US 7080037

I'll search for authoritative information on US 7,080,037, including any 2026 CAFC activity.

Let me check for litigation and any 2026 Federal Circuit activity specifically tied to this patent.

Let me try to pull the actual numbered independent claims of the '037 patent.

US 7,080,037 B2 — "Portable electronic authorization system and method"

Sources searched: Google Patents (US7080037B2), Justia Patents, USPTO PTAB filings (ptacts.uspto.gov), Unified Patents portal, and general web search for 2026 Federal Circuit activity. The authoritative full text you supplied is treated as controlling over any conflicting search result, per operating rules.

Bibliographic data (as listed; interpreted literally)

Assignment chain (per Google Patents reassignment records): Chameleon Network, Inc. → Zilos Networking LLC (2011-10-10) → Gula Consulting LLC (2016-01-20, by merger) → Intellectual Ventures Assets 150 LLC (2019-11-06) → Kioba Processing, LLC (2020-01-03).

Family/related filings (to disambiguate from similar numbers): the same 1999-09-28 priority family includes US 7,003,495 B1, US 7,340,439 B2, and publications US 2002/0099665 A1, US 2005/0044044 A1, US 2005/0060586 A1, US 2005/0050367 A1, US 2005/0108096 A1, US 2009/0222349 A1, and US 2010/0031043 A1.

Abstract / summary of the disclosure

The retrieved Google Patents text does not contain the verbatim "Abstract" paragraph; the page's "Definitions" section is a machine-generated digest of the specification's stated aspects rather than the literal abstract. I therefore paraphrase rather than quote: the patent describes replacing the paper and plastic contents of a wallet with a single hand-held "Pocket Vault" portable electronic authorization device plus a removable, programmable "Chameleon Card" (token). The device stores transaction information for multiple financial and non-financial media issued by unrelated issuers, authenticates the holder (e.g., fingerprint scan and/or PIN), and releases selected media information to a point-of-sale (POS) terminal, a simulated magnetic stripe on the token, or a bar code on the display. It also describes a network server, interface/docking stations, backup/recovery, remote voiding, and preference/advertising functionality. Flag: I could not confirm the exact abstract wording from the sources retrieved.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Because the verbatim granted claim set was not fully retrieved, the following is characterized from the patent's enumerated "aspects" (which correspond to its claim families). Treat wording as approximate, not literal claim text:

1. Portable authorization apparatus (multi-media). A housing containing a user authenticator (e.g., biometric/PIN), memory storing transaction information for at least first and second media, and an output that releases transaction information to a POS terminal only after the user is authenticated.
2. Corresponding method. Store transaction info for ≥2 media in a device; authenticate the user with the device; then transfer at least part of the info to a POS terminal.
3. Apparatus that releases an embedded ID code. Housing with memory and user authenticator; after authentication, the device releases an embedded identification code that lets a receiving device authenticate the device (not just the user).
4. Corresponding method for releasing the device's embedded ID code after user authentication.
5. Media-selection apparatus. Memory for ≥2 media, a user input to select a media, a display showing which media was selected, and an output to a POS terminal.
6. Corresponding method for selecting media and displaying the selection before transferring data.
7. Financial + non-financial media apparatus. Memory storing transaction info for at least one financial and one non-financial media, with an output to a POS terminal.
8. Corresponding method for storing and transferring financial and non-financial media.
9. Modular two-device system. A housing with memory, a releasably attached device, and configuring means to load media transaction info onto the removable device.
10. Detachable-token methods/systems. Configure a releasable second device with media info while attached, detach it, and use it in a transaction — including after user authentication.
11. Conditional/limited-content configuration. Selectively configure a device to hold media A but not B, and vice versa.
12. User add/remove of media. Enable the media holder to selectively add or remove transaction information for a media in the memory.
13. Alterable functional characteristics of a media by altering memory contents.
14. Split-security apparatus/method. A first media's information is released only after authentication; a second media's information is released without requiring authentication.
15. Finite-time machine-readable code. Attached devices configured so a code (e.g., simulated magnetic stripe) is generated only for a predetermined, finite time after detachment.
16. Simulated magnetic stripe apparatus/method. Portable substrate with power supply and controller that generates a simulated magnetic stripe (with an RC-based time limit).
17. Time-limited visual indication of a media after authentication.
18. Remote disable. A remote device can disable the portable device's ability to conduct POS transactions.
19. Remote backup of authorization info for ≥2 media in a memory remote from the device.
20. Server-mediated software-module access (claims numbered 15–27 in one retrieved excerpt). A method/system in which a user-interface (e.g., Web browser) communicates with a server over a first connection while the electronic device communicates securely with the server over a second connection, with substantive user-interface↔device traffic tunneled through the server; new information is loaded into the device's memory while both connections coexist, and the device later uses it. Flag: This excerpt is associated with the family's server/software-module aspects and I do not have high confidence it is verbatim from the granted '037 claim set rather than a related filing.

Post-grant / litigation notes found

• PTAB use of '037 as prior art ("Burger"): In IPR2022-01135 (challenging another patent, the '249 patent dealing with portable data carriers and authentication-quality information attached to a security-establishing operation), US 7,080,037 ("Burger") is relied on as a primary prior-art reference (e.g., "Burger, 12:6-16," "Burger, 55:29-35"). This shows '037 is cited as prior art against later patents — not that '037 itself was under review.
• Kioba-related PTAB matter: IPR2023-00147, Askeladden L.L.C. v. Kioba Processing LLC et al., filed 2022-11-02, institution decision 2023-05-17, final written decision 2024-03-25 (claims 8–23 challenged). I could not confirm from the retrieved data that this proceeding targets US 7,080,037 specifically.

2026 CAFC docket search — result: none found

I found no authoritative 2026 Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docket or opinion naming US 7,080,037. My searches of 2026 Federal Circuit commentary returned unrelated cases (e.g., Global Tubing LLC v. Tenaris Coiled Tubes LLC, Nos. 2023-1882/-1883, decided 2026-02-26; Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Kurin, Inc., No. 2024-2001, decided 2026-03-06). Contextual note: the '037 patent expired 2021-05-02, which makes new infringement appeals unlikely, though an IPR appeal remained theoretically possible. I cannot confirm any such appeal exists.

Uncertainty statement

• I do not have the verbatim granted claim set or the literal abstract of US 7,080,037; the claim overview above is derived from the specification's stated "aspects" and is paraphrased.
• I could not verify any specific 2026 CAFC activity for this patent number. If you need this confirmed against the actual docket, it should be checked directly in PACER/CM-ECF and the Federal Circuit's docket, which were not fully accessible in the results returned here.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 7080037 across patent litigation databases.

Let me search litigation databases for the assignee entities and the specific patent.

The Kioba/Kioba lawsuits found so far assert different patents. Let me search specifically for litigation asserting US 7,080,037.

Litigation Search Results: US Patent No. 7,080,037

Bottom line: I found no litigation specifically asserting US Patent No. 7,080,037.

I was unable to identify any district court case, ITC investigation, or PTAB proceeding in which US 7,080,037 is identified as a patent-in-suit or challenged patent. I want to be explicit and careful here, because there is a significant risk of a false positive in this particular technology space.

Why I am not reporting the cases that appeared in search results

The searches surfaced a large and active patent-assertion campaign by Kioba Processing LLC — which is, per the patent's own assignment record, the current assignee of US 7,080,037 (Chameleon Network Inc. → Zilos Networking LLC → Gula Consulting LLC → Intellectual Ventures Assets 150 LLC → Kioba Processing, LLC). It would be tempting to attribute those suits to the '037 patent. They do not assert it. The Kioba complaints I found assert a different patent family, specifically:

• US 6,917,902 ("System and method for processing monitoring data using data profiles")
• US 6,931,382 ("Payment instrument authorization technique")
• US 7,107,078 ("Method and system for processing and monitoring data using data profiles")
• US 8,442,915
• US 8,056,017 (real estate value map system)

Those are different patent numbers and different inventors (e.g., Laage for the '902 family), not the Burger/Cohen '037 patent. Per your instruction not to return results for similar or different numbers, I am flagging them only to explain why they are not responsive, and I am not listing them as litigation involving 7,080,037.

Examples of the Kioba cases that are NOT about the '037 patent (listed solely to demonstrate the distinction):

• Kioba Processing LLC v. Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00317 (E.D. Tex.) — consent judgment, dismissed with prejudice April 26, 2023
• Kioba Processing LLC v. Charles Schwab & Co., No. 6:22-cv-01075 (W.D. Tex.) — voluntary dismissal with prejudice
• Kioba Processing LLC v. Citibank, N.A., No. 6:23-cv-00787 (W.D. Tex.) — filed Nov. 17, 2023, closed Nov. 14, 2024
• Kioba Processing LLC v. BMO Bank N.A., No. 2:24-cv-10740 (C.D. Cal.) — filed Dec. 13, 2024

None of these complaints identify 7,080,037.

Why the absence is plausible (contextual note, not a finding of fact)

This is contextual background, not a statement about litigation: the patent's own record reflects a priority date of 1999-09-28, a filing date of 2001-10-01, a grant date of 2006-07-18, and expiration on 2021-05-02 ("Expired - Lifetime"). A patent that expired in May 2021 has been unavailable as an infringement cause of action for roughly five years now. That temporal profile is consistent with — though does not prove — the absence of any assertion against 7,080,037 in the sources I was able to reach.

Confidence, caveats, and recommended verification

I want to be candid about the limits of this answer:

1. I do not have high confidence in the negative finding. My searches did not return a clean, authoritative litigation docket for this specific patent number. Absence of results in these searches is not proof of absence of litigation.
2. Several of the databases I would normally rely on for a definitive answer were not cleanly retrievable in the searches (e.g., I could not extract a case list for this exact patent from the Unified Patents litigation portal or from the RPX/PTAB dockets).
3. Google Patents' own "litigation" listings for this document did not appear in the fetched text, so I cannot confirm or deny any listed matters there.

To obtain a definitive answer, I would recommend checking these sources directly for the literal string 7,080,037:

• The USPTO Patent Center / Patent Assignment record for application 09/968,628 (already reflected above), and the USPTO "Patent Litigation Docket" report
• Unified Patents litigation portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist)
• RPX Insight / RPX Empower litigation search for "7,080,037"
• Docket Alarm / Justia Dockets keyword search for the patent number
• PACER (for any pre-2006 or post-2006 dockets) and CourtListener/RECAP
• CAFC docket search for any appeal referencing the patent

If you can confirm the specific source you'd like me to treat as authoritative (or provide a link to a docket), I can re-run the search against it and report the case particulars (plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, status).

I'll start by searching for any PTAB proceedings on US 7,080,037, since the structured block indicates no AIA trials are indexed in ODP.

No PTAB results so far. Let me run more targeted searches, including litigation history and any CBM (covered business method) challenges, which were common for financial patents like this one.

The IPR2023-00146 hit relates to a different Kioba patent (the '792). Let me confirm whether the '037 itself was ever asserted or challenged.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings on file for US 7,080,037. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block — the canonical USPTO Open Data Portal list — shows no IPR, PGR, or CBM involving this patent, and my targeted web searches (PTAB petitions portal, Kioba/Chameleon party searches, CBM-era financial-patent challenges) surfaced nothing that names the '037. Bottom line for a defendant: the patent has never been tested at the Board. That means there is no claims-canceled precedent to cite, but it also means the entire claim set is untested and the validity defense is wide open — there is no § 315(e) estoppel, no adverse FWD, and no Board claim construction to be bound by.

⚠️ One naming trap to avoid. A search for "Kioba" + "IPR" returns IPR2023-00146, but that trial is on a different Kioba patent (referred to in the petition as the "'792 Patent"), not on the '037. The '037 (Chameleon Network lineage) is a distinct patent from the Kioba mobile-payment patents asserted in the bank campaign. Do not cite IPR2023-00146 as if it disposed of the '037 — it did not. (IPR2023-00146 petition, USPTO PTAB)

Proceedings — none to report

There are no proceeding entries to list. I found no IPR, no PGR, and no CBM naming US 7,080,037. I did not invent any proceeding numbers, and I could not confirm a Federal Circuit appeal of any PTAB decision on this patent (there is nothing to appeal).

Two honest caveats on verification:

• I could not independently confirm whether the '037 itself was ever asserted in district court. Kioba Processing LLC (the current assignee) ran a large 2020-2024 assertion campaign against banks — Zions, Capital One, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Discover, American Express, TD Bank, Frost Bank, Charles Schwab, Prosperity, Texas Capital, Citibank, BMO — but the patents publicly identified in those suits were in the '902 / '382 / '078 / '915 / '017 family, not the '037. Whether the '037 was ever pleaded is a fact I could not verify from the sources retrieved; treat it as unknown, not as "never asserted."
• Some cases in that campaign terminated early by stipulation/consent judgment (e.g., Charles Schwab, Texas Capital), and early resolutions like that can mask an IPR that was filed and then terminated. The ODP block is the controlling record, and it is silent — but if you are defending, pull the full docket for the specific case you're in rather than relying on portfolio-level reporting.

Strategic summary

Claim status: everything is UNTESTED. Because no AIA trial ever ran, no claim of US 7,080,037 has been canceled and none has been confirmed patentable by the Board. The entire claim set — including the independent apparatus and method claims covering the "Pocket Vault"/Chameleon Card concepts (user authentication + stored transaction information for multiple media + selective release to a POS terminal) — remains live and unadjudicated. There is no FWD to quote and no canceled claim to point at.

Estoppel landscape: clean slate. With no proceeding, § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not attach to anyone. A defendant today can raise any prior-art ground — § 102 or § 103 — including art already before the examiner, without being blocked by a prior petitioner's estoppel. Conversely, there is no prior Board construction that helps you either; you get to litigate validity on a fresh record, but the patent's 1999-09-28 priority date means the prior-art universe is 1990s-era electronic wallet and smart-card references (e.g., the kind of art cited on the face of the '037 and its siblings) — that's where an invalidity case would have to be built. Note that the patent expired for failure to maintain / at end of term (Google's legal-status entry shows "Expired – Lifetime, expires 2021-05-02"), which does not erase liability for past damages but sharply limits forward-looking injunctive leverage.

Pattern signals: none internal to this patent. No serial petitioner, no repeat challenger, no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or similar) visible on the '037. The ownership chain is a classic monetization path — Chameleon Network → Zilos Networking → Gula Consulting → Intellectual Ventures Assets 150 → Kioba Processing LLC (2020-01-03) — and Kioba is an active NPE asserting a sibling portfolio. That makes the '037 an obvious candidate for a future IPR if it is ever asserted; the absence of one today is a timing artifact, not proof the patent is strong.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing an assertion of the '037:

1. Do not assume the troll has PTAB history. It does not. There is no canceled claim to cite and no FWD to quote — so your motion-to-stay or § 101/§ 112 arguments must stand on their own merits, not on prior Board outcomes.
2. Check the plaintiff's real patent map before drafting. Confirm which claims and which patent number your demand letter actually cites. If the letter references the bank-litigation patents (the '902/'382/'078/'915/'017 family), the analysis changes entirely — one of those (the '792 in IPR2023-00146) has been at the Board. If it cites the '037, you are on fresh ground.
3. Because the patent is expired (2021-05-02), push on damages-only exposure and consider whether the asserted claims even cover an accused past act — an expired-patent assertion removes permanent-injunction pressure and narrows the realistic case to back damages.
4. IPR remains fully available as a defensive tool: no § 315(b) one-year clock has started against any particular petitioner unless that petitioner was served with a complaint on the '037 more than one year ago. Build the petition around 1990s electronic-wallet / multi-application smart-card art and the '037's own prosecution history.
5. If litigation status is unclear, pull the live docket. My verification of whether the '037 was ever asserted is incomplete; the answer materially affects your § 315(b) timing and your ability to cite a co-pending parallel proceeding.

If there is genuinely no activity anywhere: treat the absence as a neutral-to-cautionary signal. Well-asserted patents in a live NPE campaign eventually attract IPRs; a patent that has not drawn a petition may simply not yet have been asserted — or may be being held in reserve. Either way, the defensive posture is: no Board precedent binds you, no claim is canceled, and your invalidity case is whatever you can build from scratch.

Limitations: I reached the search-step cap before exhausting every query. Findings above rest on the structured ODP block (authoritative: zero proceedings) plus the public sources cited. No proceeding number, judge panel, FWD, or appeal has been stated that I could not ground in a retrieved source — because none exists.

I'll research the assignment record and NPE signals for US 7,080,037 before writing the analysis.

Key finding: Kioba Processing is an IPInvestments Group NPE, not merely an IV shell. Let me dig for the specific assignment records and any assertion of '037 itself.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 7,080,037 B2

Scope note up front: The highest-value fields you asked for — USPTO reel/frame numbers and the correspondent of record (the filing attorney/firm) — were not retrievable in the searches I was able to complete. I am not able to fabricate them. Everything below is either (a) drawn from the authoritative Google Patents legal-events listing in the supplied patent text, or (b) sourced from RPX/Unified Patents/public docket reporting, with gaps flagged explicitly. Reel/frame and correspondent must be pulled directly from Assignment Center to complete this report — see "Verification" at the end.

Inventors

Pattern notes:

• Only two named inventors, both presumably principals of the assignee startup — the classic single-startup-team profile, not a corporate research-lab roster.
• No evidence of the "inventors depart within 12 months" fire-sale tell. The inventor→company assignment was recorded 2002-03-08, roughly five months after the 2001-10-01 filing, which is normal course. The first third-party transfer (to Zilos Networking LLC) did not occur until 2011-10-10 — about a decade later. So the timeline here is slow decay of a failed startup, not an inventor exodus.
• Flag vs. prior section: the earlier summary listed the inventor as "Rob Cohen"; the 2002 assignment record names "Robert M. Cohen." These are almost certainly the same person, but per operating rules I am reporting both spellings literally rather than auto-correcting.

Original assignee

Chameleon Network, Inc. (styled "CHAMELEON NETWORK, INC." in the 2002 assignment record). Original assignee of record on the issued patent.

• Line of business: Developer of the "Pocket Vault" portable electronic authorization device and the programmable "Chameleon Card" token described in the specification — i.e., a multi-media electronic wallet / magnetic-stripe-simulation card company. The patent is classified in G06Q20/341 (active cards with own processing means), G06Q20/3674 (electronic purses/wallets with authentication), and G07F7/1008 (active credit cards with means to personalise their use).
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Unverified. I found no confirmation of commercial shipment. The device appears to have remained a development/demonstration-stage product (the specification itself describes it prospectively, e.g., "the system may enable individuals to replace nearly all of the paper and plastic contents of their wallets"). The patent's own text at FIGS. 26A–26P implies physical prototypes existed, but prototype ≠ commercial product. Treat "shipped a product" as unknown, leaning no.
• Current status: Not established from the sources retrieved. No bankruptcy proceeding was surfaced. What is documented is that the company stopped holding its own patents: it assigned the portfolio out to Zilos Networking LLC on 2011-10-10. A non-operating assignor that divests its entire patent estate and never appears again in the chain is consistent with dissolution or dormancy, but I cannot state that as fact.

Assignment timeline

Reel/Frame values were not obtained. I searched for them and could not retrieve them; the USPTO Assignment Center records exist (Google Patents reflects them as "reassignment" legal events), but the reel/frame strings were not returned. I am listing the entries without invented reel/frame numbers and marking where they belong. Do not treat any reel/frame as verified — there are none stated here.

1. 2002-03-08 (executed ~2001–2002) / recorded 2002-03-08 — Reel/Frame not retrieved

   • Conveyance: Assignment
   • Assignor: Todd O. Burger; Robert M. Cohen
   • Assignee: Chameleon Network, Inc.
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: Founders' routine assignment of the invention to their startup employer.

2. 2011-10-10 (executed ~2011) / recorded 2011-10-10 — Reel/Frame not retrieved

   • Conveyance: Assignment
   • Assignor: Chameleon Network Inc.
   • Assignee: Zilos Networking Limited Liability Company
   • Correspondent: not retrieved — this is the single most important correspondent to capture; if one attorney/firm handled the 2011, 2016, 2019 and 2020 recordings, that is your repeat-player evidence.
   • Context: First transfer out of the operating company — the portfolio leaves Chameleon Network, which never appears again.

3. 2016-01-20 (executed ~2015–2016) / recorded 2016-01-20 — Reel/Frame not retrieved

   • Conveyance: Merger (Google Patents explicitly logs "MERGER (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
   • Assignor: Zilos Networking Limited Liability Company
   • Assignee: Gula Consulting Limited Liability Company
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: Internal reorganisation — a merger, not an arm's-length sale; no new consideration indicated. Neither "Zilos Networking" nor "Gula Consulting" is a name you find on a product.

4. 2019-11-06 (executed ~2019) / recorded 2019-11-06 — Reel/Frame not retrieved

   • Conveyance: Assignment
   • Assignor: Gula Consulting Limited Liability Company
   • Assignee: Intellectual Ventures Assets 150 LLC
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: Transfer into an Intellectual Ventures asset-holding entity — the classic IV divestiture/warehouse vehicle. This is a transfer-to-asserter step, not an operating acquisition.

5. 2020-01-03 (executed ~2019–2020) / recorded 2020-01-03 — Reel/Frame not retrieved

   • Conveyance: Assignment
   • Assignor: Intellectual Ventures Assets 150 LLC
   • Assignee: Kioba Processing, LLC
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: Transfer-to-asserter. Kioba Processing is publicly identified by RPX and Unified Patents as an NPE affiliated with IPInvestments Group LLC (Atlanta, Georgia monetization firm). IV Assets 150 → Kioba in 58 days, immediately ahead of Kioba's first litigation campaign (AmEx, 2020-07-06).

Ownership chain (as recorded):
Chameleon Network, Inc. → Zilos Networking LLC (2011) → Gula Consulting LLC (2016, merger) → Intellectual Ventures Assets 150 LLC (2019) → Kioba Processing, LLC (2020, current)

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7080037
    1999 : Priority date claimed
    2001 : Filed by Chameleon Network Inc
    2002 : Inventors assign to Chameleon Network
    2006 : Patent issued to Chameleon Network
    2011 : Assigned to Zilos Networking LLC
    2016 : Merged into Gula Consulting LLC
    2019 : Assigned to IV Assets 150 LLC
    2020 : Assigned to Kioba Processing LLC
         : Kioba assertion campaign begins
    2021 : Patent reaches adjusted expiration

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

The chain runs Chameleon Network, Inc. → Zilos Networking LLC (2011-10-10) → Gula Consulting LLC (2016-01-20, by merger) → Intellectual Ventures Assets 150 LLC (2019-11-06) → Kioba Processing, LLC (2020-01-03), terminating at a current assignee that RPX and Unified Patents independently identify as a non-practicing assertion entity affiliated with IPInvestments Group LLC. That gives two strong signals outright — known asserter in the chain (both IV and Kioba) and cascading transfers (IV Assets 150 → Kioba in 58 days, ahead of Kioba's July 2020 campaign) — plus a shell-entity transfer out of the operating company. The one caveat cutting against a per-patent read: I found no confirmation that '037 itself was ever asserted, and its 2021-05-02 expiration made it a poor litigation asset; so the verdict describes the ownership chain, not proof that this specific patent was enforced.

No reel/frame numbers or correspondent names are stated anywhere in this report because I could not retrieve them — they were not fabricated.

Verification

• USPTO Assignment Center (search "7080037" or app. 09/968,628): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• Legacy Assignment Search (same underlying records): https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events for the chain: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7080037B2](/patent/US7080037B2)/en
• Unified Patents portal (Kioba as NPE): https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-20020099665-A1 and https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2020/10/1/kioba-processing-patent-challenged-as-likely-invalid
• RPX on Kioba / IPInvestments Group: https://www.rpxcorp.com/data-byte/in-q3-2020-a-variety-of-npes-asserted-patents-divested-from-intellectual-ventures/ and https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txndce-[334588](/patent/334588)-kioba-processing-v-american-express-company

To finish this report, pull from Assignment Center: (i) the reel/frame for each of the five recordings above; (ii) the correspondent of record on each — paying special attention to whether one firm handled the 2019-11-06 and 2020-01-03 recordings (the IV-to-Kioba hop); and (iii) the execution dates, which often precede the recording dates by weeks or months and can sharpen the pre-litigation-transfer analysis.

I'll research the prior-art citations on the face of US 7,080,037 using USPTO and related authoritative sources.

Let me retrieve the complete cited-references list and full front-page details for US 7,080,037.

Let me pull the front page of US 7,080,037 from a patent full-text host to get the "References Cited" section.

I've hit my search-step limit, so I'll report what I could and could not verify, and build the prior-art analysis on that basis.

Prior-Art Analysis for US 7,080,037 B2

1. Bottom line

• The patent number resolves as intended. US 7,080,037 is Portable electronic authorization system and method, Chameleon Network Inc. (now Kioba Processing LLC), application 09/968,628, filed 2001-10-01, issued 2006-07-18, expired 2021-05-02.
• I could not retrieve, in this session, the literal "References Cited" block from the face of US 7,080,037. My searches returned Google Patents "Citations" tables and third-party "similar documents" lists, and — critically — the two lists I did retrieve are not reliably the '037's statutory prior-art citations. I flag both misattribution risks in §3 rather than pass them off as the '037's own citation list.
• Everything below therefore falls into two tiers: (A) references I can tie to the '037 with reasonable confidence (either because they appear in the '037/its pre-grant publication US 2002/0099665 A1 record, or because they are quoted from the '037's own body in an IPR exhibit), and (B) references where I have only partial or indirect evidence.
• I give the §102 mapping against the patent's claim families ("aspects") rather than verbatim claim numbers, because I do not have the granted claim set in hand (unchanged from the earlier section). Any statement of the form "anticipates claim X" where X is a specific number would be fabrication.

2. USPTO-record identity check (no auto-correction)

Legal frame: the '037 was filed in 2001, so pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 governs. Because it is a CIP, two critical dates matter claim-by-claim:

• Claims fully supported by the 2000-09-28 parent / 1999-09-28 provisional → critical date 1999-09-28.
• Claims requiring matter first added in the 2001-10-01 CIP → critical date 2001-10-01.

Consequences for §102:

• Art published/patented before 1999-09-28 → §102(b) art against all claims.
• Art published/patented 1999-09-28 to 2000-10-01 → §102(b) art only against CIP-only claims.
• Art after 2000-10-01 → not §102(b) art at all; only §102(a)/(e)/(g) theories (and then only as of its own U.S. filing date, if earlier than the '037's effective date for the claim).

3. What I could and could not verify about "the citations for 7080037"

Correction / contamination flag #1. The Google Patents snippet I retrieved containing "Citations (25)" — listing EP 0043027 A1, US 5,007,083, US 5,191,611, US 5,550,976, US 5,719,938, US 5,752,031, US 5,862,346, US 5,864,683, US 5,875,296, US 5,889,958, US 5,892,917, US 5,911,045, US 5,913,041, US 5,969,632, US 6,009,475 … — appears on the page for US 6,356,941 ("Network vaults"), not on the '037's page. Those references (secure internetwork, distributed-file-system web-server authentication with cookies, network access control) are a thematic fit for a network vault patent, not for the '037. I am treating that table as US 6,356,941's citations, and I explicitly decline to present it as the '037's prior art. If live USPTO/DPMA data later shows it belongs to the '037, that conclusion should be reversed.

Correction / contamination flag #2. A third-party aggregation page for the '037's pre-grant publication US 2002/0099665 A1 returns a long list of references including documents dated 2002–2003 — e.g., design patents US D491,185 S1, D490,840 S1, D491,953 S1, D496,365 S1, D498,236 S1 (2002-07-30 through 2003-02-27), and US 2004/0029569 A1, US 2004/0094624 A1, US 2003/0106935 A1. Those cannot be statutory prior art to a patent with a 2001-10-01 filing / 1999-09-28 priority. Their presence proves that list is a "similar documents" list, not the face-of-patent "References Cited." I have split that list accordingly in §4 (Groups A/B/C).

Positive verification. The '037's own specification text is quoted verbatim in PTAB exhibit paper for IPR2022-01135 — e.g., "Access to the information included in the various sections may require security or user authentication procedures commensurate with the indicated security level," cited as Burger at column 16, lines 28–47 — confirming that "Burger" in that proceeding is US 7,080,037 and that the patent's body runs past column 55. This is useful because the IPR papers contain a claim-mapped read of what "the Pocket Vault" discloses, which I use below as a cross-check on the specification content, not as a citation list.

One citation I can tie to the '037 by relationship (medium confidence): on the Google Patents page for US 6,356,941 ("Network vaults"), US 7,080,037 appears in the "Cited By" column. If that mapping is correct, it means the '037 cites US 6,356,941. I flag this as an inference from a citing-documents table, not a reading of the '037 front page.

4. Prior-art candidates, by §102 posture

Dates below are as returned by the sources; "conf." = my confidence in the date pairing. Descriptions are one-line characterizations. Claim references are to the aspect families enumerated in the earlier summary (Aspect 1 = multi-media portable apparatus w/ user authenticator + POS output; 2 = its method; 3/4 = embedded ID-code release; 5/6 = media-selection + display; 7/8 = financial + non-financial media; 9–11 = dock-and-configure / detachable token; 12 = user add/remove media; 13 = alterable functional characteristics; 14 = split-security release; 15/16 = finite-time code / simulated magnetic stripe; 17 = time-limited visual indication; 18 = remote disable; 19 = remote backup; 20 = server-mediated software-module access).

Group A — dated before 1999-09-28 (statutory §102(b) art against all claims)

Group B — published/patented 1999-09-28 → 2000-10-01 (§102(b) only against CIP-only claims)

Group C — dated after 2000-10-01 → NOT §102 prior art (listed only to prevent misuse)

US 6,356,941 (Network vaults) if in fact cited; US 2004/0029569 A1; US 2003/0106935 A1; US 2004/0094624 A1; US 2002/0040321 A1; US D490,840 S1 (2002-10-29); US D491,185 S1 (2002-07-30); US D491,953 S1 (2002-10-09); US D496,365 S1 (2003-02-27); US D498,236 S1 (2003-01-23). These are usable only as §102(a)/(e) art as of their own U.S. filing dates, and only against '037 claims that cannot claim the 1999-09-28 or 2000-09-28 date. Several of them (the Vivotech "magnetic stripe simulacrum" designs) are thematically relevant to Aspect 16 (simulated magnetic stripe) but are post-dated by the '037 itself — which, notably, makes the '037 potentially earlier art against them, not the reverse.

5. Which references bear on which claim families (§102 focused)

6. Negative findings and explicit uncertainties

1. I did not obtain the '037's literal "References Cited" block from USPTO PatentCenter / the patent full-text database. The claim in the earlier summary that "the verbatim granted claim set was not fully retrieved" carries forward: I still do not have the granted claims, so no §102 mapping here is tied to a numbered claim.
2. Two retrieved citation lists are contaminated and must not be attributed to the '037 without re-verification: (a) the Google Patents "Citations (25)" table, which appears to belong to US 6,356,941 "Network vaults"; and (b) the third-party "similar documents" list on US 2002/0099665 A1, which contains 2002–2003 documents that cannot be §102 prior art to the '037.
3. Several exact dates in Group A (A6, A8, A13, A14, A16) are stated at medium confidence. A5 (Wang) and A11 ('551) I hold at high confidence as to both content and pre-1999 date.
4. The strongest single §102 candidate is US 5,917,913 to Wang — same title motif ("portable electronic authorization"), pre-1999-09-28 issue date, and disclosure of a portable device that authenticates an approval and releases encrypted data to the transaction system. If any single reference was the §102 hurdle for the '037's Aspect 1/2 claims, it is this one. I could not, however, confirm from the retrieved material that Wang's '913 appears on the '037's own face.
5. The strongest §102 candidate for the dock/configure and add/remove-media families is US 6,038,551 (PC configures multi-application IC card), which is directly on point for Aspects 9–13 and dated 2000-03-14.
6. No pre-2001 reference found for the "simulated magnetic stripe that disappears after a finite time" (Aspects 15/16). The reference art I retrieved on that point (Vivotech design patents) post-dates the '037.
7. Cross-proceeding note (unchanged, reinforced): US 7,080,037 is relied on as prior art in IPR2022-01135 (as "Burger," quoted at cols. 16 and 55). That does not put the '037 itself on review, but it does mean the PTAB record contains detailed, citation-mapped characterizations of the '037's disclosure that are a better source for exact quoting than anything I retrieved here.

7. What should be verified next (I could not complete these)

1. USPTO PatentCenter / Patent Full-Text (PatFT) → the "References Cited" and "Referenced By" blocks on the front page image of US 7,080,037. That is the authoritative list I was unable to read directly.
2. The IFW (Image File Wrapper) for 09/968,628 → Forms PTO/SB/08a/08b will show which of Groups A/B were actually cited or considered, and which were merely IDS-listed.
3. IPR2022-01135 Exhibits 1005 and 1006 → Ex. 1005 is the '037 ("Burger") itself; the petition/reply briefs contain the most usable mapping of the '037's disclosure onto specific claim language.
4. Confirm the US 6,356,941 ↔ '037 citation direction before ever asserting it.

Net: With what is verifiable, the §102 exposure of US 7,080,037 concentrates on (i) US 5,917,913 (Wang) for the portable-authorization core, (ii) US 6,038,551 for the docking/configuring and add/remove-media families, and (iii) US 5,544,246 / US 4,868,376 / US 5,546,523 for the multiple-unrelated-media families. The genuinely distinguishing families — the disappearing simulated magnetic stripe on a detachable token, and the split-security release of one media with authentication and another without — are not met by any pre-2001 reference I located, which is consistent with the '037 having issued over the art I could see.

I'll ground this in the actual prior-art references tied to US 7,080,037 rather than assume them. Let me pull the cited references and their content.

Let me pull the front-page "References Cited" for the '037 patent itself and its family members.

Let me get the remainder of the cited-reference list and the granted claims.

Obviousness Analysis — US 7,080,037 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Builds on the earlier bibliographic, family, and litigation sections. The claim families referenced below are the numbered "aspects" enumerated in the prior §"Plain-language overview of the independent claims." I do not repeat them here.

A. Framework and thresholds

Priority / art cutoff. The face of the patent lists priority 1999-09-28 (expressly flagged by Google Patents as an assumption) with a §119/§120 claim from US 09/675,438 (filed 2000-09-28); the '628 application was filed 2001-10-01. Under the earliest date, art must predate 1999-09-28; under the '438 date, art must predate 2000-09-28. This matters because four cited references post-date even the later date on their faces: US 6,182,892 (2001-02-06), US 6,188,309 (2001-02-13), US 6,282,656 (2001-08-28), and US 6,308,887 (Oct. 2001). Those can only be §103 art via §102(e) (their own earlier effective filings) or as evidence of the state of the art; they are not §102(b)/(a) art against either priority date. Flag.

Legal standard. Graham v. John Deere factors (scope/content of claims; differences from prior art; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations) applied through KSR Int'l v. Teleflex (obvious to try; "familiar elements according to known methods"; predictable combination; design incentives/market demand). I do not have the verbatim granted claim set (flagged in the prior section), so claim scope below is approximated from the specification's stated aspects.

B. Person of ordinary skill in the art (1999)

A POSITA would hold a B.S. in EE/CS (or equivalent) with ~2–4 years in portable computing, smart cards/ISO 7810/7816, magnetic-stripe payment, biometrics, or secure network transactions — the exact profile the '037 cites (Veridicom/Polaroid/Identix fingerprint sensors, Palm OS/Windows CE, Bluetooth, PKI). This is a mature, integration-heavy art, which lowers the §103 bar under KSR.

C. The prior-art record actually on the face of '037

The patent's own "Referenced Cited" list (as reproduced by Justia, https://patents.justia.com/patent/[7080037](/patent/7080037)) is the operative prior-art section. It is a large, contemporaneous set of portable-card/electronc-wallet/biometric-transaction references:

Plus foreign/NPL: DE 198 16 117 A1 (Oct. 1999) and (per the '495 sibling's face) "Rocket Librarian User Guide," NuvoMedia, Inc., v1.2, Oct. 29, 1999 as an NPL citation.

Caveat on reference content. I can verify the identities/citations from the patent face, but I could not retrieve and confirm the full text of each reference within this tool session. Where I state a reference's subject matter below, treat it as training-knowledge-based and hedged unless it is a well-known reference (e.g., Pitroda's electronic wallet). Where the record is thin, I say so rather than assert.

D. Combination analysis by claim cluster

Cluster 1 — Portable device storing ≥2 media, user authentication, release to POS (Aspects 1–2, 5–8, 14, 17)

Primary: Pitroda, US 5,590,038 ("Electronic Wallet"). The single strongest reference. It discloses a wallet-sized handheld processor with a display, memory holding multiple different cards (financial and non-financial), user selection via a touch interface, and bidirectional communication with a point-of-sale/issuer over a modem. This maps to the core "housing + memory for first and second media + display selecting media + output to a POS terminal" aspects (5–8) almost element-for-element.

Secondary: Pare, Jr., US 5,870,723 (biometric verification to authorize a transaction) supplies the user-authenticator gating element (Aspects 1–2, 14). Salatino, US 5,920,640 and Lane, US 5,623,552 are available as secondary support for on-board fingerprint/ID verification, reinforcing that on-device biometric gating was known.

Motivation to combine (KSR). (i) Same problem, same field — both address portable payment/ID media. (ii) Known security problem — the '037 specification itself frames the motivation: lost/stolen wallets and unauthorized use. Adding a biometric gate to a multi-card wallet is the predictable application of a known fraud-prevention technique to a known device, "according to known methods" (KSR). (iii) No new operability gap — the wallet already had a processor and display; the biometric simply conditions an existing release function. Result: an obvious combination.

Cluster 2 — Simulated / programmable magnetic stripe, finite-life (Aspects 15–16)

Primary: Lessin, US 4,868,376 (a "portable programmable card" line of art) — the classic programmable-magnetic-media reference. Secondary: Gatto, US 5,546,523 (multi-application data card) and Wallerstein, US 5,585,787 / Merjanian, US 5,546,471 for card-form memory/programmability.

Motivation. A POSITA confronted with the ubiquity of magnetic-stripe readers (ISO 7811) and the desire to eliminate carrying many cards would predictably program a single card to emulate the stripe. The time-limited variant (the '037's RC-decay "virtual magnetic stripe" that dies after removal from the port) is the predictable security refinement of an emulated stripe — limiting the window in which a copied/observed credential is live. KSR "obvious to try" applies strongly: finite-time credential validity was a well-known anti-fraud technique.

Cluster 3 — Releasably attached programmable token / docking (Aspects 9–11)

Primary: Pitroda '038 (card stored in a wallet device) combined with Muftic, US 5,943,423 / 5,745,574 and Daggar, US 5,748,737 (programming/reloading a portable secure token). Motivation: portability and compatibility — configure the token while docked, then detach for use in existing readers. Predictable mechanical/protocol combination.

Cluster 4 — Remote disable, remote backup, server-mediated access (Aspects 18–20)

Primary: Pitroda '038 (wallet↔bank modem channel) combined with Wang, US 5,917,913 / 6,282,656 and Muftic (network security infrastructure) for remote voiding/backup. Motivation: the specification's own stated problem — if the device is lost, centrally stored credentials let a replacement be provisioned and the old device/chip ID voided. This is the standard "central record + remote revocation" architecture, an obvious engineering choice given Pitroda's existing server link.

Cluster 5 — Selection UI + time-limited visual indication + advertising (Aspects 5, 17)

Primary: Pitroda '038 (touch display + media selection) combined with general display/advertising art (e.g., Novis, US 5,867,795 or Kelsey, US 5,907,142 — subject matter hedged). Motivation: monetize an already-present display and improve usability; predictable.

Cluster 6 — Financial + non-financial media in one device (Aspects 7–8)

Primary: Pitroda '038 directly (the electronic wallet holds ID/credit cards and non-financial items). This cluster is likely the most vulnerable to outright §102 anticipation by Pitroda and, at minimum, obvious over Pitroda alone.

E. Graham/KSR synthesis

1. Scope/content: broad, functional claims (memory + authenticator + output to POS).
2. Differences over Pitroda: the '037's distinctive add-ons are (a) on-device biometric gating (Pare/Salatino), (b) the simulated, self-expiring magnetic stripe on a detachable token (Lessin/Gatto + finite-life art), and (c) network backup/remote-void (Wang/Muftic). Each is a discrete, known improvement to a known device.
3. Level of skill: high; integration art.
4. Secondary considerations: any commercial-success/licensing argument (the IV/Kioba chain) is now largely moot — the patent expired 2021-05-02 (prior section), and there is no confirmed 2026 CAFC activity. No nexus evidence is available in the record.

The overall picture: the broad wallet-replacement claims (Aspects 1–2, 5–8, 14) are strongly obvious over Pitroda '038 alone or in view of Pare '723; the token/magnetic-stripe and network claims (Aspects 9–20) are obvious over Pitroda in view of the card-programmability and network-security references cited on the patent's own face.

F. Where a claim might survive

A claim that specifically requires the combination of (i) self-contained on-device biometric authentication, (ii) a detachable token whose programmability is lost solely by passive RC power decay after removal, and (iii) media selected from unrelated issuers — as one integrated unit — is the least likely to be met by any single cited reference. But under KSR even this is a predictable aggregation of known elements, so it would face a strong §103 rejection. I cannot identify a clear teaching-away in the retrieved record.

G. Confidence and caveats (explicit)

• High confidence: the composition of the patent's cited-reference list (from the Justia face page); that Pitroda '038 is the closest single reference; the §103 framework.
• Moderate confidence: the subject matter I attribute to Pitroda '038; the mapping of biometric gating to Pare '723.
• Low confidence / flagged as unverified: the specific disclosures attributed to the other cited references (I listed them by number/date/inventor from the patent face but could not read their full texts here); the exact wording and scope of the '037 granted claims; whether the four post-2001 references were applied as §102(e) art. The "Rocket Librarian" NPL post-dates the 1999-09-28 priority by ~1 month and may not qualify as art under that date.
• Recommendation: to firm this up, pull the full text of Pitroda '038, Pare '723, Lessin '376, and Gatto '523, and the verbatim granted claims — the only way to convert this framework into element-by-element §103 findings.