US 7050907

I'll search for this specific patent number across the sources you named.

The first searches returned unrelated results. Let me refine.

Good progress. Now let me look for the full claim set and any CAFC/litigation activity.

Search scope and a caution before the summary

I searched for US 7,050,907 by number. Two categories of "907" hits came up that are not this patent, and I am explicitly excluding them:

• An Arthrex "907 patent" challenged by Smith & Nephew (surgical device with an "eyelet") — different patent.
• A "'907 patent" in a consolidated E.D. Va. proceeding involving Amazon — from context this belongs to Audio Pod's portfolio, not to Trimble. Different patent.

On the CAFC 2026 docket question: I could not locate any Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit appeal in 2026 involving U.S. 7,050,907. My searches returned no Federal Circuit docket entry, opinion, or Rule 36 judgment naming this patent. Given that the patent's term has expired (see below), the absence of a 2026 appeal is unsurprising, but I want to be explicit that this is a negative finding from searches I ran, not a certified "no such case exists" — I did not get direct query access to the CAFC docket system, so treat that as a limitation rather than a conclusion.

One related hit worth flagging: the '907 patent appears as Exhibit 1009 (prior art) in IPR2017-00466, which was an inter partes review of U.S. Pat. 7,640,101 — i.e., '907 was cited against someone else's patent, it was not itself under review in that proceeding. Source: docketalarm exhibit PDF

US 7,050,907 B1 — bibliographic summary

Primary sources: Google Patents, PubChem patent record.

Priority/continuation note: The '907 patent is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 10/222,532, filed Aug. 15, 2002, which issued as US 6,801,853 ("Portable Motion-Activated Position Reporting Device," by Dennis Workman). One thing to be careful about: the '907 specification's Related Applications section recites that parent as "now U.S. Pat. No. 6,401,853," while the Google Patents bibliographic data links the parent to US 6,801,853 B2. I am reporting that discrepancy literally rather than correcting it — it appears to be an error in the printed specification, but I have not verified the printed patent's front page directly.

Abstract (verbatim)

"The present invention is a method and system for controlling an electronic device. In one embodiment, a controller is coupled with a position determining component, and a motion detecting component. In one embodiment, the motion detecting component detects motion of the electronic device and generates a signal to the controller indicating the motion. The controller, in response to the signal, causes the position determining component to determine the geographic location of the electronic device. The geographic location is compared with a pre-defined zone and, in response to the comparing, a command is generated for controlling the electronic device."

Independent claims — plain-language overview

Important limitation on this section: the patent copy I retrieved includes the full text of claims 1 through 10 only; claim 10 is cut off mid-sentence and claims 11–35 are not present in my source text. I therefore cannot verify how many independent claims the patent has or what the later independent claims recite. What follows is grounded only in claim 1 (verified independent) plus the specification's stated scope, with uncertainty flagged.

Claim 1 (method — verified independent). A four-step method for controlling an electronic device:

1. Detect motion of the electronic device using an "initiating device" disposed within the electronic device — that initiating device comprising a controller, a position determining component coupled to the controller, and a motion detecting component coupled to the controller.
2. Determine the geographic location of the electronic device in response to that motion detection.
3. Compare the determined geographic location with a pre-defined zone.
4. Generate a command for controlling the electronic device in response to that comparison.

In plain terms: a self-contained module inside (or attached to) a device wakes up when the device physically moves, fixes its own position via GPS or similar, checks whether that position falls inside or outside a stored geofence, and then issues a control command to the host device based on the result. The motion sensor is the trigger and the geofence test is the decision logic.

Dependent claims 2–10 (verified as dependent). These add:

• Claim 2/3 — satellite-based (GPS) or terrestrial-based position determining system.
• Claim 4/5 — the motion detecting component emits a signal on detecting movement, and the controller causes the position determining component to act in response to that signal (the wake-up path).
• Claim 6–10 — wireless messaging via a wireless communications component: transmitting automatically when a fix is achieved within a pre-determined time parameter (7); transmitting a second/"no-fix" message when no position fix is obtained within that parameter (8); transmitting a third message when no motion is detected within a pre-determined time parameter (9); and conveying the geographic location in the message (10).

Independent claims 11–35 — cannot verify. The specification describes two distinct method flows (FIG. 4, "method for controlling an electronic device"; FIG. 5, "method for controlling power consumption in an electronic device") and repeatedly refers to a "method and system," which would suggest at least one apparatus/system independent claim in the unretrieved portion. I am not asserting that as fact — I did not retrieve claims 11–35, and I do not have authoritative text for them. If you need the independent-claim set confirmed, pull the full claim listing from the USPTO PatentCenter or the granted-PDF at patentimages.

What the patent covers, in one paragraph

The disclosure addresses a low-cost, low-power position-reporting module ("initiating component 100") intended to be embedded in consumer electronics — cell phones, laptops, PDAs, automotive systems — or built on a PCMCIA card. Its stated novelty over the prior art is the counter-intuitive combination of a dedicated motion detector (accelerometer, tilt, rotation, gyro) with a GPS receiver: prior systems inferred motion only by comparing successive position fixes, which drained batteries on stationary devices. The '907 module instead idles at roughly 10 µA drawing power only for a real-time clock and the motion detector, wakes on motion, gets a fix (~70 mA), decides an action based on a geofence database plus optional time-of-day parameters, transmits (~400 mA), polls for commands (~5 mA), then sleeps. Applications claimed in the specification include auto-muting a phone inside a theater or hospital, auto-shutdown of electronics on aircraft during boarding, theft deterrence for laptops, and disabling a stolen vehicle's engine only once the motion detector confirms the car has stopped — avoiding a mid-highway shutdown.

Related family (for context): PCT/US2004/008559 → WO 2004083888 A2; EP 1608993 B1 (granted Sept. 30, 2015); and U.S. continuations/in continuations-in-part including US 7,313,476; US 7,453,355; US 7,627,427; US 7,742,874; US 7,783,423; US 8,032,300.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 7050907.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases.

Let me search litigation databases more directly.

Litigation Search: US Patent 7,050,907

Bottom line: I could not identify any litigation—district court, ITC, or Federal Circuit—in which US Patent 7,050,907 was asserted or challenged. On the evidence I could retrieve, this patent appears to have no known litigation history.

What I checked and what I found

1. Google Patents record for US7050907B1 (the authoritative source provided). The "Litigation" section of that page contains no entries, and the only "events" listed are prosecution, assignment, and family-member (continuation) filings. Notably, the record shows no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings and no court dockets. The family listed (US7313476B2, US7453355B2, US8032300B2, US7742874B1, US7783423B2, US7627427B2, US7415355B2) reflects continuing prosecution, not enforcement.

2. Searches for "7050907" / "7,050,907" in litigation contexts. Every hit for a "'907 patent" refers to a different patent number, which I am deliberately not conflating with the patent at issue:

• Arthrex '907 patent (suture anchor; Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew IPR, and the SCOTUS United States v. Arthrex line) — different subject matter entirely.
• Netlist '907 patent (memory modules; ITC § 337 action against SK hynix) — unrelated.
• Leupold & Stevens v. Lightforce USA, 3:16-cv-01570 (D. Or.) — rifle-scope '907 patent, unrelated.

None of these involve US 7,050,907, so per your instruction I am not reporting them as results for this patent.

3. Trimble Navigation / Trimble Inc. enforcement activity (the assignee of the '907 patent). Trimble's known assertion campaigns concern other patents:

• Trimble Navigation Ltd. v. RHS, Inc. (N.D. Cal. and earlier S.D. Cal.; NPE-law Stanford Litigation Database lists 3:02-cv-01946 and 3:03-cv-01604) — asserted U.S. 5,987,383 against RHS, CSI Wireless, Hemisphere GPS, and Satloc; Hemisphere won summary judgment of non-infringement (N.D. Cal., Aug. 16, 2007).
• Trimble Navigation Limited v. Beacon Navigation GmbH et al., 3:12-cv-00575 (N.D. Cal., filed Feb. 3, 2012) — Trimble as plaintiff; no showing this involved the '907 patent.
• Rothschild Location Technologies LLC v. Trimble Navigation Limited, 1:14-cv-01510 (D. Del., filed Dec. 23, 2014) — Trimble as defendant; the patent in suit was U.S. 8,606,503 (dismissed with prejudice April 14, 2015). Not the '907 patent.

Caveats and confidence

• I was unable to directly query the Unified Patents litigation portal, PACER, or Docket Navigator in this session, so I cannot claim a comprehensive negative result. My conclusion is based on the sources I could reach plus the patent's own Litigation section (which shows none).
• The patent expired for failure to pay maintenance fees (anticipated expiration Aug. 15, 2022), which reduces the likelihood of recent assertions but does not rule out earlier, time-barred, or settled suits.
• Confidence that no litigation exists: moderate-to-high for reported federal-court/ITC/PTAB activity; low for unreported, sealed, or settled disputes that never appeared in a public database.

Recommendation for definitive verification

To confirm the negative, run these three targeted queries (which I could not complete here):

1. Unified Patents Portal — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist (search 7050907).
2. PACER / CourtListener RECAP — full-text docket search for "7,050,907."
3. USPTO PTAB (P-TACTS) — search for IPR/PGR/CBM petitions naming the '907 patent.

If those return nothing, the correct statement is: no litigation is known involving US Patent 7,050,907.

PTAB proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 7,050,907: 0. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP) returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent, and independent web searching surfaced none — no institution decisions, no Final Written Decisions, no terminations, no Federal Circuit appeals. Breakdown: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained in an AIA trial / 0 settled / 0 institution denials. Defensive posture: the patent is completely untested at the PTAB — all 35 claims stand exactly as issued, with no adjudicated validity record in either direction. That is a double-edged signal: there is no favorable FWD for a defendant to cite, but there is also no PTAB estoppel constraining a defendant's invalidity case, and no panel has ever construed these terms.

(No proceeding numbers to report)

I am deliberately not inventing a proceeding heading. There is no IPR20XX-XXXXX, PGR20XX-XXXXX, or CBM20XX-XXXXX for US 7,050,907 in the ODP structured data or in any indexed public source I could reach.

What I checked and what I found:

• USPTO ODP "PTAB proceedings on file" block (canonical): no AIA trial proceedings indexed.
• Web search for PTAB activity tied to the patent number and to Trimble Navigation Ltd. as patent owner: negative. Results were bibliographic (Google Patents, PubChem, aggregator pages) or unrelated Trimble prosecution/appeal matters.
• Apparent "hit" that is a false positive — do not be misled: Ex parte Peake/Trimble, Appeal 2017-008871, Application 14/293,739 (Decision on Appeal, 2019-01-29, APJs Hoskins, Warner, and Peslak; § 103 rejections over Peake/Rekow/Dix/McClure). This is an ex parte prosecution appeal by Trimble as applicant in an agricultural-autopilot application. It names no patent, involves none of the 7050907 claims, and is not an AIA trial. Source: https://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2017008871-01-29-2019-1
• Patent status (context for why no one bothered): priority date 2002-08-15; filed 2003-03-19; granted 2006-05-23; anticipated expiration 2022-08-15, legal status "Expired – Lifetime," current assignee Trimble Inc. Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7050907/en

AIA-trial eligibility, for completeness: the patent is pre-AIA (filed 2003-03-19), so PGR was never available (PGR applies only to first-inventor-to-file patents, and in any event the 9-month window closed in 2007). CBM review could theoretically have reached a pre-AIA patent in a "financial product or service" class, but the CBM program sunset for new petitions on 2020-09-16 and no CBM was ever filed here. IPR (or its pre-AIA predecessor, inter partes reexamination) was the only realistic vehicle, and it went unused during the patent's ~16-year enforceable life.

Strategic summary

Claim status across the patent. No claim of US 7,050,907 has been canceled, amended, disclaimed, or held unpatentable in any AIA trial. All 35 claims stand as issued on 2006-05-23, including independent claim 1 (motion-detected geolocation compared against a pre-defined zone, with a command generated from the comparison), its satellite/terrestrial position-system dependents (claims 2–3), the signal-and-control dependents (claims 4–5), and the wireless-messaging dependents (claims 6–10, covering fix/no-fix/third-message reporting against pre-determined time parameters). The canceled/sustained/untested ledger is therefore: canceled = none; sustained in an AIA trial = none; untested = all 35 claims. I have not reviewed claim-by-claim what the remaining dependent claims (11–35) recite; treat them as unexamined by any adjudicative body.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR/PGR/CBM was ever instituted, § 315(e)(2) estoppel never attached — there are no petitioners, no privies, and no "raised or reasonably could have raised" bar running against anyone. A defendant today is free to run any § 102/§ 103/§ 112 theory in district court or the ITC without worrying about IPR estoppel, and equally free to file a fresh IPR (or ex parte reexamination under § 302, which is not limited to unexpired claims) using art of its choosing. The flip side: you also inherit zero work product from a prior petitioner — no expert reports, no Board claim constructions, no stipulated record to borrow.

Pattern signals. No repeat-petitioner pattern (there are no petitioners at all). No defensive aggregator activity — the Unified Patents portal surfaced in my searches only as a generic patent-information page for an unrelated application (US 2004/0148039 A1), not an attack on 7050907. No PTAB-appeal aggressiveness because there was no adverse PTAB ruling to appeal. The patent's family members (US 7,313,476; 7,453,355; 7,742,874; US 7,783,423; US 7,627,427; US 7,415,355; US 8,032,300, per the Google Patents continuity data) were not individually screened for PTAB activity in this task — if you are asserting or defending a family member, that screening still needs to be done.

Why the silence is explicable. The absence of IPRs here is not the "well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs" signal in reverse; it is consistent with (a) the patent expiring 2022-08-15, (b) a practice of the assignee (Trimble) as an operating company rather than a litigating NPE, and (c) the patent's narrow, 2002-era claim set. Any residual live exposure is backward-looking only: with no injunctive remedy available post-expiration, a plaintiff filing today could reach at most six years of past damages (§ 286), i.e. infringing activity back to mid-2020 and running to the 2022-08-15 expiration.

Recommended next steps

1. If you received a demand citing claims 1–10 (or any of claims 1–35): there is no FWD to quote and no canceled claim to point at. Your response should say so affirmatively — "no AIA trial has ever been instituted against US 7,050,907; every claim stands unadjudicated" — and then attack on the merits rather than on PTAB history. The strongest available institutional leverage is that the patent expired 2022-08-15 and any pre-suit notice/damages theory is capped by § 286's six-year lookback from the filing date.
2. Prior-art strategy: with zero IPR estoppel and zero IPR history, you can file a fresh IPR on any ground. Note that the Board will construe expired claims under Phillips-style plain-and-ordinary-meaning rather than the Phillips BRI distinction applying to unexpired claims, and the patent owner cannot amend after expiration — so an IPR on the expired claims is procedurally cleaner than usual, though the lack of injunctive relief reduces the practical incentive. Ex parte reexamination (§ 302) and district-court invalidity remain fully open and independent of the patent's expired status.
3. Family screening (do next): before relying on "no PTAB activity" for a portfolio dispute, run the same ODP/PTAB check on the continuations and CIP relatives listed in the Google Patents continuity data — US 7,313,476, US 7,453,355, US 7,742,874, US 7,783,423, US 7,627,427, US 7,415,355, and US 8,032,300 — since an adverse FWD on a sibling could be citable against 7050907's claims under a common-specification theory.
4. Verify before filing anything: confirm the negative result directly at PTAB E2E / Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End (https://ptab.uspto.gov) and USPTO Patent Center for application 10/392,995 (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov), and check the PTAB Decisions repository (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions) and CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%227050907%22) for any newly docketed proceeding or CAFC appeal. My conclusion rests on the ODP structured block plus public web search as of 2026-09-29; it is not a substitute for a live docket pull.

Caveat on scope: I could not locate any PTAB or Federal Circuit activity on this patent, and I am not asserting that such activity is impossible — only that it is absent from the ODP structured data and from the public sources I searched on 2026-09-29. Nothing above should be read as a validity opinion or as a guarantee that no later-filed proceeding exists.

I'll research the assignment record and ownership history for US 7050907.

Let me search for the specific USPTO assignment record details and Trimble's corporate history.

Let me look for the specific reel/frame and check for any later Trimble assignments.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 7050907 B1

Patent: US 7050907 B1 — Method and system for controlling an electronic device
App. No.: 10/392,995 · Filed: 2003-03-19 · Granted: 2006-05-23 · Priority: 2002-08-15
Status: Expired – Lifetime (anticipated expiration 2022-08-15)

Sourcing caveat (read first): I was able to retrieve the patent's Google Patents legal-events record and Trimble's SEC disclosures, but I could not pull the underlying USPTO Assignment Center record (reel/frame and correspondent) for this patent in this session. Where a reel/frame or correspondent existed in the source, it is quoted below; where it did not, I say so explicitly rather than guessing. Verify directly at the USPTO Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (legacy mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html — search by patent number 7050907).

Inventors

All three are listed on the issued patent as "Inventors" with the patent assigned to Trimble Navigation Limited, Sunnyvale, CA (73). The 2003-09-02 USPTO-recorded assignment confirms the three inventors are the assignors — i.e., employee invention assignment to Trimble, not a third-party purchase.

Pattern notes (evidence-based only):

• No evidence of inventor flight. Janky and Workman reappear as named inventors on the very next-generation Trimble family members — US 7313476 B2 (Nichols, Janky, Workman) and the corresponding PCT WO 2006/071271 (Applicant: Trimble Navigation Limited). So at least two of the three were still at Trimble in 2004–2005, well past the 12-month post-filing window. This argues against the "all inventors departed before the fire-sale" tell.
• Family is unusually deep and self-referential. This patent is a CIP of App. 10/222,532 (now US 6801853, "Portable Motion-Activated Position Reporting Device," Workman), and it in turn spawned US 7453355, US 7415355, US 7627427, US 7783423, US 7742874, US 8032300, plus WO 2004/083888 and EP 1608993 B1. That is a big, still-coherent portfolio around a single platform — consistent with a corporate R&D program, not a licensing vehicle.
• Text discrepancy to flag, not correct: the specification's RELATED APPLICATIONS paragraph cites the parent as "U.S. Pat. No. 6,401,853." Google Patents and the sibling application US 2005/0246098 both identify the parent as US 6,801,853 (issued Oct. 5, 2004). The "6,401,853" string appears to be a typographical error in the patent text; I note it because it affects family-chain reconstruction from the face of the document.

Original assignee

Trimble Navigation Limited (Sunnyvale, CA), a California corporation — the §73 assignee on the issued patent and the assignee on the sole recorded assignment.

• Business: GPS/GNSS and positioning. At the relevant time Trimble was (and is) a diversified positioning-technology company whose product lines included fleet/vehicle tracking and asset-management hardware and software — the commercial space this patent family sits in.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Not established with high confidence from the sources reviewed here. Trimble's 10-Q/10-K describe representative products as "integrated systems that track fleets of vehicles and workers" — the general field of the claims — but I did not locate a specific Trimble SKU tied to these claims. Treat "shipped product embodying the claims" as unconfirmed, not as disproven.
• Current status: Operating. On 2016-10-01 Trimble Navigation Limited was renamed Trimble Inc. and reincorporated from California to Delaware (merger of Trimble California into Trimble Delaware; Delaware charter filed 2016-08-10; 8-K/press release dated 2016-10-03). Trimble Inc. trades on NASDAQ (TRMB) and remains headquartered in Sunnyvale. This explains why Google Patents shows the current assignee as "Trimble Inc" while the issued patent and the recorded assignment say "Trimble Navigation Limited."

Assignment timeline

This patent has essentially no post-issuance assignment chain. One assignment is recorded, and it is the original inventor→company assignment. Here is everything I can substantiate:

• Executed date not retrieved / recorded 2003-09-02 — Reel/Frame not retrieved from source (Google Patents legal events lists the assignment by date and assignors but the retrieved text carries no reel/frame; the USPTO Assignment Center record should be pulled directly for the reel/frame)

  • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignors' Interest)
  • Assignor: WORKMAN, DENNIS; JANKY, GREGORY T.; BERGSTROM, AMI (all three inventors)
  • Assignee: TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED (Sunnyvale, California)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved — cannot be reported without the Assignment Center record. (For context only, and not evidence of the assignment correspondent: the related PCT WO 2006/071271 lists the agent of record as Mavis S. Gallenson, Ladas & Parry LLP, 5670 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2100, Los Angeles, CA 90036. Do not treat that as the correspondent on this reel until confirmed.)
  • Context: Ordinary employee invention assignment — the founding link, executed contemporaneously with filing, not an acquisition.

• 2016-10-01 — Corporate name change / reincorporation (Trimble Navigation Limited → Trimble Inc., CA → DE), established by SEC Form 8-K and the Delaware certificate of incorporation.

  • Whether this was recorded per-patent at the USPTO is unverified. Google Patents' legal-events feed for US 7050907 shows no post-2003 assignment entry, which means the name change either was recorded at the portfolio level in a single bulk filing not reflected in this patent's event feed, or was not recorded at all. I am not going to invent a reel/frame for it. Flag for manual check.
  • Context: Change of name / internal reorg only — no change in beneficial ownership.

There is no record — in any source reviewed — of a sale, transfer, security interest, license, merger or release involving this patent. That is the finding: the original corporate assignee family (Trimble) still owns it.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7050907
    2002 : Parent application filed Aug 15
    2003 : Application filed Mar 19
         : Inventors assign to Trimble Navigation Limited
    2006 : Patent US 7050907 B1 issues May 23
    2016 : Trimble Navigation Limited becomes Trimble Inc
    2022 : Patent expires Aug 15

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No assignment to any entity with an IP / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures suffix exists in the record. The only assignee ever recorded on this patent is Trimble Navigation Limited. Nothing to cite because nothing exists.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither Trimble (original and only assignee) nor any successor appears on the standard NPE rosters (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). No assignment exists that could place such an entity in the chain.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present / not assessable. With exactly one recorded link (2003-09-02), the recurrence test cannot fire by construction — a single appearance is not a finding even if the correspondent were known, and the correspondent is not in the retrieved record. Unclear only because unretrievable, not because a suspicious name appeared.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Zero chained LLC-to-LLC transfers; the patent has never left Trimble. The related family members (US 7313476, US 7453355, US 7415355, US 7627427, US 7783423, US 7742874, US 8032300) all issue from the same 2002–2003 Trimble priority stack, which is a normal continuation practice, not a cascade of assignees.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No transfer within, or at any point near, a litigation date — because there is no transfer and I found no infringement suit naming US 7050907. The patent appears never to have been asserted; it lapsed to expiry on 2022-08-15.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Trimble has not filed Chapter 7/11; its SEC filings through the period show a going concern executing acquisitions (e.g., three Q1-FY2017 acquisitions for $98.7M) and divestitures (Omega Group, Advanced Public Safety in 2016), i.e., routine portfolio management, not distress liquidation of patents.

7. Privateering — not present. No operating-company-to-NPE transfer of any kind is recorded for this patent, so the privateering pattern cannot be present.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents or OIN. Absence of a defensive aggregator here is not the inverse (neutralization) signal either — the patent simply never left its operating-company owner.

Verdict

Insufficient data — specifically, only the original assignment is recorded.

Justification: the one and only assignment of record is the 2003-09-02 inventor→Trimble Navigation Limited filing (assignors Workman, Janky, Bergstrom), which is a routine employee invention assignment; there is no subsequent sale, security interest, or transfer anywhere in the record, and the 2016 change of name to Trimble Inc. is a corporate reincorporation per Trimble's Form 8-K and Delaware charter, not a disposition. Because the chain terminates at the original, still-operating assignee family with a single recorded link, the rubric's "Insufficient data (no records, or only the original assignment)" is the correct call — and, read affirmatively, it is the clean outcome: no NPE or troll-pattern activity whatsoever on this patent. The one open item to close by hand is the unrecovered reel/frame and correspondent on the 2003 assignment (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/), plus confirmation of whether the 2016 name change was recorded at the portfolio level.

I'll research this systematically. Let me search for the patent and its cited prior art.

Let me get the specific "Patent Citations" (references cited by the '907 patent) and the cited-by list.

Prior Art Cited by US Patent 7,050,907 (US7050907B1)

Scope and sourcing caveat

US 7,050,907 ("Method and system for controlling an electronic device"; Trimble Navigation Ltd.; filed 2003-03-19; granted 2006-05-23; priority 2002-08-15 via Ser. No. 10/222,532) does not print a dense front-page "References Cited" list; the prior-art discussion is embedded in the specification. Per my step limits I could retrieve the specification's own identifications and the cited patents' bibliographic data, but I could not pull the USPTO/Google Patents front-page citation list in this session. So the list below is drawn from the '907 specification text (authoritative source provided) plus verification searches on each cited patent. I did not find examiner-cited references beyond these.

One more caveat: the patent body's text mixes reference numerals (e.g., it references "wireless communications device 103," "cellular telephone 105," and "computer 106," which collide with numeral 105 = data storage device and 106 = motion detector in FIG. 1). I read these literally and do not correct them.

Cited references (prior art) with § 102 mapping

1. U.S. Pat. No. 5,751,245 — "Vehicle Route and Schedule Exception Reporting System"

• Inventors: James M. Janky, Eric A. Klein, John F. Schipper. Assignee: Trimble Navigation Ltd. Filed Mar. 7, 1996; granted May 12, 1998 (continuation of Ser. No. 08/218,118, filed Mar. 25, 1994, abandoned).
• Description: On-board apparatus for a mobile shipping vehicle stores a predetermined route/schedule, compares the vehicle's GPS (or Loran-C) location to the predetermined location for the corresponding time, and communicates to a central station when the deviation exceeds a threshold; the central station raises an alarm/display on a route exception. This is the '907 patent's own stated example of a geo-fencing system.
• § 102 relevance: Strongest cited reference for the geo-fence/comparison/command concept in claim 1 (comparing a determined geographic location with a pre-defined zone and acting on the comparison) and its reporting aspects under claims 6, 8, 10. However, it does not disclose the motion-detecting component that triggers position determination, so it would not anticipate claim 1 as a whole on the "detecting motion … using an initiating device" and "in response to said detecting motion" elements. It is better characterized as background/motivation art, potentially combinable under § 103 rather than a standalone § 102 anticipation.
• Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5751245](/patent/US5751245) ; https://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat5751245.html ; https://uspto.report/patent/grant/5,751,245

2. U.S. Pat. No. 6,289,041 — "Fast Acquisition, High Sensitivity GPS Receiver"

• Inventor: Norman F. Krasner. Assignee: SnapTrack, Inc. (San Jose, CA). Priority Feb. 11, 1997 (provisional 60/037,904); granted Sep. 11, 2001.
• Description: Matched-filter GPS acquisition that accumulates a current matched-filter result with a prior sampled result to improve sensitivity/acquisition speed; cited by the '907 patent for the concept of accumulating previously sampled GPS signals to aid acquisition in obscured/low-SNR environments.
• § 102 relevance: Pertains to the position determining element. Potentially relevant to claims 2–3 (satellite/terrestrial position determining) and the sensitivity rationale behind storing previously sampled signals, but it does not disclose motion-triggered position determination, geo-fence comparison, or command generation, so it does not anticipate claim 1.
• Sources: https://patents.justia.com/patent/6289041 ; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/41/b1/1b/99beb106638699/EP2293105A3.pdf ; https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/WO-0010030-A1

3. U.S. Pat. No. 6,131,067 — "Client-Server Based Remote Locator Device"

• Inventors: Richard Girerd and Norman Krasner. Assignee: SnapTrack, Inc.
• Description: A remote device sends GPS data (or unprocessed satellite signals) to a server that derives the remote device's location and transmits it to a client for display; cited in the '907 patent as a server-aided (E911 Phase 2) location solution.
• § 102 relevance: Relates to distributed/aided position determination — relevant to the "processing of data to determine geographic location may be performed by processor 101 or in conjunction with a remotely located server" disclosure and to claims 2–3, 6–9. Does not disclose the motion-detection trigger or command generation; no anticipation of claim 1.
• Source: cited in the '907 specification; see also the SnapTrack client-server architecture described at https://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/services/911-services/enhanced911/archives/snaptrack.pdf

4. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/159,478 — "Position Location Using Global Positioning Signals Augmented by Broadcast Television Signals"

• Inventors: Matthew Rabinowitz and James Spilker. Assignee: Rosum Corporation (Redwood City, CA). Filed May 31, 2002.
• Description: Uses broadcast television signals together with GPS to determine a user terminal's position.
• § 102 relevance: Terrestrial-based position determining — potentially relevant to claim 3 ("terrestrial-base position determining system"). Not anticipatory of claim 1 (no motion trigger, no geo-fence command).
• Source: cited in the '907 specification.

5. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/054,302 — "Position Location Using Broadcast Analog Television Signals"

• Inventors: Matthew Rabinowitz and James Spilker. Assignee: Rosum Corporation. Filed Jan. 22, 2002.
• Description: Uses multiple analog television transmitters as known reference points for location.
• § 102 relevance: Same as above — bears on claim 3; not anticipatory of claim 1.
• Source: cited in the '907 specification.

6. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/932,010 — "Position Location Using Terrestrial Digital Video Broadcast Television Signals"

• Filed Aug. 17, 2001 (inventors/assignee per Rosum applications; inventor attribution not stated in the '907 text for this filing).
• Description: Uses digital television broadcast signals as reference points for position location.
• § 102 relevance: Terrestrial positioning art relevant to claim 3; not anticipatory of claim 1.
• Source: cited in the '907 specification.

7. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/054,262 — "Time-gated Delay Lock Loop Tracking of Digital Television Signals"

• Inventors: Matthew Rabinowitz and James Spilker. Assignee: Rosum Corporation. Filed Jan. 22, 2002.
• Description: Tracking/receiver method for digital television signals used in terrestrial position location.
• § 102 relevance: Receiver/tracking background for terrestrial positioning; bears on claim 3 only; not anticipatory.
• Source: cited in the '907 specification.

8. Parent application: U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/222,532 — "A Portable Motion-Activated Position Reporting Device" (Dennis Workman)

• Filed Aug. 15, 2002; the '907 patent's priority document (continuation-in-part parent) and incorporated by reference.
• Description: Portable motion-activated position reporting device — the shared disclosure underlying both the parent and the '907 claims.
• § 102 relevance: As the priority/incorporation-by-reference parent (not "prior art" against the '907 patent's own claims in the § 102 sense for subject matter carried over, but potentially § 102 prior art for new matter added in the CIP). Worth noting for priority/§ 112 analysis rather than anticipation.
• ⚠️ Discrepancy flag (per instruction to flag contradictions): The '907 specification text states the parent issued as "U.S. Pat. No. 6,401,853." The Google Patents family record for US7050907B1 shows the priority application Ser. No. 10/222,532 issuing as US6801853B2 ("external-priority patent/US6801853B2/en"). I am reporting both literally rather than auto-correcting; the two numbers conflict and this should be resolved against the USPTO file wrapper before relying on it.

Overall § 102 assessment

• No single cited reference appears to anticipate claim 1 as issued. Claim 1 requires the combination of (a) an initiating device disposed within the electronic device with a controller, position determining component, and motion detecting component; (b) determining geographic location in response to the detecting motion; (c) comparing that location with a pre-defined zone; and (d) generating a command for controlling the electronic device based on the comparison. The motion-trigger architecture is the point the specification itself stresses as the non-obvious/novel contribution (the spec expressly argues it was "considered redundant to incorporate a motion-detecting component into a device which already had an implied function of detecting motion").
• US 5,751,245 is the closest cited reference on the geo-fence/compare-and-report concept (claim 1 elements c–d and claims 6–10) but lacks the motion-trigger and in-device control-command elements.
• US 6,289,041 and US 6,131,067 are GPS receiver/aided-location art bearing on the position-determining element (claims 2–3, 6–9).
• The four Rosum applications (10/159,478; 10/054,302; 09/932,010; 10/054,262) are terrestrial-positioning art relevant to claim 3.
• These references read together support at most a § 103 rationale for the position-determining and geo-fence/messaging aspects; they do not singly anticipate the full motion-triggered control combination of claim 1.

Recommended verification (could not complete here)

1. USPTO PatentCenter / Google Patents "References Cited" front-page list for US7050907B1, to capture any examiner-cited U.S. patent documents not discussed in the specification body.
2. Espacenet / Global Dossier for US10/392,995, to pull the IDS and PTO-892 forms.
3. USPTO PTAB (P-TACTS) — consistent with the earlier litigation section, no IPR/PGR/CBM naming the '907 patent was surfaced.

I'll ground this analysis by pulling the prior-art references cited on the patent's own record and related sources before writing the § 103 analysis.

Good grounding. Let me pull the patent's own "References Cited" (examiner/patent citations) to see what third-party prior art sits on the record, and check for motion-activated GPS power-management art.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 7,050,907 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This section builds on the prior "Litigation summary." It analyzes the claims of US7050907B1 against the prior art on the patent's own record. It does not repeat the litigation findings.

A. Evidentiary scope and caveats (read first)

Caveats that materially affect the analysis:

1. Only claims 1–10 are available to me. The provided text truncates mid-claim 10, and claims 11–35 are not in the record I was given. Any conclusion below is limited to claims 1–10 and may not hold for the un-supplied dependent claims.
2. "Prior Art section of this page." The machine-readable References Cited list was not present in the retrieved page body. I therefore rely on the prior-art references cited in the patent's own description (which is what the page surfaces): U.S. 5,751,245 (Janky et al.); U.S. 6,289,041 (Krasner); U.S. 6,131,067 (Girerd & Krasner); the four Rosum applications; and the CIP parent (Workman). I flag where the evidentiary chain is weak.
3. Per your strict rule, I do not auto-correct identifiers. There is an internal contradiction I must flag rather than reconcile: the patent body states the parent issued as "U.S. Pat. No. 6,401,853", while the Google Patents family record for the parent (US 10/222,532) shows US6801853B2. I treat the literal body text ("6,401,853") as authoritative for the patent's own text and note the family record says otherwise. Likewise I keep the patent's literal capitalization/typography (e.g., "Position determining system 110," "an motion detecting component").
4. The parent is not § 102 prior art against its own CIP. US 10/222,532 (Workman) is the priority application and shares inventorship/ownership with the '907. It cannot be used to anticipate or render obvious the '907 claims. This is the single biggest weakness of any obviousness case and is discussed in § D.

B. Person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

A POSITA at the Aug. 15, 2002 critical date would be a person with a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field and 2–3 years of experience in the design of position-reporting, navigation, or wireless telematics devices — including GPS/GNSS receivers, geo-fencing/exception-reporting software, motion sensors (accelerometers, tilt/rotation sensors), and cellular/SMS communications. This is the level against which the references below are read.

C. Claim 1 — limitation-by-limitation mapping

Claim 1 (verbatim, as provided):

A method for controlling an electronic device comprising: detecting motion of said electronic device using an initiating device disposed within said electronic device, said initiating device comprising: a controller; a position determining component coupled with said controller; and a motion detecting component coupled with said controller; determining a geographic location of said electronic device in response to said detecting motion; comparing said geographic location with a pre-defined zone; and generating a command for controlling said electronic device in response to said comparing.

I break claim 1 into five limitations (1.1–1.5) and map two principal combinations.

The two primary references

Ref. A — U.S. Pat. No. 5,751,245 (Janky, Klein & Schipper), "Vehicle Route and Schedule Exception Reporting System" (filed 1996-03-07; issued 1998-05-12; Trimble Navigation). This is the geo-fencing reference the '907 patent itself incorporates by reference (col. describing "An example of a geo-fencing system is described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,751,245 …"). Its claim 1 recites: locating means for determining a geographical location Si; storage means for storing a set of predetermined geographical locations Si′; a comparator and control means; and communication means for communicating the present location … to the central station when the distance, Dp, exceeds the threshold difference of distance, with the central station equipped with "an alarm and display means for notifying personnel … of the occurrence of a route location exception." (See RPX/Insight and the US5751245 specification.)

Ref. B — U.S. Pat. No. 6,801,853 B2 (Workman), "Portable Motion-Activated Position Reporting Device" — the CIP parent (App. 10/222,532; priority 2002-08-15). As shown in its foreign family member CN1682255A (claims 1–9) and the US6801853 specification, it discloses: a controller 201 coupled with a power source, a position determining component 206, a wireless communications component 203, and an initiating component 209; the initiating component detects motion … and generates a signal to controller 201 indicating the motion; and "the controller, in response to the signal, activates the position reporting device." (E.g., US6801853; CN1682255A cls. 1, 5–8.)

Combination 1 (primary): Janky '245 + Workman '853

Combination 2 (fallback for limitation 1.5): add a device-side control reference

Janky '245's output is a communication to a central station and an alarm there — not necessarily a command controlling the tracked device itself, which is what claim 1.5 literally requires ("command for controlling said electronic device"). To close that gap, a third reference is needed that teaches the device itself being controlled as a function of its position. Candidate art surfaced in my searches:

• U.S. Pat. No. 5,751,246 (Hertel), "Accountability and theft protection via the global positioning system" (issued 1998-05-12) — a GPS receiver whose control logic unit determines whether its location is outside permitted boundaries configured into an internal database, and which communicates with a remote interrogator that communicates back to the control logic unit instructions regarding determination and reporting — i.e., position-based control of the device's own operation. ⚠️ I could verify only the abstract-level disclosure from a search snippet; I did not retrieve the full '246 specification, so treat this as a candidate, not a settled mapping.

If 1.5 is met by Hertel-type art (position-based control of the device's own operation), the Janky '245 + Workman '853 + Hertel '246 triple reads on every limitation of claim 1.

D. Motivation to combine (the KSR/Graham prong)

Using the Graham v. John Deere factors as refined by KSR Int'l v. Teleflex (2007):

1. Same field of endeavor / common assignee. All three references are position-reporting/asset-tracking art. Janky '245 and Workman '853 are both Trimble Navigation patents — the '907's own assignee. Under pre-AIA § 103(c), common ownership disqualifies only § 102(e)/(f)/(g) art; § 102(b) art (Janky '245, issued 1998) remains fully combinable regardless of ownership. Same-company, same-field references are the paradigm of a combinable pair.

2. Complementary, non-overlapping goals. Workman '853 solves a power/standby problem (position determination only on motion). Janky '245 solves an exception-detection problem (act when the tracked object departs a defined route/zone). A POSITA seeking a low-power tracker that also detects and acts on zone departure would predictably bolt the zone-comparator of Janky '245 onto the motion-activated locator of Workman '853 — "simply combining or substituting certain elements … to yield predictable results" (KSR).

3. The patent's own admissions supply the missing "known-option" links. The '907 specification concedes that (a) geo-fencing was a known, available technique ("An example of a geo-fencing system is described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,751,245") and (b) in prior position reporting "determining whether the device was moving or stationary depended upon determining and comparing successive position fixes." The admission that motion inference-by-position-fix was the existing approach makes the substitution of a dedicated motion sensor a predictable, efficiency-driven design choice.

4. Market demand / design incentive (KSR factor). The '907 background recites the very motivation a POSITA would have had: airlines, theaters, hospitals, and the Pentagon restricting use of wireless devices; and theft of laptops/vehicles. A POSITA seeking to satisfy those needs would look to a motion-activated locator + geo-fence to auto-disable a phone in a restricted zone — the exact stated use case.

Directional caution (§ D counter-point): the patent argues motion detection is "seemingly counter-intuitive or at least redundant" given successive-fix motion inference. Under KSR, that argument is weak where the combination yields a predictable benefit (power savings during long stationary periods), and it cuts both ways — the patent concedes the redundancy, which frames the motion sensor as a known design option, not an unforeseen discovery.

The parent problem (must be stated plainly). The motion-activated half of the combination is disclosed by the CIP parent (Workman '853), which is not prior art to its own child. A fully defensible § 103 rejection therefore needs an independent, third-party motion-activated GPS reference in place of Workman '853. I could not verify such a reference in this session (search budget exhausted). This is the principal evidentiary gap in the case below; absent third-party motion-activation art, a rejection built on Workman '853 would be vulnerable.

E. Dependent claims 2–10

Reading: claims 2–6 and 10 are the most exposed — they are met by strong, independent art (Janky '245 for terrestrial positioning; Girerd '067 for wireless position transmission; Krasner '041 for GPS acquisition/sensitivity). Claims 7–9 depend on the "fix / no-fix / no-motion" messaging cadence that appears in the Workman '853 family (CN1682255A cls. 6–8). Because that family is the CIP parent, those three claims rest on non-prior art and would need a third-party substitute for the messaging scheme to sustain an obviousness rejection.

F. Anticipated rebuttal and secondary considerations

• Teaching away / "counter-intuitive": The '907 asserts that combining a motion detector with a position-determining device was "counter-intuitive or at least redundant." Expect this to be the primary non-obviousness argument. Rebuttal: the specification's own words frame motion sensing as a known, power-saving option, and any "redundancy" is a matter of design choice, not an unexpected result (KSR; Graham).
• Unexpected results: None is claimed. The benefit (extended battery life by avoiding position fixes while stationary) is the predictable consequence of gating the receiver on a motion interrupt.
• Secondary considerations: I found no evidence of industry praise, licensing tied to these claims, long-felt-but-unmet need, or commercial success attributable to the '907 claims; the "Litigation summary" likewise found no enforcement. There is no nexus-bearing secondary evidence in the record I reviewed. (Trimble family members — US7453355, US7415355, US7627427, etc. — are continuations, not evidence of non-obviousness.)

G. Bottom line and confidence

Conclusion (claims 1–10):

• Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 are, on the record available to me, likely obvious over Janky '245 + [a motion-activated position reporter], optionally + Girerd '067 (wireless transmission) and + Hertel-type device-control art to satisfy limitation 1.5. The combination is supported by same-field references, common Trimble ownership (for the § 102(b) Janky '245 art), the patent's own admissions, and clear KSR-type design incentives.
• Claims 7–9 are met only by the CIP-parent family (Workman/CN1682255A) and the admitted prior art, which are not § 102 prior art to the '907 — so an obviousness rejection on these claims is not sustainable without a third-party reference disclosing the fix/no-fix/no-motion messaging cadence.
• The single decisive vulnerability in the case is limitation 1.2/1.3's motion-activated element: the art I could verify for it is the patent's own parent, which is disqualified. A viable § 103 rejection requires a third-party motion-activated GPS reference (e.g., a 1990s motion-sensor-wakeup tracking patent) that I was unable to confirm in this session.

Confidence:

• That Janky '245 discloses the geo-fence comparison + responsive output (claims 1.4–1.5, 2–3): high (claim 1 and abstract retrieved).
• That Workman '853 discloses the motion→position→report architecture (claims 1.1–1.3): high (parent text + family claims retrieved).
• That Girerd '067 and Krasner '041 supply wireless/positioning support (claims 6, 10): moderate–high.
• That the complete claim 1 is obvious: moderate — depends on substituting a third-party motion-activation reference for the disqualified parent and on closing limitation 1.5 with device-control art.
• Coverage of claims 11–35: unknown (not in record).

Recommended next steps to firm this up (could not be completed here): retrieve (i) the References Cited list from the US7050907 file wrapper / justia, (ii) an independent third-party motion-activated GPS reference pre-dating 2002, and (iii) the full text of US 5,751,246 (Hertel) to confirm the device-side control mapping for limitation 1.5.