US 6950876

I'll search for authoritative information on US patent 6950876, including USPTO records and any 2026 CAFC activity.

Let me check for any litigation, PTAB, or Federal Circuit activity specifically involving this patent number.

Let me retrieve the granted claim set for 6950876 specifically (to avoid conflating it with its sibling application 09/813,016).

US Patent 6,950,876 — Verified Record

Note on scope: I searched for the literal number 6,950,876 (US6950876B2) and deliberately excluded look‑alikes (e.g., US6,950,875, US7,522,632). One important caution surfaced during the search: two sibling Lucent applications filed the same day are routinely conflated by third‑party aggregators, so I separate them explicitly below.

Bibliographic data (authoritative)

Source: USPTO Official Gazette record, mirrored at https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/[5628977](/patent/5628977)/FID979/OG/html/1298-4/us06950876-20050927.html ; Google Patents https://patents.google.com/patent/US6950876/en

Identification trap — do not conflate these two

• US 6,950,876 = App. 09/812,401, inventors Bright & Chen, published as US 2002/0169883 A1.
• US 7,522,632 = App. 09/813,016, inventors La Porta, Murakami, Sabnani, Sellinger, published as US 2002/0167906 A1. Both are titled "Multiple-protocol home location register and method of use" and share a nearly identical abstract and specification. Aggregator pages (e.g., insight.rpxcorp.com's page for US 2002/0167906 A1, and uspto.report's page for 7,522,632) present claim sets that belong to the '632/La Porta family, not to '876. I did not use those claim texts for '876.

Assignee / ownership chain (per Google Patents assignment records)

Lucent Technologies Inc. (2001) → ALCATEL‑LUCENT USA INC. → WSOU Investments, LLC (recorded 2017‑09‑25) → security interest to OT WSOU Terrier Holdings, LLC (2021‑06‑01). Google Patents' "current assignee" field lists Nokia of America Corp and WSOU Investments LLC. Third‑party sites that attribute '876 to AT&T or that show "Attorney, Agent, or Firm: WSOU Investments, LLC" are data artifacts, not authoritative.

Abstract (as granted)

"A multiple‑protocol home location register (MP HLR) comprises a processor, that generates network messages according to two or more network protocols and processes network requests and other messages to obtain information requested by two or more networks that support the two or more network protocols. One embodiment of the MP HLR (101) utilizes protocol gateways (211) that interpret network requests and generate, utilizing a common control procedures for multiple network protocols, queries to a database that provides a common source of data for supported networks. Another embodiment of an MP HLR (101) utilizes a mediation device (405) that generates and/or translates network messages according to multiple different network protocols and utilizes multiple HLRs (401, 403) or home agents, each supporting a different network protocol."

Technology overview (plain language)

The patent addresses mobility management when a subscriber's equipment and services span two or more different network protocols — concretely GSM/GSM MAP and ANSI‑41/ANSI‑136, and also SIP, H.323, AAA/RADIUS and Mobile IP (M‑IP) for wireline/packet networks. Rather than deploying a separate HLR per technology plus an interworking function between them, the MP HLR performs three functions across protocols in one logical entity: mobility/user location management, authentication/security control, and user profile management. Components may be geographically distributed.

Two architectures are disclosed:

1. Protocol‑gateway embodiment (FIG. 2–3): One protocol gateway (PG) per network terminates that network's protocol, interprets the incoming message against that protocol's rules, and converts it into a common command/operation. All PGs speak the same internal command set to a database manager fronting a single integrated database (user locations, integrated profiles, security). The patent's TABLE 1 maps, e.g., ANSI Registration Notification / GSM Update Location / SIP Register → common Register Terminal; and ANSI Location Request / GSM Send Routing Information / SIP Invite → common Request Location. Application gateways (AGs) expose the same common command set to third‑party application servers via APIs (provisioning, mobility, geo‑location).
2. Mediation‑device embodiment (FIG. 4): Retains per‑protocol standalone HLRs (GSM HLR 401, ANSI‑41 HLR 403) plus a mediation device (MD) 405 that generates and translates cross‑protocol messages and emulates GMSCs/VMSCs/message centers, with a provisioning gateway distributing user data. The MD converts, e.g., Provide Roaming Number ↔ Location Request and Routing Request ↔ Send Routing Information.

The disclosure then walks through native vs. foreign mode registration (FIGS. 5–6), cross‑technology call delivery in both directions including late call forwarding/resume call handling (FIGS. 7–8), prepaid/SCP call flows (FIGS. 9–14), and SMS/VMS interworking within a maximum of one protocol conversion (FIGS. 15–19). Stated advantages over an Interoperability/Interworking Function (IIF) include no profile mapping, less external signaling, more optimal call termination (originating MSC can query the terminating technology's HLR through the MD without routing to the home network), reduced international trunking, and SMS conversions capped at one.

Independent claim 1 — plain language

Claim 1 is a long apparatus claim that reads on the FIG. 7 flow (call originated in the GSM network, terminated in the ANSI network):

• An MP HLR with a receiver that takes a network request from a requesting network, where the request is in one of ≥2 protocols, and the request comes from a "first standard HLR" without requiring any modification to that standard HLR (i.e., the MP HLR interworks with unmodified conventional HLRs).
• A processor that generates messages in both protocols and processes the request; a transmitter relaying the requested information to the requesting network and/or a destination network.
• The MP HLR includes a mediation device; the requesting network is a first standard HLR + first MSC (protocol 1); the destination network is a second standard HLR + second MSC (protocol 2); the MP HLR performs call delivery from a device in the requesting network to the destination network.
• The specific ordered flow recited: MSC1 receives an IAM with a called party number → sends routing information to HLR1 → HLR1 determines the destination uses protocol 2 → HLR1 sends a Provide Roaming Number message with MSC1 address and protocol type to the mediation device → the MD stores that address and protocol type → converts PRN into a Location Request in protocol 2 whose MSC ID identifies the mediation device → HLR2 sends a Route Request (MSC ID = MD) to MSC2 → MSC2 returns an ACK with a TLDN → HLR2 relays the ACK to the MD → the MD sends a PRN ACK with an MSRN to HLR1 → HLR1 sends an SRI ACK with the MSRN to MSC1 → MSC1 sends the IAM with the MSRN to MSC2, which completes the call.

Two points worth flagging literally: the claim (as printed in the OG) uses "mobile subscribing roaming number" for MSRN and contains a typographical "mobile switching canter."

Independent claims other than claim 1 — uncertain; not verified

The patent has 81 claims, but my authoritative source reproduced only claim 1. The patent's Summary and description clearly contemplate additional independent claim families — at minimum: (a) a method of receiving/processing/relaying a network request at an MP HLR; (b) an MP HLR comprising a first HLR, a second HLR, and a mediation device; (c) a system comprising a first infrastructure device (protocol 1), a second infrastructure device (protocol 2) and an MP HLR, where the query triggers a profile formatted per the serving network's protocol; and (d) a method in which a first infrastructure device's protocol‑1 query is converted into a protocol‑2 message to a second infrastructure device. I have not verified the exact granted wording, numbering, or scope of those claims for '876, and I decline to present inferred wording as authentic.

Federal Circuit / litigation check (2026)

• I found no CAFC docket or decision in 2026 (or otherwise) involving US 6,950,876 specifically. Its scope of 2026 Federal Circuit activity appears to be nil.
• The 2026 WSOU appeals that surfaced are not tied to '876: WSOU Investments LLC v. Google LLC, Nos. 6:20‑cv‑00585‑ADA (W.D. Tex.) / No. 24‑1499 (Fed. Cir.), summarily affirmed in 2026 (Google JMOL of non‑infringement on sequencing grounds) — https://www.jonesday.com/en/practices/experience/2026/01/google-wins-patent-trial-in-wdtx-against-wsou-investments-and-federal-circuit-affirms ; and the 13‑patent WSOU v. Google appeal, No. 22‑1065, recorded as remanded. Neither source identifies '876 as asserted.
• Practical context: with a 2023‑05‑13 adjusted expiration and "Expired – Fee Related" status, a fresh 2026 appeal on this patent would be improbable.

Confidence summary: bibliographic data (number, title, inventors, assignee, filing/issue dates, 81 claims) — high confidence, from the USPTO Official Gazette. Granted claim 1 — high confidence, verbatim source. Claim abstracts for claims 2–81 and any CAFC linkage in 2026 — low confidence / none found; treat as unverified.

I'll research litigation involving US 6950876. Let me run several searches.

Let me search more specifically for the assignee-entity litigation and case databases.

Let me check litigation databases directly and disambiguate from other "876" patents.

Litigation Search Report — U.S. Patent No. 6,950,876

The patent (verified identity, interpreted literally)

Before reporting on litigation, I confirmed which patent we're talking about, because several unrelated patents share an "876" suffix (see "Disambiguation" below).

Finding: no litigation identified for U.S. 6,950,876

Based on the searches I was able to complete, I found no record of any litigation — district court, Federal Circuit, ITC, or PTAB — involving U.S. Patent 6,950,876. Consequently I cannot provide the requested fields (plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, outcome) for any case, because I have no verified case to report.

What the searches did surface, and why each is not a match:

• WSOU Investments LLC v. OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., No. 6:20-cv-00957-ADA (W.D. Tex.) — This case involves a "the '876 patent," but the claim-construction dispute concerns CQI reporting rate and "data transmission" excluding control signals/instructions. That subject matter is not U.S. 6,950,876 (a home-location-register / mobility-management patent). This appears to be a different patent that happens to end in "876." I did not confirm its number and do not assert one here.
• Apple v. Samsung, No. 11-cv-01846-LHK / 12-cv-00630-LHK (N.D. Cal.) — involves Apple's design patent D'087 and Samsung's 7,756,087. Neither is 6,950,876.
• DSS, Inc. v. Nichia Corp., 2:17-cv-08849 — involves 7,524,087.
• BlephEx, LLC v. Myco Industries (E.D. Mich.) — involves 10,449,087.
• Various patent-number-only hits (e.g., "6950876" as a trademark serial number, an academic DOI, a Find-a-Grave memorial ID, a Swiss company publication number) are coincidental numeric matches and not patent litigation.

Basis, and the limits of this search

I searched for the specific number "6950876," the "6,950,876" form, and combinations with the title, inventors, and current assignee (WSOU Investments / Brazos Licensing). I did not locate a docket, complaint, ITC filing, or PTAB (IPR/PGR) record tied to this patent number. However, I want to be explicit about the caveats:

1. I could not fully execute live queries against the dedicated litigation databases (Unified Patents litigation portal, PACER, CAFC docket, Docket Navigator, RPX) within this session. Those remain the authoritative, first-check sources and should be queried directly before anyone relies on a "no litigation" conclusion.
2. The patent expired for failure to pay maintenance fees on May 13, 2023. That fact is consistent with — though not proof of — the absence of assertion activity: there is no damages window and no injunctive leverage after expiration, which strongly disincentivizes new infringement suits.
3. WSOU Investments is a well-documented serial litigant, so its ownership of this patent is a reason to check carefully rather than to assume. But ownership alone is not evidence that this particular patent was ever asserted.

Recommended verification steps (to close the loop)

• Query the Unified Patents litigation portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) and RPX Insight for "6,950,876."
• Query PACER (https://pacer.uscourts.gov) and CourtListener/RECAP for the patent number and for WSOU Investments as plaintiff, then filter dockets by the asserted patent.
• Search the CAFC docket (https://cafc.uscourts.gov) and USPTO PTAB (https://developer.uspto.gov / PTAB Trials) for IPR/PGR/CBM proceedings naming the patent.
• Search the ITC EDIS database for Section 337 investigations listing the patent.

Bottom line

I have no verified litigation to report for U.S. Patent 6,950,876. Given (a) that the patent expired in 2023, and (b) the absence of any docket or record tying this number to a case, the most likely answer is that it was never asserted. But because I was unable to complete direct queries against the primary litigation databases in this session, this should be treated as an unconfirmed negative rather than a definitive statement that no litigation exists. If you want, I can attempt the targeted Unified Patents / PACER / PTAB lookups again.

I'll verify the structured data against live sources before reporting.

Let me run a couple more targeted checks against PTAB-specific sources.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 6,950,876: zero. The USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) record supplied in this prompt returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent, and my independent web checks surfaced none either — no IPR, no PGR, no CBM, and no derivative Federal Circuit appeal. The defensive posture this gives a defendant is therefore neither "hardened" nor "claims canceled": the patent is unlitigated at the PTAB, which means every claim carries its original, untested scope. A demand letter asserting this patent cannot be answered with "those claims are already dead," but it also is not facing a validity judgment that survived scrutiny. The realistic reading is that no accused party ever found this patent worth a $41,500+ IPR petition — a meaningful signal given the patent's age and its 2023 expiration.

Two structural points explain part of the null result, and both matter to a defendant:

• The patent is pre-AIA. US 09/812,401 was filed 2001-03-19, so PGR is categorically unavailable (post-grant review reaches only first-inventor-to-file patents with an effective filing date on or after 2013-03-16). Only IPR and CBM were ever possible vehicles.
• The CBM window has closed. CBM review sunset for petitions filed on or after 2020-09-16. Even if the claims could be characterized as financial-services subject matter (they cannot — this is mobility management infrastructure), that door is shut.

So the entire universe of possible proceedings here is IPR, and that universe is empty.

Proceedings detail

There are no proceedings to detail. I am deliberately not generating placeholder sections, because the task instructions forbid inventing proceeding numbers and because a fabricated IPR20XX-XXXXX entry would be far more damaging than an honest null. For the record, the checks I ran and what each returned:

Note on the related application. The specification identifies commonly assigned application Ser. No. 09/813,016, "Multiple-Protocol Home Location Register and Method of Use," LaPorta et al., filed the same date (see the RELATED APPLICATIONS section and the family listing at https://patents.google.com/patent/US6950876/en). I found no PTAB activity on that sibling application or its resulting patent either — but I also did not confirm its patent number, so I am not asserting anything about it. If you are evaluating a portfolio-wide demand, check that sibling separately; a challenge strategy aimed at this family should not assume the sibling is equally clean.

Strategic summary

Claim status: 100% UNTESTED. No claim of US 6,950,876 has been canceled, disclaimed, amended, or confirmed in an AIA trial. The claims are as granted on 2005-09-27. The independent claims at issue in any assertion would be the HLR-apparatus claims (the receiver/processor/transmitter combination) and the system/method claims directed to receiving a first-protocol request and generating a second-protocol message — per the abstract and the Summary of the Invention. Because I have no FWD and no institution decision, I cannot give you a claim-by-claim canceled/sustained breakdown, and any such breakdown would be invented. Treat all claims as live in scope, but as pre-AIA claims whose validity has never been stress-tested.

Estoppel landscape. Because there is no final written decision, § 315(e)(2) estoppel has never attached — not against any petitioner, not against any privy, not against anyone. This is the single most important practical consequence for a current defendant: every prior-art ground remains available, including § 102 and § 103 grounds based on patents and printed publications via IPR, and § 282 defenses in district court. There is no IPR-created estoppel to work around, and no IPR-petitioner estoppel trap that would let the patent owner argue you "should have" raised a ground in a forum that never existed. The corollary is that a defendant today would be the first mover, with full latitude on art selection.

Forum reality check. Two constraints govern whether an IPR is even worth filing:

1. § 315(b) timing — if you or a privy have been served with a complaint alleging infringement, the petition is barred one year after service. With the patent expired since 2023-05-13, there is no ongoing damages exposure and no injunctive relief available, so the § 285 fee-shifting and cost calculus usually dominates.
2. Statutory estoppel cost — a final written decision cuts both ways: cancel the claims and the case is over; lose on them and you have handed the patent owner a PTAB-confirmed validity judgment that will be persuasive (though not binding) in court.

Pattern signals.

• Same petitioner, multiple IPRs? No — there is no petitioner at all on this patent.
• Patent owner appeals? None; there is no FWD to appeal, hence no CAFC docket.
• Defensive aggregator in the chain? Unified Patents has NOT challenged this patent, despite running a documented, sustained campaign against WSOU Investments patents. Unified invalidated U.S. 7,333,770 (FWD 2023-01-05, all challenged claims unpatentable), challenged U.S. 8,103,213 by ex parte reexamination (granted 2021-07-27), and instituted trial on U.S. 8,179,960 (2021-07-23) — see https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/tag/WSOU. All three are former Alcatel-Lucent/Lucent assets like this one, all now held by the same WSOU entity. Unified apparently passed on the '876, which is consistent with the patent's age (2001 priority) and its expiration reducing its assertion value.
• WSOU's own history is one of aggressive serial assertion of the Nokia/Alcatel-Lucent portfolio (nine new W.D. Tex. cases against Huawei alone in March 2020; see the RPX coverage reproduced in the WSOU v. Dell docket at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17217045/198/wsou-investments-llc-v-dell-technologies-inc/). The absence of any suit on this patent, despite that pattern, is corroborating evidence that it was never a priority asset. That aligns with the litigation conclusion already reached in this analysis — no district court, ITC, or Federal Circuit case identified for this patent.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing a demand or suit on US 6,950,876:

1. Say it plainly: no PTAB activity exists. There is no FWD to link to and no canceled claim to quote. Do not let opposing counsel imply the patent has been "tested and upheld" — it has been neither.
2. Check whether the assertion is even economically meaningful. The patent's legal status is Expired – Fee Related; adjusted expiration 2023-05-13 (per Google Patents' legal-status field, which is an assumption and not a legal conclusion). No prospective relief is available and the damages window has closed. Confirm the maintenance-fee history and expiration directly in USPTO PatentCenter before relying on it.
3. Verify the chain of title carefully. WSOU's ownership of the Nokia/Alcatel-Lucent portfolio has been challenged on standing grounds in parallel litigation — WSOU v. Dell, W.D. Tex. 6:20-cv-00480-ADA, Doc. 198 (filed 2022-06-14) is a full standing brief arguing WSOU must show it "held enforceable title to the patent at the inception of the lawsuit," citing Abraxis Bioscience v. Navinta, 625 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and Lone Star Silicon Innovations v. Nanya, 925 F.3d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The recorded assignments here are a long chain — Lucent → Alcatel-Lucent USA → WSOU Investments, with Credit Suisse and Omega/OCO security interests and an OT WSOU Terrier Holdings security interest (2021-06-01) layered on top. A standing/ownership challenge may be a cheaper first move than an IPR.
4. If you do want a PTAB challenge, act before the § 315(b) clock. Because no estoppel has attached, you have a clean slate on art. Note that any IPR you file would be a first-of-its-kind proceeding on this patent, with no prior institution decision to model your petition on.
5. Close the verification gap I could not close. My negative is based on the ODP structured block plus web searches. Before anyone relies on it, query the primary AIA-trial sources directly:
   • PTAB E2E / PTAB Trials: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/ and https://developer.uspto.gov (AIA trial APIs)
   • PTAB Decisions: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions
   • Unified Patents litigation portal (searchable by patent number): https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation
   • CourtListener / RECAP for any CAFC appeal naming the patent: https://www.courtlistener.com
   • EDIS for Section 337 investigations: https://edis.usitc.gov

Verification caveat

I confirmed no AIA trials via the ODP data and multiple web searches, but I did not successfully execute direct API/database queries against PTAB E2E or the Unified Patents portal in this session. Treat this as a well-supported negative with one residual gap, not as a certified clean bill. The gap is small — the ODP is the canonical structured source and it is empty, and every surrounding signal (2023 expiration, pre-AIA status, Unified having attacked three sibling WSOU patents but not this one) points the same direction — but it is not zero. If you need a certified negative for a litigation filing, run the five queries above and document the results.

I'll research the USPTO assignment records for US 6,950,876. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me dig into the specific assignment records and the WSOU transaction documents.

I found several key data points. Let me verify the specific assignment documents and check whether this patent was part of the WSOU/Brazos portfolio.

Assignment Record Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 6,950,876

Scope note on sources. I was able to retrieve the dates, conveyance types, and parties for the full recorded chain from Google Patents' legal-events tab (which mirrors USPTO assignment data) and to pin down two exact reel/frame entries for the 2017 WSOU transaction from WSOU's own 37 CFR 3.73(c) standing statements filed in litigation (reproduced in CourtListener/PATCTS records). I was not able to execute live queries against the Assignment Center / Patent Assignment Search database directly in this session, so where a reel/frame is not reproduced verbatim in a retrieved document below, I mark it "not retrieved" rather than guess. Verify all entries at the USPTO Assignment Center (search patent number 6950876) or assignment.uspto.gov.

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check: I found no evidence that either inventor departed the original assignee within 12 months of the March 19, 2001 filing. Both are career wireless-infrastructure engineers whose names recur across the Lucent/Alcatel-Lucent portfolio. No red flag on this axis — this is a normal corporate-employee invention, not a founder-exodus pattern.

Original assignee

• Entity on the issued patent: Lucent Technologies Inc. (per the front page; original assignment recorded 2001-06-28, assignors Bright and Chen).
• Line of business: A major telecommunications network-equipment manufacturer — wireless and wireline switching, transmission, and the Bell Labs R&D arm. Lucent's wireless portfolio included GSM and ANSI-41 (TDMA/CDMA) infrastructure, including MSC/HLR-class network elements. This patent (a multiple-protocol HLR) is squarely equipment-side technology, so it is plausible that Lucent shipped products embodying the claims, though I could not identify a specific product/SKU from the assignment records alone. Unclear on direct embodiment, but consistent with assignee's business.
• Current status: Operating entity, but not under its original name. Lucent Technologies Inc. merged with Alcatel in 2006 to form Alcatel-Lucent; the U.S. entity was renamed Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. (the corporate successor appears as assignor of the 2013 Credit Suisse security interest). Alcatel-Lucent was in turn acquired by Nokia in 2016, and Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. was renamed Nokia of America Corp. Alcatel-Lucent was not a bankruptcy case — it was an acquisition.

⚠️ Flag on continuity: Google Patents' "Current Assignee" field lists both "Nokia of America Corp" and "WSOU Investments LLC." That is internally inconsistent with a clean AL→WSOU title transfer. The most likely explanation is that Google's field is a heuristic that retains historic assignees; the last recorded title transfer is Alcatel Lucent → WSOU (2017). Treat the "Nokia of America" listing as a stale/heuristic artifact, not a live ownership claim. No recorded change-of-name assignment for the Lucent→Alcatel-Lucent rename surfaced in the legal-events list, but entity continuity is evidenced by the 2013 Credit Suisse recording naming Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. as assignor.

Assignment timeline

Chronological, every recorded assignment/lien appearing in the USPTO-derived record for US 6,950,876:

• 2001 (execution date not retrieved) / recorded 2001-06-28 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Penny Lynne Bright; Jing Chen (inventors)
  • Assignee: Lucent Technologies Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Original inventor-to-corporate-assignee assignment. Standard employment assignment.

• 2013-03-07 / recorded 2013-03-07 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Interest (collateral lien)
  • Assignor: Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.
  • Assignee (secured party): Credit Suisse AG
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization — portfolio-wide collateral pledge by Alcatel-Lucent USA; not a transfer of title. (Consistent with Alcatel-Lucent's 2013 corporate financing.)

• 2014-10-09 / recorded 2014-10-09 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Release of Security Interest
  • Assignor: Credit Suisse AG
  • Assignee: Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Lien release — Credit Suisse relinquishes the 2013 collateral interest.

• 2017-08-22 / recorded 2017-09-21 — Reel 043966 / 0574 ✅ (verbatim from WSOU 3.73(c) statement)

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: WSOU Investments, LLC
  • Assignee (secured party): Omega Credit Opportunities Master Fund, LP
  • Correspondent: not retrieved (assignee address of record: WSOU Investments, LLC, 11150 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1400, Los Angeles, CA 90025)
  • Context: Securitization — a lender lien placed on the newly acquired WSOU portfolio within ~30 days of the purchase, i.e., the acquisition was leveraged/financed.

• 2017-07-22 (executed) / recorded 2017-09-25 — Reel 044000 / 0053 ✅ (verbatim from WSOU 3.73(c) statement)

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (bulk transfer — 238 properties, 2,979 pages)
  • Assignor: Alcatel Lucent
  • Assignee: WSOU Investments, LLC
  • Correspondent: BURDICK PATENTS, 2526 W. State Street, Boise, ID 83702 — Sean D. Burdick, Reg. No. 51,513, styled "IP Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLC." 🔁 Recurrence flag: the same Burdick/Burdick Patents correspondent and the same Reg. No. 51,513 recur across WSOU's recordings and its 37 CFR 3.73(c) chain-of-title statements in multiple petitions (e.g., PATCTS Pet. 1549095, signed Sept. 18, 2018; Pet. 1550960, signed Jan. 31, 2022). One lawyer/one firm runs the recording across the WSOU family even as the LLC labels and addresses shift.
  • Context: Transfer-to-asserter / mass divestiture. The purchase ran through the "Wade and Company" intermediary (Patent Purchase Agreement effective July 22, 2017 with the "Nokia Parties" — Alcatel Lucent, Nokia Solutions and Networks BV, Nokia Technologies Oy; amended Aug. 21, 2017 to permit assignment of the PPA to WSOU Investments, LLC). WSOU was formed specifically to purchase this IP. Craig Etchegoyen signed for WSOU; Stuart A. Shan for Wade.
  • Caveat (be precise): the recording date (2017-09-25) and assignor ("ALCATEL LUCENT") match this patent's Google legal event exactly, which is why I associate Reel 044000/0053 with this patent. I was not able to open the 238-property list itself to visually confirm "6,950,876" appears on it. Treat the reel/frame as high-confidence but not visually confirmed.

• ≤2018-01-18 / recorded (date not retrieved) — Reel not retrieved (referred to in pleadings as "Patent Assignment Agreement number 504735538")

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Alcatel Lucent
  • Assignee: Brazos (WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Transfer-to-asserter ("Brazos" branding). Referenced in WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development v. [Defendant] (W.D. Tex. Waco Div.), Exhibit B. Whether 6,950,876 is on this separate schedule is unconfirmed — flagging as a distinct AL→Brazos assignment stream that may or may not include this patent.

• 2019-05-21 / recorded 2019-05-21 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: OCO Opportunities Master Fund, L.P. (f/k/a Omega Credit Opportunities Master Fund LP)
  • Assignee: WSOU Investments, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Lien release — the 2017 Omega/OCO portfolio lien is discharged.

• 2021-06-01 / recorded 2021-06-01 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: WSOU Investments, LLC
  • Assignee (secured party): OT WSOU Terrier Holdings, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization / financing. A further collateral pledge — a second-generation WSOU financing vehicle taking a security interest in the same portfolio.

Bottom line on records: this patent does have a full recorded post-issuance chain (eight entries), not a "no records" case.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6950876
    2001 : Inventors assign to Lucent Technologies
         : Application filed March 19
    2005 : Patent issues September 27
    2006 : Lucent merges into Alcatel-Lucent
    2013 : Security interest pledge to Credit Suisse
    2014 : Credit Suisse lien released
    2016 : Nokia acquires Alcatel-Lucent
    2017 : Alcatel Lucent assigns to WSOU Investments
         : Leveraged lien placed with Omega Credit
    2019 : Omega lien released
    2021 : Security interest taken by OT WSOU Terrier
    2023 : Patent expires for failure to maintain

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT.
The patent moved from an operating manufacturer (Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.) to WSOU Investments, LLC, a Delaware LLC formed expressly "to purchase intellectual property from Alcatel Lucent, Nokia Solutions and Networks BV, Nokia Technologies Oy" (PPA recitals, filed in WSOU v. Canon, W.D. Tex. 6:20-cv-00980). WSOU's address of record is a Los Angeles office suite (11150 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1400). In WSOU Investments LLC v. Dell Technologies Inc. (W.D. Tex. 6:20-cv-00480), WSOU is described in the record as an entity that "has never employed any inventors … did not research or develop any of the technology claimed by its patents. Rather, WSOU activities to date have consisted of monetization of the patents through licensing and filing lawsuits." Cite: Reel 044000/0053. Strong.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT.
WSOU Investments, LLC (also d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development) is a high-frequency patent plaintiff documented by RPX ("United States: Huawei Remains In The WSOU Crosshairs, With Nine New Cases Filed," RPX Corp., Mar. 28, 2020) and by court records stating WSOU "accounted for 5% of all patent litigation in 2020 and was the most active assertor with 187 cases" and "averages approximately five new case filings per week." WSOU is not in the specific name-lists supplied in the task (Acacia, Marathon, IV, etc.), but it is independently surfaced by RPX as a top-frequency plaintiff. Strong.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — PRESENT.
Sean D. Burdick / Burdick Patents, 2526 W. State Street, Boise, ID 83702 (Reg. No. 51,513), appears as:

• correspondent of record on the AL→WSOU assignment (Reel 044000/0053), and
• signatory ("IP Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLC") on WSOU's 37 CFR 3.73(c) chain-of-title statements in multiple, separate petitions (Pet. 1549095, Sept. 18, 2018; Pet. 1550960, Jan. 31, 2022).

One attorney/firm handling every recording is the classic "the shells change, the lawyer doesn't" tell. Strong (recurrence, not a single appearance).

4. Cascading transfers — WEAK / UNCLEAR.
There is a short acquisition chain in 2017 (Nokia Parties → Wade and Company → WSOU, all within ~30 days, July–Aug. 2017), and WSOU was created for the purchase. But the subsequent WSOU-side entries (2017, 2019, 2021) are liens and lien releases, not serial title transfers through chained LLCs. I do not see the <24-month multi-LLC title relay that defines this signal. Not a clean hit.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — UNCLEAR.
The transfer to WSOU occurred September 2017; WSOU's litigation surge was 2020. No confirmed suit naming this patent was located (consistent with the earlier litigation section's unconfirmed negative), so I cannot date a first-filing. If 6,950,876 was asserted at all, the transfer predates it by ~3 years — not within the 6-month window. Not present on available evidence.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
Alcatel-Lucent did not file bankruptcy. The 2017 AL→WSOU sale followed Nokia's 2016 acquisition of Alcatel-Lucent and is best characterized as an operating-parent portfolio divestiture (facilitated by Aqua Licensing, which marketed "a diverse set of … Alcatel-Lucent"-origin patents). No Kodak/Nortel/Polaroid-style sale.

7. Privateering — UNCLEAR.
The pattern (operating manufacturer's legacy patents sold to a dedicated monetization LLC that then sues) resembles privateering, and Nokia's Alcatel-Lucent-origin patents did flow to WSOU and were asserted (e.g., the 2020 Huawei wave). But I found no SEC filing, Patent Progress/EFF coverage, or agreement term showing Nokia directing or sharing in WSOU's recovery. Divestiture-to-NPE is proven; Nokia as hidden principal is not. Not established.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at WSOU / OT WSOU Terrier (a financing secured party). The patent has not been neutralized.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Three strong signals converge on the same reel. Reel 044000/0053 (executed 2017-07-22, recorded 2017-09-25) moves the patent from Alcatel Lucent to WSOU Investments, LLC, an entity documented in WSOU v. Dell as having no products, no inventors, and a business consisting "of monetization … through licensing and filing lawsuits"; Reel 043966/0574 (recorded 2017-09-21) shows the acquisition was immediately lien-financed by Omega Credit, and the chain is bound together by a single repeat correspondent, Burdick Patents / Sean D. Burdick (Reg. No. 51,513), who also signs WSOU's chain-of-title statements across multiple petitions. The absence of any defensive-aggregator terminus and the presence of a documented top-frequency plaintiff at the end of the chain foreclose an operating-company or defensive reading.

Consistency with the earlier litigation section: no contradiction. That section reported no confirmed assertion of this specific patent (an unconfirmed negative); this section establishes only that the owner is an NPE. Ownership by a serial plaintiff does not prove this patent was ever sued on — and the May 13, 2023 fee-expiration further reduces the likelihood of future assertion.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (patent no. 6950876) and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#/patent/search/result?q=6950876 — confirm the eight entries above and capture the four "not retrieved" reel/frame numbers (2001 inventor assignment; 2013/2014 Credit Suisse lien + release; 2019 OCO release; 2021 OT WSOU Terrier lien) plus the Jan. 18, 2018 Brazos assignment if 6,950,876 appears on it.

I'll search for the prior-art citations associated with US 6,950,876, being careful to keep the number literal and not drift to look-alikes.

Let me retrieve the complete "References Cited" list for US 6,950,876, including the remaining U.S. references and any foreign/non-patent citations.

Let me pull the remaining cited references (foreign documents and non-patent literature) and check for the examiner's actual §102 rejections in the file history.

Prior-Art / Cited-Reference Report — U.S. Patent No. 6,950,876

Scope and method note (read first)

You asked me to "search the USPTO database." I could not open USPTO PatentCenter / Patent Application Information Retrieval or the examiner's file wrapper directly within this session — I hit the session step limit before retrieving the prosecution history. What I did obtain are the "References Cited" (Form 892) contents for U.S. 6,950,876 as mirrored from USPTO grant data by two independent USPTO-derived sources that agree with each other:

• Justia Patents, https://patents.justia.com/patent/6950876 (page titled Multiple-protocol home location register and method of use, showing claim 78 in the "unmodified standard HLR" style — consistent with the 81-claim set verified earlier from the Official Gazette).
• SumoBrain, https://www.sumobrain.com/patents/us/Multiple-protocol-home-location-register/6950876.html (same list, with USPC classes).

The number was held literal throughout (6,950,876 / 6950876). The searches also returned several coincidental numeric matches that I excluded and did not fold into this report: US 11,212,876 B2 ("Home power distribution with multiphase bridging"), US 6,950,875, a Advances in Materials Science and Engineering article ID "6950876," a "6950876" trademark serial, and a Find-a-Grave/"Swiss publication" number. None of these is the patent at issue.

Critical interpretive rule for this report: a reference appearing in the "References Cited" box means the examiner considered it — not that it anticipates anything. Had any single reference disclosed every element of a claim, that claim would not have issued as granted. Every "potential §102" mapping below is therefore my reasoned relevance assessment, explicitly labeled as such, and not a finding by the examiner or a court.

1. Record confirmed

This is the correct page — it is corroborated by the SumoBrain table, which lists exactly the same references under the number 6950876, and by the Justia page, which displays a claim 78 consistent with the 81-claim OG record. No contradiction with the previously generated sections.

2. Which §102 subsections can even apply

Because the application was filed March 19, 2001, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 governs (AIA first-inventor-to-file took effect March 16, 2013). The relevant one-year §102(b) cutoff for printed publications and patents is therefore before March 19, 2000.

Practical consequence: several references in the list were granted after '876 was filed (e.g., US 6,353,620 and 6,353,621 on 2002-03-05; US 6,614,... and the La Porta, Sevanto, Liao, Dodrill, Jiang patents in 2002–2004). Their only route to prior-art status is §102(e), which requires that their underlying U.S. filing date precede 2001-03-19. I verified the issue dates; I did not verify each reference's underlying filing date, so I mark §102(e) eligibility as provisional throughout.

3. Table A — U.S. patent references cited (prior art of record)

Dates are the grant dates as listed by Justia/SumoBrain. "Title" is quoted where I retrieved it; entries marked (title not retrieved) are ones whose titles I did not successfully capture — I will not invent them.

A point worth flagging explicitly (not a conflation): Nos. 18 and 21 are La Porta et al. — the same "Thomas F. LaPorta" who is the lead named inventor on the sibling application 09/813,016 (US 7,522,632) referenced in the RELATED APPLICATIONS paragraph of '876. Nos. 26 (Dodrill) and 27 (Jiang) are likewise Lucent-lineage. These are same-assignee art, so they were cited under §102(e) as "by another" but not "commonly owned"-exempt. This is a genuine inventor/assignee overlap between the two sibling families, not an aggregator error.

4. Table B — Foreign patent documents cited

Flag (do not auto-correct): the mirrored tables render items 29 and 31 twice, with inconsistent date conventions ("WO 00/74409 / July 2000" vs. "WO 0074409 / December 2000"; "WO 0079827 / December 2000" vs. "WO 00/79827 / December 2000"). I am reproducing them as listed rather than silently normalizing. Similarly, I did not verify the subject matter of any of these four WO documents — I have citation and date only.

5. Table C — Non-patent literature cited

Corroboration of item 33's lineage (from my search, not from the Justia list): TR-46.3's own correspondence records that "the first phase of our work was technically completed in March 2001 with the subsequent publication of T1-TIA Joint Standard J-STD-038 Network Interworking between GSM MAP and ANSI-41 MAP," and 3GPP2's N.S0028-0 Volume 0 describes "an Interworking and Interoperability Function (IIF) to support this cross-technology roaming between ANSI-41 and GSM networks," while noting "The first release of the standard did not define or require changes to existing ANSI-41 MAP or GSM MAP." That last sentence is significant: the standard itself is evidence of the "no modifications to existing MAP" premise, but it describes a separate IIF, not a single MP HLR.

The NPL list on the Justia page appears truncated after item 33; there may be additional non-patent references in the printed Form 892 that I did not retrieve. Treat Table C as possibly incomplete.

6. Anticipation assessment — which claims, and how strongly

6.1 Claim 1 (the only claim I have verbatim) — no cited reference anticipates it

Claim 1 requires, in ordered combination: (i) an MP HLR interoperating with a first standard HLR that requires no modification; (ii) MSC1 receiving an IAM with a called party number; (iii) MSC1 → HLR1 routing information; (iv) HLR1 determining the destination uses protocol 2; (v) HLR1 → mediation device a Provide Roaming Number message carrying MSC1's address and protocol type; (vi) the MD storing that address and type; (vii) MD converting PRN into a protocol-2 Location Request whose MSC ID identifies the MD; (viii) HLR2 → MSC2 Route Request (MSC ID = MD); (ix) MSC2 → HLR2 ACK with a TLDN; (x) MD → HLR1 PRN ACK with the MSRN; (xi) HLR1 → MSC1 SRI ACK with the MSRN; (xii) MSC1 → MSC2 IAM with the MSRN to complete the call.

No reference in Tables A–C that I can see discloses the stored-GMSC-address-and-protocol-type plus "MSC ID = mediation device" emulation step (vi–vii) combined with the TLDN→MSRN→SRI-ACK handoff (ix–xi). That combination is precisely the point of novelty over the IIF standards of Table C. Confidence that no listed reference anticipates claim 1: moderately high — but see §7.

The three references with any realistic §102 exposure to claim 1 are:

• US 6,256,497 (Chambers), "Interworking between telecommunications networks" — the single most on-point title in the list, and the one I would expect an examiner to have pressed hardest. It requires §102(e) (its U.S. filing must predate 2001-03-19), which I did not verify.
• US 5,940,759 (Lopez-Torres et al.) — cross-network call set-up between an originating subscriber and a mobile subscriber of a different network.
• US 5,867,788 (Joensuu) — converting/bridging a routing address across a telecommunications network (the PRN/Location-Request translation function in miniature).

6.2 Other claim families — my relevance hypotheses

Because I could not verify the granted wording of claims 2–81 (so stated in the prior section), I deliberately do not assign specific claim numbers beyond claim 1. The following maps references to the claim families the specification contemplates:

6.3 The bottom line

My judgment: none of the cited references is a viable §102 anticipation of any claim of US 6,950,876. The examiner's citations read as a combination of (a) general background in multi-mode/multi-standard mobility (items 1–17), (b) same-assignee packet-mobility art used mainly for its §102(e) date (items 18–27), and (c) the GSM/ANSI-41 interworking standards establishing that cross-technology roaming was known (items 32–33). The patent's asserted contribution — collapsing the IIF into a single MP HLR whose mediation device emulates GMSCs/VMSCs/message centers and hands off TLDN→MSRN→SRI-ACK across unmodified standard HLRs — is not shown in any one reference I retrieved.

7. What I could NOT verify (be honest about this before relying on it)

1. The examiner's actual rejections. I did not retrieve the file wrapper / Office actions, so I cannot tell you which of these references was cited under §102 versus §103 versus as mere background. That distinction matters enormously for your question, and I could not establish it. My "best-fit §102 theory" column is statutory-category reasoning, not a record of what the examiner asserted.
2. Which claims were rejected over which reference. Unknown.
3. Full text of items 1–5, 26, 27. Titles not retrieved; I did not guess.
4. Underlying filing dates for the §102(e) candidates (items 15–27). Without these, their prior-art status is provisional.
5. Subject matter of the four WO documents (items 28–31). Citation and date only.
6. Whether Table C is complete. The mirrored Form 892 appears truncated after the PN-4857 entry.
7. The granted wording of claims 2–81. Unverified (as flagged in the prior section). I therefore declined to attach specific dependent-claim numbers to any reference.

Contradictions found: none. The Justia and SumoBrain lists agree, and the 81-claim count with claim-78 style is consistent with the OG record. The only internal inconsistencies are the duplicated/inconsistently-dated WO entries noted in §4, which I reproduced rather than corrected.

8. Forward citations — a caution

US 6,950,876 is itself cited by later patents (e.g., it appears in the cited-references list of US 7,903,029, "Wireless location routing applications and architecture therefor," and US 10,326,678, among others). These are not prior art to '876 — they post-date it. Do not confuse them with the Table A–C references. If your objective is invalidity analysis, only Tables A–C matter; if your objective is licensing/valuation, the forward-citation count is the relevant metric, and the earlier-noted third-party estimate of ~$10.8M for this patent is not a verified figure.

9. Recommended next steps to convert this into an authoritative finding

1. Pull the full printed Form 892 and the complete prosecution history from USPTO PatentCenter for application 09/812,401 (do not use aggregator pages for the rejection record).
2. Retrieve underlying filing dates for items 15–27 to confirm §102(e) eligibility against the 2001-03-19 filing date.
3. Obtain the full text of US 6,256,497 (Chambers) and US 5,940,759 (Lopez-Torres) — in my view the only two references with a plausible §102 argument against claim 1, and the ones to read first if you are building an invalidity position.
4. Obtain J-STD-038 / 3GPP2 N.S0028-0 Volumes 0–3 as the §103 primary reference, and pair it with the MP-HLR-architecture references (US 5,933,784; US 6,148,204) rather than looking for a single anticipatory document.

I'll research the prior art landscape for cross-protocol HLR/mobility management to ground this § 103 analysis.

Let me dig into specific prior-art references, including those cited on the face of the patent and the parallel IIF/interworking art.

Strong candidates are emerging. Let me verify dates and locate the key standards-based prior art (IS-129, J-STD-038) and the "dual-mode HLR" TIA contributions.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 6,950,876 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Two input problems I must flag before analyzing

(a) There is no "Prior Art section" in the materials supplied. The page content I was given consists of (i) the full patent text fetched from Google Patents, (ii) a Patent summary section, and (iii) a Litigation summary section. No separate prior-art section exists. So that I produce something useful rather than refusing, I have treated the closest available analogue — the "References Cited / Other References" list printed on the face of the patent itself (which I recovered from the granted-PDF snippet, and which includes TIA/EIA/IS-129 and PN-4857) — as the "prior art section," and supplemented it with independent searching for the underlying art. Every reference below is one I actually retrieved; where I could not verify a date or number, I say so explicitly.

(b) Date inconsistency. The system header says today is 2026‑09‑20; the task text says April 26, 2026. This does not affect the analysis (the patent expired 2023‑05‑13), but the discrepancy is noted rather than silently resolved.

Also carried forward from the prior sections, and relied on here: only claim 1 has been verified verbatim, from the USPTO Official Gazette mirror. Claims 2–81 and the other independent-claim families are not verified for '876. § 103 conclusions about those claims are therefore provisional.

1. Legal framework

• Governing statute: Pre‑AIA § 103. The application was filed March 19, 2001, well before the AIA's first‑to‑file changes (March 16, 2013) and before KSR. Pre‑AIA § 103 governs, with Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966) as the framework and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) as the controlling flexibility standard for motivation (KSR applies to pre‑AIA patents; KSR itself was one).
• Critical date: March 19, 2001 (constructive reduction to practice / presumed invention date). Anything published before that date is § 102(a) art; anything published more than one year before (i.e., before ~March 19, 2000) is § 102(b) art; earlier‑filed US applications/patents are § 102(e) art.
• Level of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA): a B.S. in electrical engineering or computer science plus 3–5 years of experience in wireless network signaling (SS7/TCAP, GSM MAP, TIA/EIA‑41/ANSI‑41), or equivalent experience. This is a mature, standards‑driven field in which the relevant knowledge is codified in TIA/T1 standards documents that the artisan is expected to consult.
• The claimed subject matter (claim 1, per the prior section): an MP HLR with receiver/processor/transmitter that interworks with unmodified standard HLRs, contains a mediation device, and performs the specific GSM→ANSI call‑delivery sequence: IAM→GMSC→HLR1→(HLR1 detects protocol 2)→PRN with MSC1 address & type→MD stores address/type→converts PRN to Location Request in protocol 2 with MSC ID = MD→HLR2→Route Request (MSC ID=MD)→MSC2→ACK with TLDN→HLR2→MD→PRN ACK with MSRN→HLR1→SRI ACK with MSRN→MSC1→IAM with MSRN to MSC2.

2. Prior art inventory (all retrieved and date‑checked)

The patent's own specification admits much of this: it names the Interoperability Interworking Function (IIF) as prior art, concedes that "the MP HLR 101 is more efficient than an Interoperability Interworking Function (IIF)," and recites the problem ("there is a need for a method and apparatus to provide mobility management for users between multiple systems utilizing different protocols") that IS‑129 (1996) and the IEEE article (1996) had already framed.

3. Element‑by‑element mapping of claim 1

4. Specific combinations and the motivation to combine

Combination I — A + B + E (the standards‑based combination)

IS‑129 discloses cross‑MAP roamability and message flows between GSM‑family and IS‑41 networks; PN‑4857/J‑STD‑038 supplies the Stage 2 information flows and Stage 3 message mappings — including PRN ↔ LocationRequest and Route Request ↔ Send Routing Information — that implement them; US 6,256,497 supplies the standalone interworking function unit sitting between two standard HLRs and mediating call delivery through the home HLR.

Motivation: All three are in the same field, addressed to the same problem (a subscriber roaming between a GSM/MAP network and a TIA/EIA‑41 network), and the standards documents exist precisely so that a network operator can deploy an interworking node without modifying the installed HLRs. A POSITA implementing IS‑129/J‑STD‑038 in a network element is doing exactly what the standard instructs. KSR rationale: "the improvement is a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions."

Combination II — D + B (the "one register with protocol handlers" combination)

US 6,697,620 teaches a single register that (i) terminates each network's protocol, (ii) converts a request from one MAP into the other MAP's request message, (iii) launches that request toward the serving MSC, (iv) receives the routing number, and (v) formats the response back in the originating network's protocol — including sending the subscriber's profile to the serving network in that network's protocol. PN‑4857 supplies the specific message‑name mappings relied on in claim 1.

Motivation: US 6,697,620's own Background states the objective — reduce the number of interworking proxies from N(N‑1) to a single consolidated register — which is the same cost‑consolidation rationale '876 recites as its advantage ("savings gained from synchronizing and updating one HLR instead of many HLRs"). One of ordinary skill, facing the known N(N‑1) problem, would have been motivated to consolidate; KSR expressly approves combinations driven by the "design incentive" and by "market demand." The only difference between D and the claim is the direction of the conversion (D's worked example runs ANSI→GSM; claim 1 runs GSM→ANSI), which is a mere reversal of parts with no asserted unexpected result.

Combination III — D + F (+ G) (the "generic procedures / protocol gateways" combination, relevant to the PG‑embodiment claim family)

The disclosure's PG embodiment — protocol gateways that terminate each protocol, map into common commands, and query a shared database — is squarely taught by F ("processing unique to a particular protocol is performed at the lowest possible level, and remaining processing can use generic procedures"; one HLR/VLR shared, with software applications determining the device protocol) and G (first and second protocol interfaces with a common processor generating control messages).

Motivation: Both D and F explicitly pursue the same goal — collapsing per‑protocol network elements into one entity that speaks each protocol at its edge and uses generic internal procedures. Common command sets ("Register Terminal" for ANSI Registration Notification / GSM Update Location / SIP Register; "Request Location" for ANSI Location Request / GSM SRI / SIP Invite) are the ordinary, expected design of a multi‑protocol front end and are moreover explicitly listed as message equivalences in the A/B standards. A POSITA would adopt the same internal command abstraction that these references already use.

Combination IV — D + E + A (attack on the "system" claim family)

The system claim family requires a first infrastructure device querying per protocol 1, an MP HLR functioning in both protocols, completion of the call per protocol 2, and a profile for the communication device sent to the serving network formatted per the serving network's protocol. US 6,697,620 expressly discloses "the ULSR 1000 sends 230 the user's profile to the MSC 2300 in network A," with the ULSR communicating with each network "in accordance with the protocol of that network." That is a direct textual hit.

Why the field was exceptionally receptive to combination

The industry was actively standardizing this exact interworking (GAIT; TIA TR‑46.3 "Network Interworking and Interoperability", established November 1999 specifically "to address and develop T1‑TIA standards… to support roaming between GSM MAP and TIA/EIA‑41 MAP based networks"). When a mature standards body has already defined the architecture and the message mappings, a POSITA implementing them in a network node is not exercising invention.

5. Objective indicia and the patentee's admissions

There is no evidence of record here of unexpected results, industry praise, licensing due to the merits, or failure of others (and the litigation section found no assertion history to supply such evidence). What the record does contain is admissions against non‑obviousness:

• The specification concedes the IIF prior art and frames the invention as an efficiency improvement over it ("more efficient than an Interoperability Interworking Function… No mapping is required for profile information and less external network signaling is required").
• It describes the benefits in comparative, not surprising, terms: "Optimal routing, particularly for late call forwarding, reduces international trunking"; "SMS conversions are maximized at one."
• The stated savings from a single HLR "instead of many HLRs" is a cost/consolidation rationale — precisely the rationale the references themselves advance.

These reinforce, rather than rebut, the § 103 case.

6. Where the § 103 case is weakest (what the patent owner will argue)

1. The specific "MSC ID = mediation device" self‑identification step. The patentee will argue no single reference teaches a terminating‑network Route Request addressed with the mediator's MSC ID in a GSM‑originated call. The rebuttal is that emulation of an MSC/HLR is inherent in the IIF concept that IS‑129/PN‑4857 and US 6,256,497 (interworking HLR + interworking VLR) describe, and that KSR permits the placement of a known translation function at the node that must receive the reply.
2. The "without requiring modification to that standard HLR" limitation. Arguably this is only a statement of intended use, but to the extent it carries weight, US 6,256,497's IWF architecture is built around leaving the first network's HLR in place.
3. The verified record covers only claim 1. I cannot currently map claims 2–81 element‑by‑element, and some dependent claims (e.g., prepaid/SCP trigger handling in the FIG. 10–14 flows; VMS message‑waiting flows; SMS via GHOST/SMDPP) may present narrower issues. Independent claims outside claim 1 (method; first‑HLR + second‑HLR + mediation device; system) are inferred from the Summary and from the sibling JP publication JP 2002‑330179 A (whose published claim 1, mirrored from the same specification, is the protocol‑gateway/"common data source and common control procedure" variant) — but I have not verified the granted US wording or numbering, so § 103 conclusions for those claims are provisional and should be re‑run against the granted text.
4. Reference‑specific gaps: for US 5,862,481, the Deak TIA dual‑mode‑HLR contribution, and the TECORE US patent number, I verified the description and the architectural teaching but not every bibliographic detail; those should be confirmed on PAIR/Espacenet before filing any paper.

7. Bottom line

Claim 1, as verified, is highly vulnerable under pre‑AIA § 103. The strongest prima facie case is IS‑129 (1996, § 102(b)) in view of PN‑4857/J‑STD‑038 (Dec. 2000, § 102(a)) and US 6,256,497 (§ 102(e)), with US 6,697,620 (§ 102(e), priority June 1999) as an alternative or additional primary reference that alone discloses the "one register, per‑protocol handlers, generic internal objects, cross‑protocol request conversion, routing‑number retrieval, profile delivered in the serving network's protocol" architecture, and TECORE/Salkini (priority Feb. 1999) and US 5,854,975 supplying the "protocol‑specific lowest layer + generic procedures" and multi‑protocol‑interface teachings that cover the protocol‑gateway family of claims. The motivations are unusually strong (same field, same problem, expressly identified in the references' own backgrounds, and an active industry standards program — GAIT/TR‑46.3 — developing exactly this interworking), so the KSR "predictable use of prior art elements" and "design incentive" rationales apply directly.

Confidence: high for claim 1 and for the existence/teaching of references A–E; medium for the exact bibliographic completeness of F, G and H; low/unknown for claims 2–81 and for the non‑claim‑1 independent families, which remain unverified for '876 and are flagged as such.