 or § 103; Tier 3 = background/non-analogous or date-barred. Confidence flags: ●●● high, ●●○ medium, ●○○ low.

Tier 1 — Closest references (independent claims 1 / 10)

Tier 2 — § 102 on dependent claims and/or § 103 combinations

Tier 3 — Date-barred or non-analogous (not § 102 art)

C. Anticipation summary matrix (independent claims 1 & 10)

C 2012) — the '865's own cited set-partitioning art | ●○○ |

D. Bottom-line answer

The single most relevant prior art for US 12,009,865 is JP 2011-514736 A (= US 7,986,878 B2, Opnext Subsystems). Its disclosure of a programmable optical transmitter that (i) carries a plurality of QAM constellations/encoding modes, (ii) selects one based on a condition of the optical transmission link (distance, OSNR, BER — i.e., the '865's "optical transmission attributes"), and (iii) switches to another when the condition changes, maps element-for-element onto independent claim 1 (and method claim 10) and its dependents on attributes, distance/capacity trade-off, real-time change, and drive signals. US 2014/0369680 A1 / US 9,698,939 (Ciena) is the next-strongest and is the best single reference for the partial-constellation dependent claims 8/17 and 9/18.

Realistic § 102 posture: roughly a dozen references are plausible single-reference anticipators of the two independent claims (all Tier 1 + several Tier 2); the rest are § 103/background, date-barred, or (two) apparent noise. No cited reference is a clean, unqualified § 102 knockout on all of claims 1–18 simultaneously, because the "partial constellation / set-partitioning" limitations (claims 8–9, 17–18) are disclosed by only a subset of the art (principally US 2014/0369680 and the cited NPL Ungerboeck/Coelho/Renaudier papers).

Useful corroboration of the "transceiver/real-time" wording issue: US 11,546,064 (NTT) is substantively an almost identical scheme (mode = modulation scheme + baud + FEC, chosen with signal-quality feedback), but its 2018 priority post-dates the '865. It only becomes § 102 art if the issued claims are denied the 2014-10-10 priority — which is precisely the risk created by the prosecution-driven rewrite to "optical transceiver / real-time."

E. Caveats and confidence

• Source of truth: the citation list is taken from the '865 record (patents.google.com/patent/US12009865B2/en; patents.justia.com/patent/12009865), not invented. I verified the substance of the four leading references against primary text (US 7,986,878; US 9,698,939/US 2014/0369680; US 8,291,281; US 11,546,064).
• I did not perform a full element-by-element claim chart against the complete text of all 37 references (tool limits). Anticipation conclusions for the lower-tier references are provisional; § 102 requires that every element be disclosed in a single reference, which can only be confirmed by reading each reference's full specification against each claim.
• "Encoding method" is the pivotal construction. The '865 specification equates "encoding methods" with effective modulation schemes achieved through set-partitioning of the encoder output. If the claims are construed narrowly (encoding ≠ modulation-format selection), several Tier 1 references shift from § 102 to § 103. If construed broadly, the Tier 1 § 102 case is strong.
• Date-barred items reviewed as though live: I flagged the seven references whose dates post-date the '865 priority (entries 27–33, 31 especially). Treat these as § 102 art only if the claims lose the 2014-10-10 priority for lack of written-description support for "real-time" / "transceiver."
• Non-patent literature cited on the '865 face (Ungerboeck, "Channel Coding with Multilevel/Phase Signals," IEEE Trans. IT, 1982 — the genesis of set-partitioning; Coelho & Hanik, ECOC 2011; Renaudier et al., ECOC 2012) is directly relevant to the set-partitioning/partial-constellation claims 8–9/17–18 and should be treated as § 102/§ 103 art alongside the patents, even though the question asked only for the patent citations.
• Confidence in the headline finding (JP 2011-514736 / US 7,986,878 as the closest art): high. Confidence in the per-claim § 102 designations for Tier 2/3: medium-to-low, as noted per entry.

If you can supply the full text of any specific reference (or run these against claim charts), I can convert the "potentially anticipates" designations into a definitive, element-by-element § 102 mapping.

I'll ground the analysis in the Prior Art section of this page (the 37 citations plus PTL/NPL references), and verify the disclosure content of the key references before reasoning about combinations.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 12,009,865 B2

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (AIA), as applied to the granted claims (1–18)

Date of analysis: April 26, 2026 · Effective filing date: October 10, 2014 (earliest JP priority; the '865 is post‑AIA, so AIA § 102/§ 103 and KSR govern).

0. Scope note and cross‑reference

This section builds on the previously generated Patent summary (which flagged that the granted claims recite an "optical transceiver" driven by "real‑time optical transmission attributes," departing from the specification's "optical transmitter / predetermined transmission condition" framing). That departure matters here: it narrows the gap between the claims and the adaptive‑optics prior art rather than widening it, because the prior art in this page's Prior Art section is overwhelmingly directed to real‑time / adaptive modulation‑format selection.

Grounding limit (stated up front). The Prior Art section of this page supplies a citation list (37 citations + 7 "family cites") and full titles/metadata, but not the full text of every reference. Where I rely on a reference's disclosed content I have cited the specific passage/claim I retrieved; where I have only the title, I say so and treat the disclosure as an inference that a petitioner would need to confirm against the reference itself.

1. The claim to be tested, and the actual invention

Claim 1 (representative) requires:

1. an encoder encoding input digital signals by one of a plurality of encoding methods;
2. a controller controlling the encoder to select one of the plurality of encoding methods based on real‑time optical transmission attributes of an optical carrier wave;
3. a mapper mapping the encoded digital signals to symbol signals; and
4. an optical modulator modulating the optical carrier wave based on the mapped symbol signals.

The specification's stated problem is that switching modulation schemes by implementing a full signal‑processing chain per scheme "increases power consumption and … control becomes complex" (Background/Technical Problem). The asserted solution is to switch at the encoding stage and let a shared mapper/modulator carry the different schemes — "select a preferable modulation scheme … only by changing an encoding method. This enables a change in digital signal processing to be minimized" (spec., First–Fifth Example Embodiments).

Key observation for § 103: the independent claims do not capture the specification's actual point of novelty (shared encoder‑centric switching with set‑partitioning to preserve a common constellation). Claims 1 and 10 are drawn to the generic architecture of an adaptive transceiver — encode → map → modulate, with adaptive scheme selection. That generic architecture is precisely what the cited art already taught.

2. Level of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

A POSITA here would have a bachelor's degree in electrical/optical engineering (or equivalent) and 2–4 years' experience in coherent optical transport / DSP‑based transceivers, including familiarity with M‑ary QAM formats, DSP‑based format selection, FEC, and OSNR/BER link budgeting. This is a mature, well‑populated art: by the 2014 priority date, commercial "flexible/elastic" transceivers supporting multiple formats in one device were known (see Ciena material below).

3. Prior art inventory (from the Prior Art section of this page)

3a. The patent's own identified references (PTL/NPL)

3b. Cited references in the page's "Citations (37)" list — the ones with § 103 purchase

Date rule applied. Under AIA § 102(a)(2), a U.S. patent application publication is prior art as of its effective filing date, not its publication date. That is why US 2014/0369680 A1 (published 2014‑12‑18, filed 2013‑06‑13) is available. By contrast, US 2016/0105236 A1 has an effective date after the '865 priority and is not available.

4. Grounds of rejection

GROUND 1 — Claims 1 and 10 obvious over PTL 1 in view of EP 2 571 217 A1 (and optionally US 2014/0369680 A1)

PTL 1 (JP 2011‑250291) discloses every structural block but one:

• a coder ("variable coder") that generates a modulation signal for a transmission frame → "encoder";
• a "transmission method setting unit" that selects a transmission method from among a plurality and notifies the mapping/coder/modulator → "controller … select one of the plurality of encoding methods"; and
• a "variable frame mapping unit" + "optical modulation unit" → "mapper" and "optical modulator."

What PTL 1 lacks is (i) framing the selection decision on "real‑time optical transmission attributes of the optical carrier wave," and (ii) the "optical transceiver" form.

EP 2 571 217 A1 supplies exactly that: it selects a modulation scheme "according to a desired bitrate" from control‑plane equipment and adapts bitrate for the optical link, using PDM‑QAM on the optical carrier with dual nested Mach‑Zehnder modulators + four DACs, and it expressly maps to subsets of the QAM constellation with increased Euclidean distance.

Motivation to combine (KSR, articulated):

• Same field, same problem, same result. Both are coherent‑optical transmitters whose entire purpose is to trade spectral efficiency against reach; both are indexed under H04B 10/516 ("Details of coding or modulation").
• Predictable, known technique. Replacing PTL 1's rate‑of‑the‑client‑signal trigger with EP '217's adaptive‑bitrate‑for‑the‑link / control‑plane‑commanded trigger is the substitution of one known design criterion for another to obtain the predictable benefit of link‑adaptive capacity — a classic KSR "known technique, predictable result."
• Art‑recognized teaching. EP '217's own stated goal — "having a signal with symbol states that are more distinct from each other so that the transmission reach is higher for a similar quality of signal at destination" — supplies the express motivation to move the selection into the real‑time link dimension.
• "Optical transceiver" is not a distinction. EP '217's transmitter sits in a WDM optical network with a receiver; PTL 1's is a transmitter/receiver pair. Combining a transmitter with its obviously paired receiver to make a transceiver is not inventive (and the disclosure of Ciena US 2013/0209091 claim 12 goes further and claims the transceiver as such).

Result: Claim 1 — and its method counterpart Claim 10 (identical steps, no added structure) — are obvious.

GROUND 2 — Claims 1 and 10 obvious over JP 2011‑514736 / US 7,986,878 alone (or in view of PTL 1)

US 7,986,878 (Opnext/StrataLight) is arguably anticipatory of the concept and plainly renders it obvious:

• "encoder … one of a plurality of encoding methods": programmable DSP "programmed to include a plurality of different QAM constellations" using DACs and MZ modulators.
• "controller … select … based on real‑time optical transmission attributes of an optical carrier": claim 1 selects a QAM constellation "based on a condition of an optical transmission link" and changes it "when the condition … changes"; the specification expressly states the adaptation is done "on a real‑time basis" using pre‑FEC BER feedback.
• "mapper … symbol signals": the DSP/mapper "codes a certain number of symbols per baud."
• "optical modulator … based on the mapped symbol signals": MZ modulators driven by DACs at fixed baud; PM doubles capacity.

The only thing US 7,986,878 lacks on its face is PTL 1's architectural framing (separate encoder/mapping/modulation units). To the extent a court reads Claim 1 to require distinct functional blocks, PTL 1 supplies them, and the motivation to combine is the identical purpose (adaptive‑rate optical transmission) and the trivial engineering step of partitioning a known DSP into named stages. See KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) ("if a technique has been used to improve one device … a person of ordinary skill … would recognize that it would be obvious to use it to improve similar devices").

GROUND 3 — Claims 1 and 10 obvious over US 2013/0209091 A1 (Ciena) in view of US 2014/0369680 A1 (Ciena)

US 2013/0209091 discloses the adaptive‑transceiver architecture (transmitter + receiver, plural modulation formats, OSNR/BER‑driven cooperative selection, continuous monitoring for real‑time change). US 2014/0369680 supplies the encoder‑adjustable implementation (N/M mapping encoder + FEC + constellation mapper + driver), the four‑dimensional output ("four dimensions, such as XI, XQ, YI, YQ"), and the performance‑feedback controller 34. Both are Ciena references in the same technology family, making the combination doubly predictable and even self‑motivated as an ordinary design choice within one portfolio. Claims 1 and 10 fall.

5. Dependent claims

6. Motivation to combine — consolidated KSR rationales

A petitioner should press these, in order of strength:

1. Same field / same problem / same solution. PTL 1, US 7,986,878, EP '217, and both Ciena references all target the same tradeoff (spectral efficiency vs. reach) in the same system type (coherent optical transport). KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
2. Predictable result. Moving scheme selection from a client‑signal rate trigger (PTL 1) to a real‑time link condition trigger (US 7,986,878; US 2013/0209091; EP '217) yields nothing more than the expected increase in link utilization — the very benefit each reference states.
3. Art‑recognized express motivation. EP '217 states the goal of "symbol states … more distinct from each other so that the transmission reach is higher"; US 7,986,878's abstract states the mapping "can be adjusted to maximize performance." Where the references themselves state the improvement sought, the combination is not only motivated but suggested.
4. Design choice / obvious partition. Splitting a known adaptive DSP into named "encoder," "mapper," and "modulator" stages is a routine engineering choice, especially where PTL 1 already names exactly those blocks (variable coder / variable frame mapping / optical modulation).
5. Single‑portfolio combinations. Ground 3 (two Ciena references) and Ground 1 (a Japanese applicant's PTL‑family reference + a European reference in the same classification) reduce any "teach away" argument to nothing.

Anticipated "teaching away" rebuttal and answer: An applicant may argue PTL 1 is content to trigger on client rate, whereas the claims require carrier transmission attributes. That is a difference in which known trigger is used — not a difference in what the system does — and US 7,986,878 and US 2013/0209091 both explicitly select on link condition, so there is no teaching away; the art affirmatively points toward it.

7. Secondary considerations / caveats

• No unexpected results apparent. The claims recite a generic architecture; the specification's asserted benefits ("low power consumption and easy control," "shared physical interfaces") are exactly the benefits each reference predicts from not duplicating the optical front end. There is no record evidence of nexus to any specific claim element.
• No secondary‑consideration record exists. Per the previously generated sections, the patent is untested (no PTAB FWD, no litigation verdict), so there is no commercial‑success or licensing evidence of record that could rebut a strong prima facie case.
• The claim‑wording shift cuts against patentability. As flagged in the Patent summary, the granted claims recite "optical transceiver" and "real‑time optical transmission attributes," which are more squarely met by the adaptive‑optics art than the specification's "predetermined transmission condition" language would have been.

8. Bottom line

Overall: The claims of US 12,009,865 are, on the face of the Prior Art section of this page, highly vulnerable under § 103. The claimed subject matter is the generic adaptive‑transceiver architecture that the art had already commercialized by 2014; the specific dependent‑claim features (format list, adaptation criteria, rate/reach balancing, real‑time feedback, partial constellations) are each expressly disclosed in identified references.

Reliability caveats (per your strict‑identifier and grounding rules):

1. I interpreted the patent number literally as US 12,009,865 B2 and did not auto‑correct it.
2. For references where the Prior Art section gave only a title (e.g., JP 2003‑087345, JP 2009‑105748, US 2008/0037997, US 2011/0293266, WO 2013/056734, JP 2014‑146915), the disclosure characterizations above are inferences from title/classification, not verified full‑text quotes, and should be confirmed before relying on them in a filing.
3. Quoted language from US 7,986,878, US 2013/0209091, US 2014/0369680, and EP 2 571 217 is drawn from the retrieved full texts and is verbatim as shown above.
4. US 2016/0105236 A1 is not prior art to this patent (effective date after the '865 priority) and must not be cited as such.