Invalidity dossier
US 5799067
Smart phone integration with computer systems
Current assignee: INPRO II LICENSING SARL
Added 9/23/2026, 11:31:27 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview: US5799067A — Smart Phone Integration with Computer Systems
Title: Smart phone integration with computer systems
Patent number: US5799067A (application US08/873,857)
Inventors: Dan Kikinis; Pascal Dornier; William J. Seiler
Original assignee: Elonex IP Holdings Ltd. The record lists a later assignee, INPRO II LICENSING SARL (recorded 2007-04-13 and 2007-08-16), as shown in the "Current Assignee" field; Google Patents notes such assignee information "may be inaccurate" and that legal status is an assumption, not a legal conclusion.
Key dates (per the supplied text):
- Priority date: 1992-06-29 (stated as an assumption, not a legal conclusion)
- Earlier priority claims: from US08/097,946 (1993-07-26, leading to US5278730A) and US08/159,078 (1993-11-29, leading to US5539616A)
- Filing date of this application: 1997-06-12
- Publication/grant date: 1998-08-25
- Anticipated expiration: 2012-06-29
- Legal status: Expired – Fee Related
Purpose and plain-language scope (based only on supplied text): The patent concerns integrating a "smart phone" with computer systems. The supplied source states the title and prior-art keywords—"module," "μPDA," "digital," "telephone," "interface"—which indicate subject matter involving a module, a digital telephone, and an interface, and reference to a μPDA (micro personal digital assistant). The text also shows a classification under G06F3/00 and G06F3/0354, covering input arrangements and pointing devices such as mice, trackballs, pens, or joysticks; a specific subclass (G06F3/03541) covers mouse/trackball convertible devices sharing one ball for 2D tracking. Beyond these indicators, the excerpt does not set out the claims, detailed description, or specific embodiments, so the precise claimed scope cannot be determined from it.
What this excerpt does not establish:
- The actual wording or breadth of the claims
- The detailed operation, structure, or embodiments of the integration
- That the listed assignees, dates, or legal status are legally accurate
- Any information about litigation, validity, or prior art
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5799067](/patent/US5799067)/en (fetched 2026-09-23).
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:32:41 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 5799067. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.