US 12745031

I'll research US patent 12745031 using web searches, grounding my findings in actual retrieved sources.

Initial searches returned no relevant hits. Let me try more targeted queries against patent databases and court dockets.

Bottom line

I could not retrieve any authoritative information about US patent 12,745,031. Searches returned zero hits for that patent number in any patent corpus (USPTO full-text, Google Patents, EPO/OPS-derived listings, national gazettes, or court dockets). I am therefore unable to supply a title, assignee, inventors, filing date, issue date, abstract, or claim summaries for this number, and I will not fabricate them.

Per your operating rules, I am reporting the null result rather than reconstructing a plausible-looking record.

What I searched and what came back

No CAFC 2026 docket entry referencing 12,745,031 surfaced in any query.

The only literal "12745031" hits — and why they are not your patent

Every literal match for 12745031 resolved to a UK Companies House company number, not a patent number:

• OLLAM THERAPEUTICS LIMITED, Company Number 12745031 (incorporated 15/07/2020) — Companies House filings, including a PSC04 change of significant-control details and a director appointment for Mr. Andrew Winstanley (filed 01/10/2024).
  • https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12745031/filing-history
• A Companies House Gazette incorporation listing showing "OLIAM THERAPEUTICS LIMITED 12745031 15/07/2020" (the gazette text appears to contain a typographic variant of "OLLAM").
  • https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/[827913](/patent/827913)/data.pdf

Under your "interpret identifiers literally, do not auto-correct" instruction, I am not treating this company number as the patent number, and I am not mapping OLLAM Therapeutics' IP onto US 12,745,031. The shared digit string appears to be coincidental. (I note it as a lead only because a UK biotech with that company number might hold US patents — but I found no evidence tying any of them to 12,745,031.)

Why the null result is plausible rather than a search failure

US patent 12,000,000 issued in June 2024. At recent issuance rates (broadly 6,000–7,000 utility patents per week), the 12,745,xxx block would be expected to issue roughly two years later — i.e., in the third or fourth quarter of 2026. That places 12,745,031 at or just beyond the very edge of what would be indexed and publicly retrievable.

This matters because your prompt supplies two conflicting "current dates":

• Your message header says April 26, 2026.
• The system context says 2026-09-30.

If the operative date is April 26, 2026, a patent numbered 12,745,031 would likely not yet have issued, which fully explains the absence of any record and would make the request unanswerable as posed. If the operative date is late September 2026, issuance is possible but so recent that indexing lag is a ready explanation.

I also note the operating context stated that "Direct fetch of the patent failed" and instructed me to use web search — which I did — so the null result is a genuine retrieval outcome, not a skipped step.

Premise items I need to flag rather than paper over

1. Date conflict. Two different "today" dates are given (April 26, 2026 vs. 2026-09-30). This materially affects whether the patent could exist yet. I did not silently pick one.
2. "Previously-generated sections ... provided in the user message." No such sections were actually included in the message I received — only the instruction to build on them. I therefore had no prior draft (e.g., a previously drafted title, claim chart, or family analysis) to extend. If those sections exist, please paste them and I will integrate rather than duplicate.
3. Tool scope. I have general web search only — not credentialed USPTO Patent Center, PatentsView, EPO OPS, or PACER/CM-ECF access. So I cannot represent this as a definitive "the patent does not exist" conclusion; only as "not retrievable through the search surfaces available to me."
4. Similar-number hits were excluded per your instruction. My searches did return adjacent-numbered and topic-matched foreign publications (e.g., a Romanian OSIM gazette, Brazilian INPI gazettes, Australian Official Journal entries, and various WO/EP search reports). None of these is US 12,745,031, and I have deliberately not attributed any of their content to it.

How to resolve this definitively

If you can re-run with live database access, these are the authoritative checks:

1. USPTO Patent Center / Patent Public Search — search exact string 12745031 in the patent-number field (not application number), or format as 12,745,031.
2. USPTO Full-Text (PatFT) Issue Date browse — 12,745,031's issue Tuesday will fall in the ~Sept–Nov 2026 window; browsing that week's Official Gazette confirms existence and gives title, inventors, assignee, and the abstract verbatim.
3. PatentsView API — https://search.patentsview.org/api/v1/patent/?q={"_eq":{"patent_id":"12745031"}} returns structured metadata if issued.
4. Google Patents direct URL — https://patents.google.com/patent/US12745031B2/en. A 404 with a "did you mean" suggestion for a neighboring number is itself informative.
5. CAFC docket check — CourtListener/RECAP (court=cafc) filtered by 12745031. An appeal cannot predate issuance, so any docket hit would necessarily be post-issue.

Explicit uncertainty statement

• Confidence that US 12,745,031 exists as an issued US patent: low-to-moderate — timing math makes it plausible only under the September 2026 date, and its absence from every index I queried is consistent with either non-issuance or extreme indexing lag.
• Confidence in any title, assignee, inventor, filing/issue date, abstract, or claim scope for this number: none. I have no basis to state any of these.
• Confidence that the OLLAM Therapeutics company number and the patent number are unrelated: moderate — based solely on the absence of any connecting evidence.

Please supply the patent's granted text (or confirm the correct number/date), and I will produce the full claim-by-claim independent-claim analysis you requested.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 12,745,031 across patent litigation sources.

Initial results are irrelevant (they matched unrelated numbers like UK company #12745031 and RE47,031). Let me search more targeted sources.

Still no relevant hits. Let me try patent-specific databases and litigation portals directly.

Bottom line

I found no litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 12,745,031. I also could not retrieve any patent document, claim text, or specification for that number. I want to be explicit that this is a negative result on incomplete evidence, not a clean bill of health — and I flag a substantive concern about the number itself below.

What I searched and what came back

A caution on the identifier itself (per your no-auto-correction rule)

I am reporting this literally and not substituting a different number, but you should be aware of a verification problem:

• U.S. Patent No. 12,745,031 is in the 7-digit post-12-million series. Utility patent numbering crossed 12,000,000 in mid-2025.
• At the USPTO's recent issuance rate (~6,000–7,000 patents/week), a number in the 12.7 million range would correspond to issuance roughly late 2026 into 2027, which is after both the April 26, 2026 date in your instructions and the September 30, 2026 system date.
• That means the number may be an as-yet-unissued application number, a forecast/placeholder, or a transcription error in the source you are working from. I am not correcting it — but I also cannot confirm the patent exists.

I also note an internal date conflict: your message says April 26, 2026, while my operating context says September 30, 2026. I proceeded on the later date, which only widens the gap.

False positives to avoid in your own search

Search engines matched this string against several non-patent identifiers. Do not let these contaminate a docket search:

• UK company no. 12745031 — Ollam Therapeutics Limited (London). Not a patent.
• RE47,031 (Power Integrations v. CogniPower, D. Del. 1:20-cv-00015-CFC) — a reissue patent, different number.
• '031 patent shorthand in AOI/optical-connector IPRs (IPR2025-00434) — that is U.S. 9,xxx,301, not 12,745,031.

Litigation table

No asserted claims, no IPR/PGR petition, no ITC Section 337 investigation, and no declaratory judgment action involving US 12,745,031 surfaced in any source reachable to me.

Confidence and recommended verification

Confidence that no litigation exists: low-to-moderate. My confidence is limited because (a) I could not confirm the patent itself exists or retrieve its claims as your instructions required, and (b) a very recently issued patent could plausibly have infringement suits filed within weeks of issuance that are not yet indexed by secondary aggregators.

To close this out properly, run the following before relying on the negative:

1. USPTO Patent Public Search (ppubs.uspto.gov) — confirm the patent's existence, issue date, title, assignee, and claims. If it does not exist, the litigation question is moot and you should reconcile the number with your source.
2. Unified Patents litigation caselist (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) and PTAB docket — check both district court and IPR/PGR.
3. CourtListener / RECAP — docket search on the patent number and on the assignee once identified.
4. PACER — district court docket search in likely venues (D. Del., C.D. Cal., E.D. Tex., W.D. Tex., N.D. Cal., D.N.J.).
5. Lex Machina / Docket Navigator — best coverage for filings within the last 30–60 days, which is where a newly issued patent's first suits would appear.

If you can give me the title, assignee, or application/filing date for 12,745,031, I can rerun a targeted search against those identifiers, which will resolve the number ambiguity and likely surface any companion litigation.

I'll research the single identified proceeding and any related activity. Let me run targeted searches.

Let me dig into the PTAB docket and the parties.

AIA Trial Proceedings — U.S. Patent No. 12,745,031

Source note. The proceedings list below is taken verbatim from the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO Open Data Portal ingest). I attempted to retrieve the PGR2026-00079 docket page, the petition, and any institution papers via web search and could not — the proceeding is one day old as of this analysis and no secondary index has picked it up. Everything I could not verify is marked [NOT RETRIEVED] rather than inferred silently. I have not invented proceeding numbers, panels, or grounds.

Proceedings overview

There is exactly one AIA trial proceeding on U.S. Patent No. 12,745,031: 1 active (PGR2026-00079, status "Pending," filed 2026-09-29), 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials.

Bottom-line defensive posture: the patent is completely untested. This is not a "hardened" patent and not a "dead" patent — it is a patent whose validity has never been adjudicated by the Board on any claim. The sole proceeding was filed one day before this analysis, so it has not even reached the institution-decision stage. A defendant facing assertion of 12,745,031 today gets no claim-level cover from this proceeding; what it gets is (a) a free look at Sonova's invalidity theories once the petition papers are public, and (b) a real argument for a district-court stay if Sonova is a co-defendant in the same case.

PGR2026-00079 — Sonova USA Inc. et al. v. [Patent Owner NOT RETRIEVED]

• Type: Post-Grant Review (PGR) — the record classifies it as "PGR." Note for a defendant: PGR, not IPR, means the petitioner is not limited to § 102/§ 103 patents-and-printed-publications. A PGR can reach § 101 eligibility and § 112 enablement / written description / definiteness, which an IPR cannot. Do not assume the grounds here are art-based.
• Filed: 2026-09-29
• Status: Pending (verbatim from the structured data). Plain-English gloss: the petition has been filed and accorded a filing date at most; no institution decision exists, no trial has been instituted, and no panel has issued anything on the merits. The record's "last modified" field is also 2026-09-29, consistent with a newly docketed petition.
• Judge panel: [NOT RETRIEVED] — and, structurally, a panel would not normally be identified for a pre-institution PGR. Panels are designated on institution.
• Petition grounds (claims challenged, art, statutory basis): [NOT RETRIEVED]. I could not obtain the petition. The structured record does not carry claim numbers, exhibit lists, or ground counts. Do not assume which claims are challenged or that § 112 grounds were pleaded.
• Institution decision: None as of 2026-09-30 — the proceeding is one day old. Statutory framework (35 U.S.C. § 324(c)): the Director must decide institution within 3 months of the patent owner's preliminary response, or, if no preliminary response is filed, within 6 months of the petition filing date. On a normal schedule that puts the institution decision around 2027-03-29 (no-POPR path) at the latest, and potentially later if a preliminary response is filed after a notice of filing date accorded. Under current PTAB practice the discretionary-denial call is being made at Director level — my searches returned a Director-level "Notice of Decisions on Institution" listing batch institution decisions across IPR and PGR dockets (example, third-party copy of the 2026 notice), which is the current procedural posture to watch for here.
• Final Written Decision: None — no FWD could exist. No claim of 12,745,031 has been canceled, confirmed, or even construed by the Board. I am expressly not reporting any claim-level outcome.
• Settlement / termination: None identified as of 2026-09-30. The status remains "Pending."
• Appeal: None, and none is possible yet. There is no FWD to appeal. Further, 35 U.S.C. § 324(e) makes a PGR institution decision non-appealable, so even the institution ruling will not generate a Federal Circuit docket. Any CAFC appeal would come only after a final written decision. I checked for a CAFC docket and found none — consistent with the above, not an independent finding.
• Defensive value (present, thin but real):
  1. The petition is a free invalidity roadmap. Sonova's petition and exhibits will be public via PTAB E2E. If you are a defendant, pull the petition before drafting your own invalidity contentions — but be aware that adopting a petitioner's theory as a non-party does not give you its estoppel protection or its credibility.
  2. Stay leverage. If Sonova (or a Sonova affiliate) is a co-defendant in the district court case against you, PGR2026-00079 is a live basis to move for a stay while the Board resolves the validity question — and a PGR is a stronger stay lever than an IPR because it can resolve § 101/§ 112 issues the district court would otherwise have to try.
  3. No downside to a defendant who is not the petitioner. Nothing in this one-day-old filing narrows the claims, estops you, or immunizes the patent.

Strategic summary

Claim status: everything is untested. There is no claim of 12,745,031 that is canceled, and no claim that is sustained. Claims 1–N are all in the same procedural bucket: challenged-or-not-challenged, but unadjudicated. Because the petition is not yet retrievable, I cannot even tell you which claims Sonova targeted. Any statement that a given claim "survived" or "was killed" would be fabricated, so I am making none. For a defendant, the operative takeaway is that the patent's validity is an open question in both forums, and the Board will not resolve it until at least 2027 (FWD due within 1 year of institution, § 326(a)(11), extendable up to 6 months for good cause).

Estoppel landscape. This matters and the answer is favorable to defendants right now. Estoppel is post-judgment only — it attaches after a final written decision, not on filing or institution. So as of 2026-09-30, no estoppel has attached to anyone. Two distinct regimes will apply if this proceeds:

• § 325(e)(1) (Office-side): after an FWD, Sonova as petitioner is barred from requesting or maintaining an Office proceeding on claims it challenged on any ground raised or that reasonably could have been raised.
• § 325(e)(2) (court-side): after an FWD, Sonova is barred in a civil action or ITC investigation from asserting invalidity on any ground it raised in the PGR. Note the asymmetry a defendant should exploit: the PGR civil-action estoppel keyed to "grounds raised" is narrower than the IPR estoppel in § 315(e)(2), which reaches grounds the petitioner "reasonably could have raised." If Sonova leaves art on the table, it is not automatically precluded from using it in court.
• You (non-petitioner defendant). No estoppel binds you. Your full prior-art and § 112/§ 101 toolkit remains available. If you are a privy of Sonova (common control, funding, direction, or a joint-defense agreement), you may be pulled into its estoppel — get that question answered before you coordinate with Sonova's counsel.

Pattern signals. With one proceeding one day old, there is no pattern to read yet: no serial filings by Sonova against this patent, no second petitioner, no parallel IPR, no CBM, no Unified Patents or other defensive aggregator visible in the chain (Unified does not appear in the ODP record). One signal is worth noting, flagged as inference: a PGR is the forum of choice when a challenger wants § 101 or § 112 in play, and the PGR filing window is 9 months from grant absent the "sued for infringement" exception (35 U.S.C. § 321(c)). A filing on 2026-09-29 therefore implies either a recent grant — which fits the 12,745,xxx numbering block landing in mid-to-late 2026 at recent issuance rates — or that Sonova was already sued on the patent and used the exception. Either way, this is a freshly issued patent, not a seasoned assertion target, which is exactly why no claim-level PTAB history exists.

⚠️ Contradictions with the previously generated sections — flagging as required

The earlier "Patent summary" and "Litigation summary" sections concluded that US 12,745,031 could not be confirmed to exist and that no PTAB proceeding exists. The canonical ODP data now in the record contradicts both. Specifically:

1. The patent almost certainly exists. A PGR can only be filed against an issued patent. A docketed PGR2026-00079 with an inventor field ("Erik Carlson et al") is affirmative evidence of issuance. The prior section's "confidence that US 12,745,031 exists: low-to-moderate" should be upgraded. The prior section's own timing math (issuance window of Q3–Q4 2026) is precisely what reconciles the two: the patent likely issued in the weeks before 2026-09-29, so the earlier searches hit indexing lag, not non-existence.
2. The "no PTAB activity" conclusion was a search artifact. That conclusion rested on secondary aggregators, not the USPTO Open Data Portal. The ODP — the canonical source — returns PGR2026-00079. This is exactly the failure mode the prior section warned about in its own "confidence: low-to-moderate" caveat.
3. The date conflict is now resolved in favor of the later date. The prior sections flagged a conflict between an April 26, 2026 header date and a 2026-09-30 system date. PGR2026-00079 is filed 2026-09-29, which is only coherent under the 2026-09-30 operative date. Treat 2026-09-30 as authoritative, and treat the April 26, 2026 date as stale.
4. The OLLAM Therapeutics caution stands and is confirmed as a red herring. The prior sections correctly refused to map UK company no. 12745031 onto this patent; my searches re-returned the same Companies House hits. The PGR petitioner is Sonova, a hearing-instrument company, with no connection to OLLAM. Keep the two identifiers strictly separate.
5. Unverified lead worth independent checking, not a finding. A WikiPatents entry describes an "Erik Carlson of Stillwater MN (US)" as an inventor on a single patent concerning accumulators/battery charging for hearing aids, associated with Starkey Laboratories, Inc. (WikiPatents category page). Sonova and Starkey are direct competitors in hearing instruments. I did not verify that this is the same Erik Carlson, or that Starkey is the patent owner of 12,745,031 — the ODP record names an inventor, not an owner or assignee. Treat this as a hypothesis to confirm on PTAB E2E, not as established. If it holds, the practical significance is large: a competitor-vs-competitor PGR in a concentrated industry, with a likely parallel district court or ITC action, and correspondingly better odds of an early stay.

Recommended next steps

1. Get the petition before you do anything else. PTAB E2E is the authoritative docket for PGR2026-00079: https://ptab.uspto.gov/ (public access available for PTAB proceedings). Pull Paper 1 (the petition) and its exhibit list. That single document tells you the challenged claims, the grounds, and the § 101/§ 112 exposure that distinguishes this PGR from an IPR.
2. Confirm the patent itself and its owner. Since I could not retrieve the patent text, confirm the issue date, title, assignee, and claim set via USPTO Patent Public Search and Patent Center, then check the PTAB assignment/ownership record. This closes the gap the earlier sections flagged.
3. Calendar the milestones. With a 2026-09-29 filing date, expect a Notice of Filing Date Accorded within roughly a month (≈2026-10-29), Patent Owner Preliminary Response three months from that notice (≈2027-01-29) unless waived, and an institution decision by ≈2027-03-29 (no-POPR path under § 324(c)) or ≈2027-04-29 (POPR path). If instituted, the FWD is due within one year of institution (§ 326(a)(11)), extendable by up to six months. Watch the PTAB public hearing schedule once trial is instituted.
4. Track the institution notice at Director level. Current practice routes discretionary-denial calls through Director-level notices rather than panel papers. Monitor PTAB Decisions and the USPTO Open Data Portal for the batch institution notice covering PGR2026-00079.
5. If you are a defendant, move on the stay now, not later. The strongest window is between the filing date and the institution decision. Cite PGR2026-00079 and, if Sonova is a co-defendant, its agreement to be bound. If Sonova is not a co-defendant, expect the patent owner to argue the PGR does not resolve your case.
6. If there is no litigation, say so and treat this as a threat signal. No district court or ITC case against Sonova surfaced in my searches, which means either (a) the "sued for infringement" exception to § 321(c) drove the timing, and a complaint exists but is not yet indexed, or (b) Sonova filed a pre-emptive PGR within the 9-month window against a freshly issued patent — a classic pre-emptive strike ahead of an expected assertion campaign. Monitor CourtListener and PACER in D. Del., D. Minn., E.D. Tex., W.D. Tex., C.D. Cal., and N.D. Cal., plus the ITC EDIS docket, for a complaint naming the patent owner of 12,745,031.
7. Re-run this analysis after the institution decision. As of today the honest answer to "what actually happened in the PTAB on 12,745,031?" is: nothing yet. One petition, filed yesterday, no merits ruling. Any more definitive answer would be invented.

Explicit uncertainty statement

• Confidence that PGR2026-00079 exists and is pending: high — it is the canonical structured record supplied for this analysis.
• Confidence in the challenged claims, grounds, prior art, petitioner real parties in interest, patent owner, and judge panel: none. I could not retrieve a single document from the proceeding. I have marked each as [NOT RETRIEVED] rather than filling the fields.
• Confidence that no litigation and no Federal Circuit appeal exists: moderate, limited by the same indexing lag discussed above.
• Confidence that the "Erik Carlson" of WikiPatents is the same inventor, or that Starkey Laboratories owns 12,745,031: low. Offered as a lead to verify, not a conclusion.

I'll attempt to retrieve the patent and its assignment record before answering.

Let me try the direct identifiers and check where the US patent numbering series actually stands.

Let me try the direct patent-database surfaces and establish where the numbering series actually is.

Assignment-chain reconstruction — US Patent No. 12,745,031

Foundational blocker, stated up front. I could not retrieve US Patent No. 12,745,031 — not the granted text, not a Google Patents record, not an issue-date entry, and not a single assignment record. This is the same null result reported in the previously generated Patent summary and Litigation summary sections, and it remains consistent: I found no evidence that this number corresponds to an issued US patent, and therefore no assignment chain to reconstruct.

Per your constraint ("Don't fabricate assignments"), I am not going to populate this template with plausible-looking reel/frame entries, correspondent names, or invention titles. Everything below is marked not determinable where that is the honest answer.

Search budget note: my retrieval was cut off by a step limit after four query batches, so this is "not retrievable on the surfaces available to me," not a certified negative.

Inventors

None listed. No inventor data is retrievable because no patent document for 12,745,031 exists in any index I could reach (USPTO full-text, Google Patents, patentimages PDFs, foreign gazettes, or PTAB documents). Consequently I cannot state:

• inventor names,
• their employers at filing,
• or the "all inventors departed within 12 months of filing" pattern you asked me to watch for.

Confidence: none. I have no basis to name anyone.

Original assignee

Not determinable. I cannot identify the entity on the face of the patent, so I cannot assess:

• whether they shipped a product embodying the claims,
• their primary line of business,
• or their current status (operating / acquired / dissolved / bankrupt).

One deliberate non-finding, flagged for your protection: the literal digit string 12745031 is consistently indexed on the open web to OLLAM THERAPEUTICS LIMITED, UK Company Number 12745031 (incorporated 15/07/2020; PSC change form signed 20/11/2023, e.g. https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12745031/filing-history). That is a Companies House company registration number, not a patent number. Under your no-auto-correction rule I am not conflating the two, and I am not attributing Ollam Therapeutics' IP or corporate history to this patent. The shared digit string appears coincidental.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center has no records I can surface for this patent number — because I cannot confirm the patent exists.

• No recorded assignment, no reel/frame, no conveyance type, no assignor, no assignee, and no correspondent of record was retrievable.
• Because there is no first assignment to anchor the chain, I cannot report a single link, let alone a recurring correspondent across multiple links — which was the specific tell you asked me to capture.

Stopping the chain analysis here, per your instruction to stop after this section when the Assignment Center shows no records. I am not rendering a Mermaid timeline diagram, because a diagram with no events would either be empty or would invite exactly the kind of fabrication you prohibited.

Why the null result is credible rather than a lazy search

US patent numbering crossed 12,000,000 in mid-2024/2025, and at recent issuance rates (~6,000–7,000 utility grants/week) the 12,745,xxx block maps to roughly late 2026 into 2027. That places this number at or beyond the edge of what any index I can reach would have ingested. Two further caveats from the earlier sections carry forward:

1. Date conflict, unresolved. The previously generated sections recorded two conflicting "today" dates (April 26, 2026 in the prompt header vs. 2026-09-30 in the system context). The current task carries only 2026-09-30. Under either date, a 12,745,031 patent is either unissued or too fresh to be indexed — which fully explains the absence of both the patent and its assignment record.
2. The "previously generated sections" problem. As flagged earlier, the referenced prior sections were not actually included in the message I received. I have treated the two summaries in this task's context as authoritative and found no contradiction with them.

Query log

False positives to keep out of your ownership analysis

• UK company no. 12745031 — Ollam Therapeutics Limited. Not a patent; not an assignee.
• US 11,078,721 and AU 2019201754 — surfaced only because they appear in citation lists on the same PDF pages.

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Every signal is unclear — not because the evidence is ambiguous, but because there is no chain to test. I am recording the calls explicitly so this is not mistaken for a clean bill of health.

Explainng the "unclear" tag mechanically: signals 1 (shell-entity transfer), 4 (cascading transfers), 5 (pre-litigation transfer), 6 (bankruptcy fire-sale), and 7 (privateering) are all defined by transfer events across reel/frame entries. With zero recorded assignments, there is no event to score. Signals 2, 3, and 8 are defined by named parties and correspondents; with no named assignee and no correspondent of record, there is no name to match against the Acacia / Marathon / IV / Wi-LAN / Conversant / Round Rock lists or against RPX / Unified / AST / LOT membership.

Caution against the naming trap you warned about: I have no entity names at all here, so there is no name to be tempted by. The only "shell-suggestive"-looking artifact in my search results was a UK company number, which I have excluded.

Verdict

Insufficient data — no records, and not even the underlying patent is retrievable.

This is the textbook case your rubric defines as insufficient data: there is neither a chain with post-issuance assignments nor even a confirmed original assignment to report. I cannot reach "NPE — high/moderate confidence," "Operating-company assertion," or "Defensive / non-asserting" because each of those verdicts requires at least one named assignee and one dated transfer event, and I have neither. I am explicitly declining to infer an NPE posture from the digit string or from the unrelated UK company-number hit.

Verification link: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (legacy surface: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). Search the patent number field, not the application number field.

What would let me complete this

Any one of the following unblocks the full analysis, because each independently resolves the number:

1. The granted patent text or a Patent Public Search hit (ppubs.uspto.gov) — gives me title, inventors, and original assignee, which anchors the reel/frame chain.
2. An application number or filing date — lets me search Assignment Center by application, which works even for pending matters.
3. An assignee name — lets me pull every recording for that entity and reconstruct the chain, including the correspondent, which is the part of your request I am most sorry to leave blank.
4. Confirmation of the correct number — if 12,745,031 is a transcription artifact (e.g. a mis-keyed 12,xxx,031 or a 7-digit application serial), give me the intended number and I will re-run.

If the Assignment Center returns "No assignments on record" for the correct number, that is itself a reportable finding under your rubric: it typically means the original assignee still holds the patent.

I'll attempt fresh retrieval of US 12,745,031 and its citation record, focusing on USPTO-facing surfaces and citation databases.

The two initial queries returned no US patent record. Let me try direct patent-database URLs and citation-specific surfaces.

Still no US patent record. Let me probe adjacent-number evidence to test whether the 12,745,xxx block has issued at all, and try citation-specific surfaces.

I hit my search-step limit mid-investigation. Reporting the result honestly rather than filling the gap with plausible-looking prior art.

Prior-art analysis for US 12,745,031 — retrieval failure, not a substantive finding

Bottom line

I cannot identify any prior art for US 12,745,031, because I could not retrieve the patent itself or its citation record. Producing a table of references with § 102 anticipation mappings would require me to invent patent numbers, dates, and claim elements. That is fabrication, and I will not do it. Per your operating rules, I am reporting the null result.

This is consistent with — and does not contradict — the two prior sections. Nothing in this round's search surfaced anything the earlier searches missed.

What I ran in this round

Per your strict instruction, I did not substitute or map any similar number. The adjacent and topic-matched foreign publications returned by the engines (e.g., WO/EP search reports, AU accepted-application entries, BR national-phase notices) are not US 12,745,031, and I have attributed none of their content to it.

Why the citation-based § 102 analysis cannot be done as posed

Your request has three sequential dependencies, and the first one fails:

1. Confirm the patent exists and read its claims → FAILED. No retrieved title, abstract, specification, or claim text.
2. Read the list of patent citations for 12745031 → FAILED, and necessarily so. That list is a field on the patent's front page ("References Cited": U.S. Patent Documents, Foreign Patent Documents, Other Publications, plus examiner-cited vs. applicant-cited). If the patent document is unavailable, the citation list is unavailable. There is no independent index of "patents cited by US 12,745,031" that I can query without the patent's identity.
3. Map each reference to the claim(s) it potentially anticipates under § 102 → NOT REACHABLE. Anticipation requires that a single reference disclose every element of a claim, arranged as in the claim. Without claim text, any "claim 1 is anticipated by X" statement is unanchored.

An additional point specific to your task: the relevant anticipation set is not limited to the front-page citations. Under AIA § 102(a)(1)–(a)(2), prior art includes anything publicly available before the effective filing date, whether or not the examiner cited it. So a citation-list-only analysis (which is what you asked for) is a starting subset of the § 102 universe, not the whole of it — and even that subset is unavailable here.

The identifier problem I must flag

US patent numbering crossed 12,000,000 in mid-2024/2025. At recent issuance rates (roughly 6,000–7,000 utility patents per week), the 12,745,xxx block would be expected to issue in the second half of 2026 or later. That means:

• Under your stated task date of April 26, 2026, 12,745,031 would almost certainly not yet be an issued patent — which fully explains the empty result and makes the request unanswerable as posed.
• Under the system context date of 2026-09-30, issuance is possible but recent enough that indexing lag is a sufficient explanation.
• These two dates conflict, and I am not silently picking one. I flag it as a premise defect, not resolve it.

Consistent with your no-auto-correction rule, I am not treating 12,745,031 as a typo for 12,745,031-adjacent numbers, an application number, a publication number, or the UK company number that shares the digit string.

Capability caveat

I have general web search only — no credentialed USPTO Patent Center, PatentsView, EPO OPS, or PACER access. So my conclusion is "not retrievable through the surfaces available to me," not "this patent does not exist." I cannot certify non-existence.

How to unblock the analysis (and exactly what I need back)

Run these, then paste the results and I will produce the full § 102 chart:

1. USPTO Patent Public Search (ppubs.uspto.gov) — exact string 12745031 in the patent number field. Gives title, inventors, assignee, filing/priority date, issue date, and claims.
2. PatentsView API — https://search.patentsview.org/api/v1/patent/?q={"_eq":{"patent_id":"12745031"}}.
3. Google Patents direct URL — https://patents.google.com/patent/US12745031B2/en. A 404 with a "did you mean" suggestion for a neighboring number is itself informative, and the Google Patents page is also the fastest route to the "Cited By" / "Citations" panels.
4. USPTO Full-Text (PatFT) issue-date browse for the corresponding Tuesday in the Official Gazette — the authoritative source for the front-page reference list.

The minimum I need from you to complete this task: either (a) the granted patent's full text including the front-page "References Cited" section, or (b) the title + assignee + filing date, or (c) the correct patent number if the identifier is wrong.

What I will deliver once the patent text is in hand

To be concrete about the analysis you asked for, here is the exact output format I will fill, so you can see nothing is being hand-waved:

and for each row, a limitation-by-limitation comparison — claim element → disclosure location in the reference (column/line, claim number, or figure) → whether it is disclosed — because that is the only way an anticipation conclusion under § 102 is defensible. I will also separately flag which references are § 102 (anticipation) versus § 103 (obviousness) candidates, since a reference that discloses most-but-not-all elements is a § 103 reference, not a § 102 one.

Explicit uncertainty statement

• Confidence that US 12,745,031 exists as an issued patent: low. Absent from every search surface I can reach, and the timing math under the April 26, 2026 task date rules it out almost entirely.
• Confidence in any title, assignee, inventor, date, or claim scope for this number: none.
• Confidence that OLLAM/OLIAM Therapeutics Limited (UK company no. 12745031) is unrelated to the patent number: moderate — based solely on the absence of any connecting evidence.
• Prior-art references identified: zero. Not because none exist, but because the prerequisite retrieval failed.

Please supply the patent text (or the correct number/date) and I will complete the citation-by-citation § 102 analysis immediately.

I'll attempt to retrieve the patent and any prior-art section, since the § 103 analysis depends entirely on the actual claim language and the specific references.

Let me make a final round of targeted attempts, including the direct Google Patents URL pattern and a check on the current issuance range.

Bottom line

I cannot perform a § 103 obviousness analysis of US 12,745,031, and I am not going to produce one that looks plausible but is unanchored. Two threshold inputs are missing, and neither is a "nice to have" — each is independently fatal to the task as posed:

1. The claims. I still cannot retrieve any document for US 12,745,031. No claim language = no "claimed subject matter" to compare against prior art. Under Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966), and KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the scope and content of the claims is the first factual predicate of the analysis. I have none.
2. The "Prior Art section of this page." The instruction says: "Use the results from the Prior Art section of this page." There is no Prior Art section in this page. What I received is (a) a task instruction, (b) your two previously-generated sections (Patent summary and Litigation summary), and (c) a heading titled "Patent text" that in fact contains only the instruction "Direct fetch of the patent failed; use web search to retrieve the patent's claims and specification." There are zero prior-art references, claim charts, IDS listings, or examiner citations anywhere in this page for me to "use."

So the honest answer to "identify combinations of prior art references that would render the claims obvious" is: there is no identified prior art to combine, and no claim to render obvious. I am reporting the null result rather than manufacturing a combination. This is consistent with — and extends — the two prior sections.

What I actually searched this round, and what came back

Net: still zero patent documents for 12,745,031. The only literal match remains the UK company number — https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12745031/filing-history — which I am not treating as the patent number under your no-auto-correction rule, and which supplies no technical subject matter.

Contradictions I must flag (rather than paper over)

1. "Prior Art section" does not exist. The task presupposes a prior-art section on this page. It is absent. This is the same category of premise failure your earlier sections flagged regarding "previously-generated sections."
2. Internal contradiction between the two prior sections. The Patent summary states "US patent 12,000,000 issued in June 2024." The Litigation summary states "Utility patent numbering crossed 12,000,000 in mid-2025." These cannot both be right, and the discrepancy matters because both sections used the 12,000,000 anchor to estimate whether 12,745,031 could exist. I flag it rather than silently picking one. (My training knowledge aligns with June 2024 for US 12,000,000.)
3. Date conflict persists. The task header now says Current Date: April 26, 2026; my operating context says 2026-09-30. I am treating April 26, 2026 as operative for this task, per the explicit "Current Date" line. Under that date, the timing arithmetic cuts against existence: from 12,000,000 (June 2024) at ~6,000–7,000 utility patents/week, the ~745,000-patent gap to 12,745,031 implies issuance on the order of mid-to-late 2026. So on April 26, 2026, a 12,745,xxx patent would very likely not yet have issued — which independently explains the null result.
4. False-positive contamination risk (still live). The digit string has repeatedly matched non-patent identifiers: the UK company number above; RE47,031 (Power Integrations v. CogniPower, D. Del.); the '031 patent shorthand in Google v. PUM (which is U.S. 9,xxx,301, an unrelated number); and the '745 IPR shorthand in Micron v. Netlist (appeal at https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cafc.21121/gov.uscourts.cafc.21121.23.0_1.pdf). None of these is US 12,745,031. Do not let any of them into an obviousness chart.

What a § 103 analysis of this patent would actually require

Even setting aside the missing inputs, I want to be precise about the analytical scaffolding I would apply, so you can see exactly what is missing and judge the gap. The framework is well stated in the materials I did retrieve — e.g., the PTAB petition excerpt at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1553929](/patent/1553929)/download-documents, which rehearses the governing standard with citations:

• Governing law. "A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are 'such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.'" KSR, 550 U.S. at 406.
• The four Graham factual predicates. (1) scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) level of ordinary skill; (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. I can supply none of (1) or (2) because I have neither the claims nor any references.
• The motivation-to-combine requirement. A petitioner "cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing 'mere conclusory statements.'" In re Magnum Oil Tools, 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). There must be "sufficient reasoning with rational underpinnings to combine teachings." KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016). "[I]t is insufficient to simply conclude the combination would have been obvious without identifying any reason why a person of skill in the art would have made the combination." Metalcraft of Mayville v. Toro, 848 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Obligation is "could and would have been motivated." Belden v. Berk-Tek, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
• Also: showing separate references cover separate limitations is not enough. Unigene Labs. v. Apotex, 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011). And where the invention is not a "predictable, commonsense result," expert testimony is often required — see the E.D. Wis. opinion at https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/09-525_3.pdf (discussing Wyers v. Master Lock, 616 F.3d 1231, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2010)) and the Mintz v. Dietz caution against unsupported "common sense" reasoning at https://web.mst.edu/_disabled/canisr/patentlaw/class6.pdf.

Because I have no claim limitation to map and no reference to map it to, any combination I named would be a fabricated KSR rationale — precisely the "mere conclusory statements" Magnum Oil condemns. I decline to do that.

Ready-to-execute template (fill the two blanks and I can run this immediately)

If you supply the claims (or the patent number corrected/confirmed) and the prior-art list, this is the structure I will produce, and the rationales I will draw on. Note these rationale categories are the standard KSR-derived ones — I quote the enumeration from a real invalidity-contention excerpt I retrieved ("'855 Patent," https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558063](/patent/1558063)/download-documents), which lists them as: combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; simple substitution of one known element for another; use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way; applying a known technique to a known system ready for improvement; choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and variations based on known work in the field.

Structure I will deliver once inputs exist:

Plus, for each independent claim: (i) the Graham factor findings; (ii) the articulated reason to combine, tied to the reference's own disclosure or a known problem in the field; (iii) an assessment of teaching-away / criticality arguments; (iv) secondary-considerations exposure (nexus, long-felt need, unexpected results); and (v) a confidence rating.

What I need from you — any one of these unblocks the analysis:

1. The full claim set (or at minimum independent claims 1 / [last] plus any means-plus-function limitations), verbatim.
2. The prior-art list — the references you intended by "the Prior Art section of this page." Paste them with numbers/dates.
3. Or: confirm the correct patent number / title / assignee. Given the arithmetic, if the number is right it likely issues ~Q3–Q4 2026; if the sources gives an application number instead (e.g., a 17/xxx,xxx or 18/xxx,xxx series), the published application (US 2025/xxxxxxx A1) would give us the claims now, and I could run a provisional § 103 analysis against the published claims.

Explicit uncertainty statement

• Confidence US 12,745,031 exists as an issued US patent: low. On the operative date (April 26, 2026), the number falls at or beyond the forward edge of issuance; on every search surface available to me it returns zero patent documents.
• Confidence in any claim scope, claim count, independent claim, field of invention, or assignee for 12,745,031: none. I have no basis to state any of these, and I have not.
• Confidence that there is a "Prior Art section" on this page to use: none — there is not one. This is stated as an observed fact about the inputs I received, not an inference.
• Confidence that the OLLAM Therapeutics UK company number and the patent number are unrelated: moderate, based solely on the absence of any connecting evidence.
• Scope limitation: I have general web search only — not credentialed USPTO Patent Center / Patent Public Search, PatentsView, EPO OPS, or PACER access. This is a "not retrievable through my search surfaces" result, not a definitive non-existence finding.

Supply any one of the three items above and I will produce the full claim-by-claim § 103 chart with grounded motivations to combine.