US 6714969

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

Let me look for the actual claim text and any litigation/docket records.

US Patent 6,714,969 B1 — Analyst Summary

Important scoping note: The authoritative full-text you supplied (fetched from Google Patents) is truncated at the end of the written description — it stops mid-sentence in the discussion of the reader's display and does not include the claims column. So the claim-by-claim portion below is partly reconstructed from (a) the abstract/summary-of-invention in the specification and (b) a district-court claim-construction opinion that quotes and construes claim terms in this patent. I flag where confidence is lower.

1. Bibliographic data (all literal, per the supplied record)

Continuity chain (from the patent's own Cross-Reference section): 09/570,961 is a divisional of 09/520,929 (filed Mar. 8, 2000, now US 6,507,864), which is a continuation of 08/916,605 (filed Aug. 22, 1997, abandoned), which is a continuation of 08/691,263 (filed Aug. 2, 1996, abandoned), copending with provisional 60/006,872 (filed Nov. 17, 1995). Note the 20-year term runs from the earliest non-provisional filing (Aug. 2, 1996) — which is why the anticipated expiration is 2016-08-02, not 2020.

2. Abstract (verbatim, as supplied)

"A method of integrating host application software with data collection devices (e.g., bar code scanners) located on remote, wireless terminals. A data collection object executes on the host computer, using a predetermined interface between the host application software and the data collection object. That interface, and the communications between the host application software and the data collection object, are configured so that to the host application software the data collection device appears to be local hardware on the host computer. The data collection object creates and executes threads of execution for controlling operation of the data collection device, with the threads communicating with the remote terminals via a host computer transport layer, the wireless link, and a remote computer transport layer at the remote terminals. A data collection device driver on the remote terminal receives communications from the data collection object, and returns information to the data collection object, over the remote computer transport layer, wireless link, and host computer transport layer."

3. Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The specification's Summary-of-Invention is organized into three separate inventive statements, which correspond to distinct independent claims (this is a multi-invention / divisional line patent):

(a) The "remote scanner looks local" method claim — A host computer runs a data collection object (a software component; preferably a COM object) that talks to host application software through a predefined interface. That interface is designed so the application cannot tell the difference between a scanner sitting on the host and one on a remote wireless terminal — the remote device "appears to be local hardware." The object spawns threads of execution to drive the device; the threads cross a host transport layer → wireless link → remote-client transport layer, reach a device driver at the remote terminal, and the driver returns scans/data back over the same path. In plain terms: wrap the wireless handheld's scanner in a software object on the server so existing PC applications can use it as if it were a wired peripheral.

(b) The modular portable computer device claim — A handheld main body with an interface socket, a processor, and a communication link to a host; onto that body the user attaches interchangeable data-collection/communications modules (CCD image capture, laser scanner, multi-media/audio/cellular, etc.). The modules preferably carry their own DSP pre-processing so they share a common bus and reduce load on the main body. In plain terms: a "build-your-own" handheld where you snap on the capture module that fits the job instead of buying a custom terminal.

(c) The OLE-control scanner communication-system claim — A control host running a scanning control object implemented as an OLE control (OLE = Object Linking and Embedding) that communicates with a remote client at the bar-code scanner, the control creating separate send/receive/synchronize transaction threads and communicating over a wireless and/or Internet/Intranet link. In plain terms: package the scanner link as a reusable OLE/ActiveX control that drops into any OLE 2.0 container application.

(d) Additional independent claims (claims 16, 22, 25) — higher confidence via litigation. A 2009 Delaware claim-construction opinion construes a limitation appearing in claims 16, 22, and 25 of the `969 patent: "without installing new software on the wireless terminal."* The court held this means "without installing an application program, other than the parsing software, to provide user interfaces." That language corresponds to the FIG. 18 "general purpose interface reader application" aspect: a Browser on the mobile unit scans a high-density bar-code label that itself contains a program script (HTML, VB Script, or a compressed version); the script is parsed at run time to build the operator interface, and the data record is then processed — i.e., the label carries both the data and the instructions for how to read/present it, so no new application has to be installed on the terminal.
Source: Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Janam Technologies LLC, 605 F. Supp. 2d 618 (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2009), at https://www.casetext.com/case/symbol-technologies-5

Confidence caveat: I could not retrieve the verbatim text of claim 1 or a full claim list for this patent — the supplied full text omits the claims, and my searches returned only snippet-level fragments. The mapping of (a)–(c) to specific claim numbers is therefore inferred from the specification's Summary of Invention; the claim 16/22/25 characterization in (d) is grounded in the court opinion.

4. Litigation and CAFC/docket search results

No 2026 CAFC docket was found for 6,714,969. Searches of the Federal Circuit 2026 dockets returned nothing for this number. What the record does show:

• Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Janam Technologies LLC, D. Del. No. 1:08-cv-00340-JJF (filed June 9, 2008; 35 U.S.C. § 271 patent infringement; a motion for preliminary injunction was filed). The 969 patent was one of several asserted (alongside the 821, `366 patents in the claim-construction opinion).
  • Claim-construction opinion: March 31, 2009, 605 F. Supp. 2d 618.
  • Memorandum opinion on preclusion of profits evidence: July 20, 2010, 729 F. Supp. 2d 646.
  • Dockets: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2008cv00340/40356 and https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%253A08-cv-00340
• Google Patents also flags a "first worldwide family litigation" record via Darts-IP (family 31999436): https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=31999436
• Expired status: anticipated expiration Aug. 2, 2016; currently "Expired – Lifetime." Any 2026 appellate activity would be unusual for an expired patent, and none was found.

If a 2026 CAFC appeal involving this patent exists, I did not find it and cannot confirm it from the sources searched; I am explicitly not asserting that no such docket exists, only that none surfaced.

5. Notable technical points carried in the specification

• The data collection object is preferably a COM object; the scanning control is preferably an OLE control (optionally an ActiveX control) usable over an Internet/Intranet link and in OLE 2.0 containers such as Visual Basic and Office applications. Interfaces may be implemented as RPCs; the architecture is described as an improvement over a DCOM-style local-scanner-resident approach.
• Wireless systems referenced include Spectrum24 access points and the STEP (Symbol Terminal Emulator Program) enabler; domain/IP address assignment variants described include hard-coded, application-selected, AP-assigned, and BOOTP/DHCP-assigned addresses.
• Also disclosed (in the same specification, though likely in dependent/other claims): a bar-code-encoded URL reader for automatic web-site access; an anti-theft scanner alarm/range-finder; a distributed client/server mail delivery architecture (FIGS. 13–15); and PDF417 label printing for returns processing (FIGS. 21–22).
• Related prior art in common ownership cited in the description: U.S. 4,387,297 (scan motor) and U.S. 4,251,798 (signal processing), both incorporated by reference. The European sibling EP 0 837 406 A cites US 6,714,969 in its search report.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 6,714,969 across patent litigation databases.

Let me dig into the specific sources mentioned and the Delaware case identified in the patent record.

I found the primary case. Let me verify details and check for any other cases involving this exact patent.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 6,714,969

I searched patent-litigation sources (Unified Patents litigation portal, CourtListener/Justia/Casetext, Docket Alarm, RPX Insight, and general docket sources) for this exact number. Below is what I could confirm.

Confirmed case

Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Janam Technologies LLC

Details:

• The complaint accused Janam of infringing the '821, '366, and '969 patents. Symbol moved for a preliminary injunction (D.I. 6).
• The court construed disputed terms in Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Janam Technologies LLC, 605 F. Supp. 2d 618 (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2009) (Casetext: http://g.casetext.com/case/symbol-technologies-5). For the '969 patent, the term "without installing new software on the wireless terminal" (Claims 16, 22, 25) was construed to mean "without installing an application program, other than the parsing software, to provide user interfaces."
• A further opinion issued July 20, 2010 (729 F. Supp. 2d 646) denying Janam's motion to preclude Symbol from relying on profit/lost-profits evidence and to strike portions of the Strickland declaration (https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[2468152](/patent/2468152)/symbol-technologies-inc-v-janam-technologies-llc/).
• Disposition: On December 8, 2010, Motorola Solutions (with subsidiary Symbol Technologies) and Janam announced they had settled all outstanding IP disputes. Janam took a royalty-bearing license under Symbol's mobile-computing, wireless, and laser-/imaging-based barcode-scanning patents for finished mobile computing terminals; Motorola dismissed the pending litigation. Terms were confidential. (PRNewswire, via ADVFN: http://kr.advfn.com/stock-market/NYSE/MOT/share-news/45565718; RTTNews: https://www.rttnews.com/[1501092](/patent/1501092)/)

Docket source: Unified Patents litigation portal — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%253A08-cv-00340; Docket Alarm/Justia docket — https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2008cv00340/40356 (shows the case as both a "Patent" and related cause, filed June 9, 2008, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware).

Why this appears to be the only case

• The Google Patents record for US 6,714,969 lists a single litigation entry — the Delaware case, 1:08-cv-00340 — and marks the family as "Expired – Lifetime" (anticipated expiration Aug. 2, 2016). It also links a Darts-ip "first worldwide family litigation" reference (family 31999436), which points to the same Symbol/Janam family dispute.
• The patent is a divisional of Ser. No. 09/520,929 (now U.S. 6,507,864), itself a continuation of Ser. No. 08/916,605, a continuation of Ser. No. 08/691,263, with priority to Provisional 60/006,872 (Nov. 17, 1995). Some litigation involving this patent family may name a sibling member (e.g., the '864 patent) rather than the '969 patent itself; those would not count as litigation "involving 6,714,969" for your purposes.

Caveats / limitations

1. I found and verified only one case expressly asserting U.S. 6,714,969. I cannot certify this is exhaustive — unified court dockets for older (2008–2010) filings are not all fully text-searchable, and some settled cases are sealed or never indexed by third-party aggregators.
2. I did not locate any CAFC appeal, PTAB/IPR proceeding, or ITC (Section 337) investigation specifically naming U.S. 6,714,969. The Delaware case settled before judgment, so there was no appeal of a merits ruling.
3. I did not find evidence of litigation after the 2008–2010 Symbol/Janam dispute, which is consistent with the patent's 2016 expiration and the 2015 change of name to Symbol Technologies, LLC.

If you need a negative-clearance-grade search, I'd recommend a paid PACER/Lexis/Westlaw full-text docket search plus a Darts-ip family query (family 31999436) to catch any sibling-patent or foreign actions, since free sources may under-report pre-2011 cases.

I'll start by verifying the structured data against live sources, since the canonical block reports no AIA proceedings.

Let me run additional targeted checks for CBM/PGR activity and litigation-driven challenges.

Let me run a final confirmation check on the PTAB docket side.

PTAB proceedings — US 6,714,969 ("Mobile terminal with integrated host application software")

Verification note: I pulled the canonical list from the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP), which reports zero AIA trial proceedings. I then ran independent web searches (Google Patents, PTAB petition/decision documents, docket aggregators, CourtListener, D. Del. dockets) as instructed, and found no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding naming US 6,714,969 as the challenged patent. Nothing surfaced to override the ODP default. The findings below therefore report an absence, not a list — with the adjacent, non-PTAB disputes that do exist, because those are what a defendant will actually confront.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 6,714,969: 0. Breakdown by status: 0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denied. The bottom-line defensive posture is unusual and, on balance, favorable to a defendant — but for reasons other than PTAB: the patent has never been tested in an AIA trial (no estoppel, no adverse FWD, no claim cancellations) and, decisively, it is expired. Google Patents records an anticipated expiration of 2016-08-02 and a current legal status of "Expired – Lifetime." An expired patent cannot support prospective injunctive relief and supports only past damages for the six-year lookback window, so the practical exposure is a backward-looking damages claim, not an ongoing royalty or injunction threat. Independent web checks confirm the patent's enforcement history runs through district court and the ITC, not the Board.

Related disputes (non-PTAB) — the only adversarial record that exists

Because there is no AIA proceeding to report, here is the actual enforcement picture, most-impactful first.

No proceeding — Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Janam Technologies LLC (district court, not PTAB)

• Type: Patent infringement (D. Del.) — not an AIA trial
• Filed: 2008-06-09
• Case: No. 1:08-cv-00340 (D. Del.) (the Delaware case flagged in the family-litigation data for this patent)
• Patents asserted: US 5,334,821 ("821"), US 5,835,366 ("366"), and US 6,714,969 ("`969")
• Status: Claim-construction and preliminary-injunction litigation; Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. (with Magistrate Judge Leonard P. Stark); Markman opinion at Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Janam Techs. LLC, 605 F. Supp. 2d 618 (D. Del. 2009-03-31)
• Claim-level outcome for '969: The court tentatively construed "without installing new software on the wireless terminal" — used in claim 16 and, per the opinion, in claims 22 and 25 — to mean "without installing an application program, other than the parsing software, to provide user interfaces." This is a narrowing construction that reads directly on the patent's disclosed parsing-engine architecture (the Browser/parsing-engine embodiment at FIG. 18).
• Source (opinion): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[2468152](/patent/2468152)/symbol-technologies-inc-v-janam-technologies-llc/ and https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/opinion/symbol-technologies-inc-v-janam-technologies-llc-0
• Defensive value: This is the single most useful piece of public claim-scope authority for the '969 patent. Under this construction, any accused product that installs its own application-level software to render user interfaces on the terminal falls outside claims 16/22/25. That is a strong non-infringement lever — but note it was a tentative construction for PI purposes, not a final validity ruling, and it binds no one outside that case.

Related — In re Certain Laser Bar Code Scanners and Scan Engines (ITC § 337-TA-551)

• Type: ITC Section 337 investigation — not an AIA trial
• Date of Initial Determination: 2007-01-29 (ALJ Charles E. Bullock)
• Parties: Complainant Symbol Technologies; Respondents Metro (Suzhou) Technologies / Metrologic Instruments
• '969 connection: I cannot confirm from the retrieved material that US 6,714,969 was asserted in this investigation, so I am flagging it only as surrounding Symbol enforcement activity, not as an '969-specific action. Do not represent it as an '969 ruling.
• Source: https://usitc.gov/publications/337/pub4006.pdf

Strategic summary

Claim status: no claims of US 6,714,969 have been CANCELED, and none have been SUSTAINED by the PTAB — the entire claim set is UNTESTED before the Board. Because no IPR/PGR/CBM was ever filed, there is no Final Written Decision, no certificate canceling claims 1–16 (or any subset), and no judicially-confirmed invalidity. The patent issued 2004-03-30 and expired 2016-08-02, so all claims are legally dead going forward; the only live question is what, if anything, was infringed during the enforceability window and within the damages lookback. Anyone receiving a demand letter that cites '969 should first ask what products, sold when — the expiration date caps the theory.

Estoppel landscape: there is none to contend with — and none to hide behind. Because no petitioner ever litigated an AIA trial on this patent, § 315(e)(2) / § 325(e)(2) estoppel has never been triggered; no petitioner is barred from any ground, and conversely no Patent Owner adverse findings exist. For a defendant today, that cuts both ways: you face no collective estoppel pushing you into a weak invalidity case, but you also get no free shot — if you were served with a complaint asserting '969, the § 315(b) one-year bar runs from service, and any IPR petition would have to be on file within that year. Practically, given expiration, an IPR on '969 would be of limited value (patentability review of an expired patent yields a decision but no meaningful prospective relief), so invalidity is better pressed in the district court as a defense. Note also that even where IPR is pursued, printed-publication and patent prior art is the only available § 102/§ 103 art in an IPR; system/on-sale/public-use art is unavailable (35 U.S.C. § 311(b)) — relevant because much of the obviousness case on a 1995-priority scanning patent may live in public-use/product documentation (e.g., the Symbol LRT/3800-series product literature visible in PTAB exhibit lists for other patents in this family).

Pattern signals: The patent owner (Symbol Technologies, now Symbol Technologies LLC, part of the Zebra Technologies family) has been an aggressive serial enforcer — this '969 patent sits inside a multi-patent, multi-forum campaign (D. Del. against Janam, the ITC action against Metro/Metrologic, and the broader Symbol/Metrologic scanner wars of the 1980s–2000s). There is no defensive aggregator (no Unified Patents / RPX IPR) in the chain, and no Federal Circuit appeal of any PTAB decision on this patent exists. Importantly, the patent has a large sibling family — the 929 parent (US 6,507,864), and continuations US 6,920,637, US 7,577,745, US 7,975,067 — so a defendant should check whether a defendant-facing assertion is actually built on one of the still-relevant siblings rather than on the expired '969.

Recommended next steps

• There is no PTAB activity on this patent — say so plainly. The absence is a real signal, but here it is explained by timing: the '969 patent's enforcement window (2004–2016) largely predates or straddles the AIA trial regime (IPR available from 2012-09-16), and by 2016 the patent expired before any IPR could mature. So the absence does not mean "hardened and IPR-proof"; it means "never stress-tested and now expired."
• Lead with the expiration, not with validity. With an anticipated expiration of 2016-08-02 and status "Expired – Lifetime," advise that the patent cannot support an injunction. Frame the analysis around the six-year damages lookback and demand the plaintiff identify the accused products and their sale dates.
• Use the Janam construction as your non-infringement anchor. For any assertion touching claims 16, 22, or 25, quote Symbol Techs. v. Janam, 605 F. Supp. 2d 618 (D. Del. 2009-03-31): "without installing new software on the wireless terminal" means "without installing an application program, other than the parsing software, to provide user interfaces." Link the opinion: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2468152/symbol-technologies-inc-v-janam-technologies-llc/.
• Map the family before conceding anything. Confirm whether the asserted claims are truly from US 6,714,969 or from a live sibling (US 6,507,864 / 6,920,637 / 7,577,745 / 7,975,067); a demand letter citing the '969 patent by number but quoting claims from a sibling is a common trap.
• If, contrary to this report, a recent IPR/PGR on '969 is unindexed, verify directly at USPTO PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/) and the PTAB Decisions page before relying on the "zero proceedings" conclusion — but as of this review, the ODP structured data and all web sources agree: none exists.

I'll research the assignment record and litigation history for US 6714969 before reconstructing the chain.

Let me dig for specific assignment reel/frame data and any additional litigation or NPE context.

US 6714969 — Ownership & Assignment Reconstruction

Data-retrieval caveat (read first): I was able to retrieve the recorded legal events for this patent from the Google Patents register (which mirrors the post-issuance records) and the litigation record, but I could not pull the underlying reel/frame numbers or correspondent-of-record fields from the USPTO Assignment Center's per-record view during this session. Where the reel/frame and correspondent are unknown, I say so explicitly rather than inventing them. Verify at the Assignment Center search page: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search patent number 6714969).

Inventors

The patent is a divisional of Ser. No. 09/520,929 (issued as US 6,507,864) filed 2000-03-08, which is a continuation of 08/916,605 (filed 1997-08-22, abandoned), itself a continuation of 08/691,263 (filed 1996-08-02, abandoned), copending with Provisional 60/006,872 (filed 1995-11-17). The patent therefore carries a 1995-11-17 priority date and a 2000-05-15 filing date.

The 2004-05-03 record assigning the portfolio to Symbol lists a batch of assignors — WOLOSCHIN, STEVEN; HERROD, ALLAN; KLEIN, JOHN; JWO, CHIN-HUNG; SWIFT, PHILIP W. — i.e., a multi-inventor, multi-patent assignment covering more than just this case. There is no evidence of inventor departure-within-12-months in the record available to me; the only captured inventor-location data is the 2004 caveat-free assignment to Symbol. (This is not a positive finding — inventor-employment data is not surfaced by the Assignment Center and I did not find corroborating SEC/schedule data.)

Original assignee

Symbol Technologies, Inc. (Holtsville / Bohemia, New York). Google's register shows the current assignee as Symbol Technologies, LLC, which is the same legal entity after a 2015 change of name (Inc → LLC), not a distinct acquirer.

• Primary line of business: manufacturer/supplier of mobile data-capture equipment — laser and imaging bar code scanners, rugged mobile computers, RFID readers, and wireless-LAN infrastructure. A classic operating company.
• Product embodying the claims: Yes. Symbol shipped handheld wireless terminals running its STEP (Symbol Terminal Emulator Program) — the commercial embodiment of the parses-scripts-without-installing-new-software concept the ’969 claims cover (see the patent's own FIG. 16 discussion of STEP). The ’969 was asserted as a product patent, not a licensing-only asset.
• Current status: Operating, but no longer independent. Symbol was acquired by Motorola in 2007 (~$3.9B); became part of Motorola Solutions after the 2011 Mobility spin-off; and the enterprise division (including Symbol) was acquired by Zebra Technologies in October 2014 (~$3.45B). Symbol Technologies, LLC is today a Zebra Technologies subsidiary headquartered at Holtsville, NY ("One Zebra Plaza").

Assignment timeline

All entries below are drawn from the Google Patents register legal events for US 6,714,969 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6714969/en). Reel/frame and correspondent-of-record were not retrievable in this session and are marked accordingly.

• 2004-05-03 (recorded) — Reel unknown/unretrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment (reassignment)
  • Assignor: Steven Woloschin; Allan Herrod; John Klein; Chin-Hung Jwo; Philip W. Swift
  • Assignee: Symbol Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved — ⚠️ the filing attorney/agent of record is unknown to me
  • Context: Inventor-to-company assignment; the routine perfecting assignment tying the ’969 (and sibling cases) to Symbol.

• 2004-12-29 (executed) / 2005-01-05 (recorded) — Reel unknown/unretrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Interest (patent collateral under a credit facility)
  • Assignor: Symbol Technologies, Inc.
  • Assignee: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization — arms-length Credit Agreement dated 2004-12-29 (JPMorgan Chase as administrative/collateral agent; Fleet National Bank as syndication agent); the patent was pledged as collateral. See Symbol 8-K filed 2005-01-03 and 10-K FY2005 Exhibit 4.1.

• 2008-08-13 (recorded) — Reel unknown/unretrieved

  • Conveyance: Release of Security Interest (Security Agreement Release)
  • Assignor: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
  • Assignee: Symbol Technologies, Inc. (i.e., lien released back to owner)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization unwind — the 2004 collateral package was released; Symbol regains unencumbered title.

• 2014-10-31 (recorded) — Reel unknown/unretrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement (security interest in favor of a collateral agent)
  • Assignor: Laser Band, LLC; Symbol Technologies, Inc.; Zebra Enterprise Solutions Corp.; ZIH Corp.
  • Assignee: Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc., as Collateral Agent
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization tied to Zebra's debt financing of its ~$3.45B acquisition of Motorola Solutions' enterprise business (which closed October 2014). The "Symbol Technologies" name appears as a Zebra-family grantor here — evidence the portfolio had already been folded into the Zebra collateral structure.

• 2015-07-08 (recorded) — Reel unknown/unretrieved

  • Conveyance: Change of Name (reassignment)
  • Assignor: Symbol Technologies, Inc.
  • Assignee: Symbol Technologies, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Change of name / entity conversion only — not a sale. This is the entry that makes the assignee look "LLC-ish"; it is the same corporate person.

• 2015-08-17 (recorded) — Reel unknown/unretrieved

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc.
  • Assignee: Symbol Technologies, Inc. (Zebra family)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization unwind — the 2014 Morgan Stanley collateral lien was released.

• 2016-08-02 — Anticipated expiration (no assignment; legal status = Expired – Lifetime).

Note on completeness: The above are the records surfaced by the register. If additional pre-2004 prosecution-era assignments exist they are not exposed in this data set. The chain as it stands contains no transfer to any entity other than Symbol/Zebra subsidiaries and secured lenders — there is no assignment to an IP-holding LLC, no NPE, and no bankruptcy sale.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6714969
    1995 : Priority date 17 Nov 1995
    2004 : Inventors assign to Symbol Technologies Inc
    2005 : Security interest to JPMorgan Chase
    2008 : Security interest released
         : Symbol sues Janam for infringement
    2014 : Security agreement to Morgan Stanley
         : Zebra acquires Motorola enterprise unit
    2015 : Renamed Symbol Technologies LLC
         : Security release by Morgan Stanley
    2016 : Patent expires

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The only "LLC" in the chain (Symbol Technologies, LLC) is a change of name recorded 2015-07-08 from Symbol Technologies, Inc. (reel unknown), not a transfer to a new licensing vehicle. No assignee has an "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" suffix, and the chain's non-operating parties are banks acting as collateral agents (JPMorgan 2005, Morgan Stanley 2014) holding security interests, not ownership.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. No assignee matches Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, MPHJ, Round Rock, Spangenberg entities, etc. Symbol Technologies and its acquirer Zebra Technologies are operating manufacturers of scanners/mobile computers. The ’969 lawsuit was brought by Symbol itself, not a licensor.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNRETRIEVED / CANNOT ASSESS. ⚠️ This is the one signal I could not test. The Assignment Center's correspondent-of-record field was not accessible in this session, so I cannot state whether the same attorney/firm recorded multiple links (or appears on NPE assertion lists). Do not treat the absence of a flag as absence of evidence — it is a data gap. This is the item most worth re-running directly in Assignment Center.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. The only clustered filings are the 2014 security grant and its 2015 release, plus the 2015 name change — a 14-month securitization/renaming cluster, not chained LLC-to-LLC flips. There are no consecutive assignments to unrelated LLCs.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. The infringement suit (Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Janam Technologies LLC, 1:08-cv-00340, D. Del., filed 2008-06-09) was filed by the entity that had owned the patent continuously since the 2004-05-03 assignment — nearly 4 years earlier. The 2008-08-13 release of the JPMorgan lien post-dates the complaint and is a release, not a transfer-in. No assignment sits within 6 months before the first suit.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. Symbol had a well-documented accounting-fraud scandal and SEC settlement ($37M in 2004), but it was **acquired by Motorola in 2007 ($3.9B)** — a going-concern acquisition, not a Chapter 7/11 patent sale. No docket evidence of a bankruptcy estate disposing of this patent.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. Symbol asserted its own ’969 against Janam Technologies LLC, a direct handheld-terminal competitor (founded by former Symbol personnel; Janam's XM-60 was the accused product). A preliminary-injunction order (D.I. 7, filed 2008-06-18) enjoined Janam from infringing the ’969, ’366 and ’821 patents; the case proceeded through Markman (2009) and further opinions into 2010. This is conventional operating-company-vs-competitor assertion, not NPE-for-hire.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at Zebra Technologies by way of the Symbol → Motorola → Zebra acquisitions.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Symbol Technologies, Inc. — an operating manufacturer that shipped wireless bar-code terminals embodying the ’969 claims — asserted the patent itself against a direct competitor, Janam Technologies LLC (D. Del. 1:08-cv-00340, filed 2008-06-09; preliminary injunction entered 2008-06-18). The ownership chain (2004-05-03 inventor assignment → 2004-12-29/2005-01-05 JPMorgan security interest → 2008-08-13 release → 2014-10-31 Morgan Stanley security agreement → 2015-07-08 name change to Symbol Technologies, LLC → 2015-08-17 release) contains only the original operating assignee, its acquirers, and lender collateral agents — no NPE, no shell-holding LLC, no fire-sale. The patent is Expired – Lifetime (anticipated expiration 2016-08-02), so the question is largely moot today.

Single open item: the repeat-correspondent test (Signal 3) is unresolved because the correspondent-of-record fields could not be pulled this session. Recommend re-querying https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html for 6714969 to capture each reel/frame's correspondent and close that gap.

I'll research US patent 6714969 and its cited prior art references.

Let me search for the specific cited references and the patent's claims.

Let me try to retrieve the patent's cited references directly.

Prior-Art Analysis — US Patent 6,714,969

1. Patent identification (verbatim from the authoritative text)

Important correction to the framing of the question: US 6,714,969 is not itself a bar-code-scanner–only patent. It is a divisional of 09/520,929 (now US 6,507,864) and claims a software-integration invention — a host-resident "data collection object" that makes a remote, wireless data-collection device (bar-code scanner) appear, to legacy host application software, as local hardware. This matters for §102 analysis: the anticipatory references must disclose the object/thread/transport-layer architecture, not merely hand-held scanning hardware.

2. What the claims actually cover (claim-1 scope from the specification/abstract)

The granted claim 1 corresponds to the abstract, which recites, in substance:

1. A method of integrating host application software with a data-collection device located on a remote, wireless terminal;
2. a data-collection object executing on the host computer, using a predetermined interface between the host application software and the object, configured so the remote device appears to be local hardware on the host;
3. the object creates and executes threads of execution to control the device;
4. the threads communicate with the remote terminal via a host transport layer → wireless link → remote-computer transport layer;
5. a data-collection device driver on the remote terminal receives commands and returns data over the same path.

Dependent/preferred features (per the Summary): the object is a COM; communications over Internet/Intranet; the device is a bar-code scanner and the object a bar-code scanning object; and the separate "communication system" aspect where the scanning control object is an OLE control creating separate send/receive/synchronize threads.

3. References cited on/within US 6,714,969

I must be transparent about a tooling limitation before giving the list.

Disclosure of limitation. I attempted repeatedly to pull the examiner-cited "References Cited" block (the US patent documents, foreign patent documents, and other publications printed on the face of US 6,714,969) from Google Patents, USPTO.report, and related mirrors. The search tool only returned the patent's Definitions/Description rendering and never the 56-references table. I therefore cannot enumerate the examiner citations with the confidence the task requires, and I will not fabricate patent numbers. What I can state with authority comes from the full patent text supplied in the prompt, which does contain the references the applicant cited.

3a. References cited inside the specification (authoritative, applicant-cited)

Reference A — U.S. Pat. No. 4,387,297

• Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 4,387,297 ("the entire contents of which are incorporated herein by reference").
• Role in the patent: cited for the high-speed scanner motor (fig. 23/24 scanning head).
• Date: mid‑1980s grant (pre-dates the 1995 priority by roughly a decade).
• Anticipation analysis: No §102 anticipation of any claim. It describes scanner hardware/motor construction only; it lacks every element of the object/thread/transport architecture. It is background art at best, relevant (if at all) only to structural scanner aspects that US 6,714,969 does not claim here.

Reference B — U.S. Pat. No. 4,251,798

• Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 4,251,798.
• Role in the patent: cited for the signal-processing circuitry converting the photodiode's analog signal into a digitized video signal.
• Date: late‑1970s/early‑1980s grant.
• Anticipation analysis: No §102 anticipation. Again pure scanner-electronics background; silent on distributed software objects, threads, or wireless transport layers.

(Note: the packaging embodiment also cross-references an unnamed, commonly owned Symbol patent describing the PDF417 encoding method — the text calls it "the above-referenced US patent," without a number, so I will not assign one.)

3b. Family / priority applications (same-inventor, NOT §102 art)

These appear in the Cross-Reference and in the Google Patents family data. They are not prior art against US 6,714,969 (same family/common priority), but they are the correct cross-citation set and are frequently mistaken for it:

3c. Background art described in the specification (contextual prior art)

The Background section itself identifies the state of the art that frames the novelty, and this is the most useful §102 comparison material I can ground:

• STEP (Symbol Terminal Emulator Program) running on pen-based mobile units (FIG. 16) — a terminal-emulation architecture in which the mobile unit, not the host, holds the interface/logic and controls I/O, displays, scanners. This is the closest described prior architecture, and the patent distinguishes it by moving the controlling object to the host and hiding the wireless hop behind a local-hardware abstraction.
• Hand-held computers / PDAs that collect data and "down-load" it to a central device via RF, infra-red, or wired links (Background).
• A prior implementation of "a bar code scanner resident on a control machine running a COMPONENT OBJECT MODEL (COM) object." The specification expressly frames the invention as an extension of this: "It is desired to increase the scope of such applications … and in particular to introduce a bar code scanner remote from the machine and controlled through a wireless interface."

Anticipation analysis of this background art. The local-COM-scanner architecture described above would disclose claim-1 elements (2) (COM object, predetermined interface) but not the remote/wireless/transport-layer elements (4)–(5); the STEP architecture discloses mobile-side control but not the host-resident object that abstracts the device as local hardware. Neither, as described, anticipates the full claim 1. They would more naturally support §103 obviousness arguments than §102 anticipation.

4. Honest bottom line on §102

• The only number-bearing references I can verify from the authoritative text (US 4,387,297 and US 4,251,798) are scanner-hardware references and do not anticipate the software-integration claims of US 6,714,969 under §102 — they predate and are silent on the claimed object/thread/transport abstraction.
• The genuinely anticipatory-relevant art would be the examiner-cited references on the patent face, which I was unable to retrieve with the available tools. I will not guess at those numbers.
• For a defensible §102 mapping, the claim set of the granted patent (not reproduced in the supplied text, which truncates before the claims) must be compared element-by-element against each examiner citation.

5. How to close the gap (verifiable next steps)

1. Google Patents → US 6,714,969 → "References Cited" / "Cited By" panels (the HTML rendering failed through my search tool but is authoritative if cited).
2. USPTO PatentCenter / Patent Full-Text (PatFT) for application 09/570,961 — gives the examiner's Form PTO‑892 with the complete US/foreign/publication list.
3. USPTO Assignment database (already reflected in the file: assignments to Symbol, JPMorgan Chase 2005, Morgan Stanley 2014, name change to Symbol Technologies LLC 2015) — useful to confirm provenance but not prior art.
4. The parent US 6,507,864 B1 and its file wrapper, since US 6,714,969 is a divisional and shares the same examiner-cited art family.

If you provide the face-page "References Cited" list (or the granted claim set), I will produce the full per-reference table — citation, date, description, and specific anticipated claims under §102 — with element-by-element mapping.

I'll analyze the prior-art record for US6714969. First, let me confirm which references are actually cited on the Google Patents page for this patent, since the authoritative text I was given lists prior-art keywords and a prior-art date but the citation tables themselves were not fully reproduced.

Let me pull the actual "Patent Citations" / "References Cited" tables that appear on the Google Patents page for this patent, since the markdown I was given omitted them.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 6,714,969 B1

"Mobile terminal with integrated host application software"
Inventors: John Klein, Allan Herrod · Assignee: Symbol Technologies, LLC
Application 09/570,961 filed 2000‑05‑15 (divisional of 09/520,929, now U.S. 6,507,864) · Priority 1995‑11‑17 · Granted 2004‑03‑30 · Status: Expired – Lifetime

0. Important scope / evidentiary caveat

The authoritative Google Patents record I was given for US 6,714,969 contains a "Prior art keywords" entry (terminal, bar code, script, software, wireless), a "Prior art date" of 1995‑11‑17, the related‑application chain, and the two U.S. patents incorporated by reference in the specification (U.S. 4,387,297 and U.S. 4,251,798). However, the formatted "Patent Citations" / "References Cited" tables were not reproduced in the supplied text, and my web searches did not surface that citation table for this specific patent.

I therefore build the § 103 analysis on the prior art that the page itself identifies and describes, i.e.:

1. Admitted prior art in the Background — bar‑code scanning systems (flying‑spot and CCD), portable hand‑held computers, and RF/IR/wired data transfer.
2. The admitted prior "local COM scanner" architecture — expressly described in the specification.
3. The admitted wireless terminal‑emulation / wireless‑LAN prior art of FIGS. 16‑17 (Symbol STEP and Spectrum24 access‑point behavior), which the page labels conventional/prior art.
4. The OLE 2.0 / ActiveX / DCOM control prior art described in the specification.
5. U.S. 4,387,297 and U.S. 4,251,798 (scanner motor and digitizing circuitry), incorporated by reference.

I flag below where a formal obviousness rejection would need a specific claim chart keyed to the actual claim language, which the supplied text does not include (the Description was truncated before the claims).

1. The invention as recited (per abstract and summary)

Because the claim text itself is not in the supplied record, I characterize the independent claims from the Abstract and Summary, which track the likely claim language:

Dependent/summary features add: COM implementation; Internet/Intranet communications; bar‑code‑scanner specific embodiment; an "OLE control" communication system for a scanner; separate send/receive/synchronize threads.

Effective date: priority is claimed to provisional 60/006,872 (1995‑11‑17), through 08/691,263 (1996‑08‑02) and 08/916,605 (1997‑08‑22). Prior art must therefore antedate Nov. 17, 1995 (or, at the latest, the 1996/1997 chain dates).

2. The prior art identified on the page, mapped to elements

Reference (1) — Admitted prior art: "local... bar code scanner resident on a machine running a COM object"

The specification states:

"It has been previously proposed to implement a bar code scanner resident on a control machine running a COMPONENT OBJECT MODEL (COM) object."

This single admission supplies A, B, and C: a COM data‑collection object executing on a host with a defined interface through which a host application drives the scanner as if local. The specification later confirms the invention is an extension of this:

"The invention comprises a significant development over previous architectures comprising implementation of a local bar code scanner resident on a machine running a COM object. The architecture of the invention allows control of the scanner through the wireless interface."

This admission is, by itself, very close to the claimed subject matter minus the remote/wireless dimension.

Reference (2) — Conventional wireless terminal‑emulation system (FIG. 16, labeled prior art)

The page describes "a conventional wireless communication system with a terminal emulation program installed on the mobile units," where STEP "provides the mobile units 21 with the interface and logic functions necessary to communicate over the radio network, and controls all input, output and display functions at the mobile unit level," working with an enabler server 164, enabler API 166, and timer 168 on the host and a Spectrum24 access point 170.

This supplies the remote wireless terminal with remote‑side logic/device control and the host↔mobile command interface — i.e., the environment into which elements E and F fit.

Reference (3) — Conventional wireless‑LAN access‑point prior art (FIG. 17, labeled prior art)

The page describes the access point's packet handling (registration, decapsulation, ST‑AMT/MHT tables, forwarding). This is transport‑layer/wireless‑link prior art that supplies the wireless link + host‑ and remote‑side transport layers of element E/F.

Reference (4) — OLE 2.0 / ActiveX / DCOM control prior art

The specification acknowledges that OLE controls are reusable components working in OLE‑2.0 containers, that "OLE architecture enables different software objects to communicate to each other using a binary interface mechanism," and that the control↔container interface can be implemented as Remote Procedure Calls (RPC's) and even as DCOM, letting an ActiveX control "control devices over an Internet or Intranet link." This supplies B/C (binary interface, late binding, transparency) and directly suggests remote invocation — a strong lead‑in to elements E/F.

Reference (5) — U.S. 4,387,297 / U.S. 4,251,798 (incorporated)

Scanner motor (4,387,297) and analog‑to‑digitized‑video signal‑processing circuitry (4,251,798). These supply the bar‑code reader hardware underlying dependent claims; they are less probative on the network/software elements.

3. Combinations that would render the claims obvious

Combination I — (1) local COM scanner + (2)/(3) wireless terminal‑emulation/LAN prior art

Covers A–F. Reference (1) discloses the COM data‑collection object on the host, the predetermined interface, and the local‑hardware illusion (A, B, C). References (2)/(3) disclose remote wireless terminals with remote‑side device drivers/control logic and host↔terminal transport over a wireless link (E, F). The only missing link — running the same object over the wireless interface with a transport layer on each end and a device driver at the remote terminal — is the predictable union of the two.

Motivation (KSR‑type), drawn from the patent's own words:

• The Background states the express design goal: "It is desired to increase the scope of such applications to be compatible with a wide range of models and in particular to introduce a bar code scanner remote from the machine and controlled through a wireless interface." This is a stated problem the combination is designed to solve.
• Both references are in the same field (RF/wireless bar‑code data collection, Symbol's own STEP/Spectrum24 ecosystem), so a POSITA would look to them together.
• The specification also states the commercial driver — server‑resident mission‑critical applications and low‑cost "single function handheld computing terminals" connected to the LAN — a recognized market incentive to move scanner control off the local machine.

Combination II — Combination I + (4) OLE/COM control prior art, for the threading element

Covers D. The claim's distinguishing software feature is the set of producer/consumer threads (FIG. 20: send/receive/synchronize) that bridge the control to the remote transport so the container is not blocked. OLE/ActiveX controls of the era were routinely implemented with apartment/independent threading and marshaled calls (the page itself notes the control↔container interface may be RPC). On a high‑latency wireless link, a POSITA would plainly have been motivated to decouple send, receive and synchronization into separate threads — a predictable, well‑understood asynchronous‑I/O design choice with a known benefit (non‑blocking UI, orderly transaction handling), not an unexpected result.

Combination III — Combination I/II + general‑purpose browser/script prior art, for the "script‑in‑the‑label" aspect (FIG. 18)

For any claims directed to the "general purpose interface reader application" (a Browser that scans a high‑density label containing an HTML / VBscript script, parses it, and builds a UI at run time), the page itself frames the problem as "the necessity of a specialized program for parsing and interpreting high density data records." Combining conventional bar‑code reading with conventional HTML/VBScript interpreters (both well known by 1995) to build a run‑time UI is the straightforward, predictable solution to eliminating the specialized program. Motivation: the stated goal of letting "any computer system equipped with a general purpose interface reader application" process the data record.

Combination IV — Dependent‑claim additions

• "COM" — admitted prior art (Reference 1).
• "Internet or Intranet" — the specification acknowledges ActiveX controls "control[ling] devices over an Internet or Intranet link"; applying an existing binary‑interface control to a known packet network is conventional (KSR: use of a known technique in a known way).
• "bar code scanner / scanning object" — the entire field (References 1, 5).
• "send, receive and synchronize… threads" — routine asynchronous design, per Combination II.

4. Why a POSITA would have combined them (motivation, per KSR)

1. Stated problem in the reference itself — the Background explicitly poses "introduce a bar code scanner remote from the machine and controlled through a wireless interface."
2. Same field of endeavor / common assignee ecosystem — the local COM scanner (Ref. 1) and the STEP/Spectrum24 wireless terminal system (Refs. 2‑3) are all Symbol wireless data‑collection technologies aimed at the same users and use cases.
3. Predictable results — substituting a wireless transport (already used for STEP terminal emulation) in place of the local hard‑wire link is a mere substitution of one known data path for another, with expected success; the transparency ("appears to be local hardware") is exactly what OLE/COM late binding was designed to give.
4. Design incentive / market pressure — moving applications to a server and using thin, single‑function handhelds (expressly discussed) rewards a host‑resident control object driving a remote scanner.
5. Reasonable expectation of success — all building blocks existed: COM/OLE containers, RPC/DCOM remote invocation, TCP/IP transport layers, and existing RF bar‑code networks.

5. Anticipation (§ 102) vs. obviousness (§ 103) note

If a single reference (e.g., a STEP/Spectrum24 system description combined with a COM‑scanner disclosure in the same document) taught all of A–F, the claim could be anticipated under § 102. On the record as provided, however, the elements are split between the local‑COM‑scanner admission and the wireless‑terminal prior art, so the cleaner challenge is § 103: Ref. (1) in view of Refs. (2)/(3), further in view of Ref. (4).

6. Secondary considerations / possible rebuttals

• Unexpected results / long‑felt need: The patent does not assert any unexpected technical result; the thread architecture yields the ordinary benefit of asynchronous I/O over a slow link. No evidence of a long‑felt but unsolved need beyond the stated design goal.
• Teaching away: None identified on the page — the OLE/DCOM discussion encourages remote control.
• Narrowing limitations to test: The strongest non‑obviousness arguments would target (i) the specific multi‑thread send/receive/synchronize transaction protocol (FIG. 20) and (ii) the transport‑layer‑to‑transport‑layer handshake with a remote device driver (FIG. 19). These must be evaluated against the actual claims; on the record here they read as routine engineering implementations of the stated goal and would likely be obvious as a matter of design choice.

7. Bottom line

On the prior art identified on this page, the independent claims of U.S. 6,714,969 would likely have been obvious under § 103 as:

the admitted local COM bar‑code‑scanner architecture (supplying the host‑resident data‑collection object, predetermined interface, and local‑hardware illusion) in view of the conventional wireless terminal‑emulation/wireless‑LAN prior art of FIGS. 16‑17 (supplying the remote wireless terminal, transport layers, wireless link, and remote device driver), optionally further in view of the OLE 2.0/ActiveX/DCOM control art (supplying remote binary‑interface invocation and the multi‑threaded control implementation) —

with the patent's own Background supplying the motivation ("introduce a bar code scanner remote from the machine and controlled through a wireless interface") and predictable results.

Caveat: A definitive § 103 conclusion requires (a) the actual claim language (not included in the supplied text) and (b) the examiner/applicant citation tables for US 6,714,969, which were not reproduced on the page provided. If you can supply the "Patent Citations" table or the granted claims, I will produce a claim‑by‑claim chart mapping each limitation to specific references and pin cites.