Invalidity dossier
US 6728517
Multiple-input multiple-output radio transceiver
Current assignee: IPR Licensing Inc
Added 9/23/2026, 8:05:08 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 — US 6,728,517 B2
Title: Multiple-input multiple-output radio transceiver
Patent number: US6728517B2 (application US10/065,388)
Inventors: Gary L. Sugar, Robert M. Masucci, David G. Rahn
Original assignee: Cognio LLC (later recorded as assigned to IPR Licensing Inc.)
Key dates: Priority date 2002-04-22; filing date 2002-10-11; publication date 2004-04-27. Anticipated expiration 2022-10-11; legal status listed as "Expired – Lifetime." The source notes the legal status is an assumption, not a legal conclusion.
Purpose and plain-language scope (per the supplied text): The patent concerns a multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) radio transceiver — a radio that transmits and receives using multiple signal paths/antennas. Consistent with this, the source's classifications place it in radio transmission and transceiver subject matter, including "multiple-frequency-changing" where at least two frequency changers sit in different paths (e.g., in two paths with carriers in quadrature), and in transceivers adapted for operation on two or more bands using a common antenna and diplexing/multiplexing filters. The prior-art keywords listed — signal, coupled, signals, receive, radio transceiver — indicate the disclosure centers on coupling and routing of received/transmitted signals within the transceiver. Related family members are listed (e.g., WO2003090370A1, EP1502364A4, CN100340068C, TWI242944B, and later US continuations US7636554B2, US8463199B2, US9374139B2, US10326501B2).
What the excerpt does not establish:
- It does not include the claims, abstract, or description text, so the exact claimed scope is not shown.
- It does not establish the specific MIMO architecture, circuit details, or signal-processing steps actually claimed.
- It does not verify the accuracy of assignee, priority date, or legal status (the source itself flags these as assumptions).
- Per instructions, no litigation, ownership-transfer, validity, or prior-art analysis is provided.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:41:36 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 6728517. 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.