US 7684090

I'll search for authoritative information on US 7684090, including any 2026 CAFC docket activity.

US 7,684,090 B2 — Verified Summary

Search scope caveat: I do not have direct USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR API access; results below come from web-search retrieval of Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, the PTAB proceeding record, and litigation docket aggregators. I found no 2026 CAFC docket entry for 7,684,090. I am flagging that as "not found," not as proof of nonexistence — I could not query the CAFC docket directly, and the current date (April 2026) is later than my reliable docket knowledge.

Bibliographic data

Abstract (as granted)

"In one aspect of the invention, a printer is provided for use with a display device having images stored in a memory therein, a display device controller, and an image display for displaying the stored images. The printer has an external structure housing a print engine and receiver medium transport adapted to cooperate to cause donor materials to be transferred to a receiver medium in an imagewise fashion; a display device interface being adapted to receive the display device and to position the display device so that a display device electrical connector can form an electrical connection with the electrical interface; and a printer processor adapted to transmit signals to the display device controller influencing what is presented on the image display; wherein the display device interface is adjustably mounted to the external structure."

Plain-language overview of the sole independent claim

Claim 1 — A "docking printer" whose dock physically moves. Three elements must all be present:

1. A printer body containing a print engine and a receiver-medium transport that cooperate to transfer donor material (ink, toner, thermal ribbon, etc.) onto media in an imagewise pattern — i.e., an ordinary printer core.
2. A display-device interface (a docking cradle/receiving surface) shaped to hold a display device and position it so the device's own electrical connector mates with the printer's electrical interface, establishing a connection between printer and device.
3. A printer processor that sends signals to the docked device's controller to control what appears on the device's display — the printer drives the docked device's screen (for example to select or preview images to print).

The point of novelty is the last clause: the display-device interface is adjustably mounted to the printer's external structure and can be moved through a range of positions relative to that structure while the electrical connection between printer and device is maintained. So the docked device's screen can be reoriented to face different directions without undocking. The specification describes this as solving the "front-end-only" problem — the difficulty of accessing printer controls or viewing status indicators when the printer is shelved or positioned in an inconvenient orientation (FIGS. 4–8 show the docking surface rotating; 150 is a flexible ribbon/slip ring that preserves the electrical link during rotation).

The representative dependent claims add: user controls and/or status indicators mounted on the moving dock so they travel with it (claims 2–3); a separately movable adjustment surface carrying controls/indicators, optionally an annular ring rotating about the dock's axis of rotation (claims 4, 6); rotational mounting of the dock (claim 5); multi-dimensional viewing (horizontal/vertical/depth) (claim 7); a position sensor that triggers the processor to render virtual user-input or status indicators on the device's screen when the dock is in a hard-to-see orientation, including touch-screen interpretation of those virtual controls (claims 8–9); and a list of eligible display devices — digital camera, picture viewer, PDA, cellular telephone, multimedia display device, or video recorder (claim 10).

Litigation / post-grant activity located

• IPR2022-00318, Xerox Corporation v. Monument Peak Ventures, LLC — filed Dec 15, 2021; institution decision June 9, 2022; terminated as settled July 11, 2022. Patent 7,684,090 is the challenged patent (application 11/312,909, Tech Center 2600). Source: https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2022-00318
• District court suits identified on the Google Patents page: E.D. Tex. 4:21-cv-00683 and 2:21-cv-00345; W.D.N.Y. 6:20-cv-06263; C.D. Cal. 8:19-cv-02181; and a CAFC appeal 21-1052 (2021 — not a 2026 docket item).
• MPV's February 6, 2026 E.D. Tex. complaint against Carl Zeiss AG (2:26-cv-00100) asserts patents '024, '145, '508, '255, and '085 — not '090. So the 2026 activity I could find for this patent family does not include 7,684,090.

Uncertainty flags

• No 2026 CAFC docket for 7,684,090 was found. I cannot rule out a newly filed or recently docketed appeal; a direct PACER/CAFC docket check is needed to be authoritative.
• One aggregator (unifiedpatents, WO record) lists a priority date of 2005-12-19 while the patent itself and Google Patents state 2005-12-20. Treat 2005-12-20 as authoritative per the granted front page; the 12-19 figure appears to be a data-entry artifact.
• The current assignee of record is Monument Peak Ventures, LLC per the 2017 assignment and 2023 release-by-secured-party filings; ownership of the '090 patent specifically is not independently confirmed by a recorded assignment instrument for this patent number in my sources, though MPV is the listed current assignee.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 7684090. Let me start with several searches.

Let me get details on the specific cases identified.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 7,684,090

Patent identification (literal): U.S. Patent No. 7,684,090 B2, "Digital printer for use with docked display device" — application 11/312,909, filed 2005‑12‑20, issued 2010‑03‑23, inventors David R. Gotham and Samuel F. Swayze, originally assigned to Eastman Kodak Co.; current assignee listed as Monument Peak Ventures LLC. All the suits below arise from the post‑Kodak "Monument Peak Ventures" (MPV) licensing campaign.

I found six proceedings in which the '090 patent was directly asserted, challenged, or appealed. Sources: the Unified Patents litigation portal, Docket Alarm, Justia Dockets, UniCourt, GreyB/IPVerse (PTAB), and Actionable Intelligence. I could not independently verify every docket line through PACER, so treat the procedural details below as "as reported," and note that I cannot guarantee completeness.

1. Monument Peak Ventures, LLC v. Toshiba America Business Solutions, Inc., et al.

• Plaintiff: Monument Peak Ventures, LLC
• Defendants: Toshiba America Business Solutions, Inc.; Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.; Toshiba Corporation
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Central District of California
• Case No.: 8:19-cv-02181 (DOC-DFM); Judge David O. Carter
• Filed: November 11, 2019 (first complaint); Second Amended Complaint filed April 6, 2020
• '090 patent role: One of several asserted patents (the Second Amended Complaint also lists U.S. Patents 6,903,762; 7,177,484; 7,583,294; 7,684,090; 8,964,064; 9,549,095).
• Outcome/Status: On or about August 12, 2020, the court granted Toshiba's motion to dismiss (reported as decided on § 101 patentable‑subject‑matter grounds, citing Alice/Twombly/Iqbal). MPV appealed (see No. 2).

2. Monument Peak Ventures, LLC v. Toshiba America Business Solutions, Inc., et al. (appeal)

• Appellant: Monument Peak Ventures, LLC
• Appellees: Toshiba America Business Solutions, Inc.; Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.; Toshiba Corporation
• Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Case No.: 21-1052
• Filed: October 15, 2020
• '090 patent role: On appeal from the C.D. Cal. dismissal in No. 1 (the '090 patent was among the asserted patents).
• Outcome/Status: December 13, 2021 — Federal Circuit issued its decision (reported as affirming the district court's dismissal of Toshiba). (Actionable Intelligence headline: "Federal Circuit Affirms Toshiba's Win in Patent Spat with Monument Peak Ventures.")

3. Xerox Corporation v. Monument Peak Ventures, LLC (declaratory judgment)

• Plaintiff: Xerox Corporation
• Defendant: Monument Peak Ventures, LLC
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Western District of New York
• Case No.: 6:20-cv-06263; Judge Frank P. Geraci, Jr.
• Filed: April 23, 2020 (Complaint for Declaratory Judgment of non‑infringement)
• '090 patent role: The complaint attached U.S. Patent No. 7,684,090 as Exhibit 8 (one of eight MPV patents on which Xerox sought a DJ of non‑infringement, alongside 5,923,908; 6,157,436; 6,215,559; 6,396,599; 6,873,336; 7,006,890; 7,092,966).
• Outcome/Status: On August 31, 2021, the court granted MPV's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the Eastern District of Texas (see No. 4). Reported closed 08/31/2021.

4. Xerox Corporation v. Monument Peak Ventures, LLC (transferred DJ action)

• Plaintiff: Xerox Corporation
• Defendant: Monument Peak Ventures, LLC
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas (transferred in from W.D.N.Y.)
• Case No.: 4:21-cv-00683; Judge Sean D. Jordan
• Filed/Transferred: Docketed in E.D. Tex. on September 1, 2021 (original W.D.N.Y. case number 6:20-cv-06263). The '090 patent appears as an exhibit to the complaint.
• Outcome/Status: Xerox filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)) on/about September 1, 2021; the case was dismissed without prejudice and closed on/about September 2, 2021.

5. Monument Peak Ventures, LLC v. Xerox Corporation (infringement)

• Plaintiff: Monument Peak Ventures, LLC
• Defendant: Xerox Corporation
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division)
• Case No.: 2:21-cv-00345 (JRG-RSP); Judge Rodney Gilstrap; referral to Judge Roy S. Payne
• Filed: September 1, 2021
• '090 patent role: One of six asserted patents (U.S. Patents 6,810,149; 6,873,336; 7,006,890; 7,092,573; 7,092,966; and 7,684,090). Xerox moved to dismiss for improper venue or to transfer to W.D.N.Y. (filed Nov. 4, 2021).
• Outcome/Status: Settled and dismissed. Reported "Closed 06/09/22." Actionable Intelligence reported a settlement and that Judge Gilstrap issued an order dismissing the case with prejudice (order dated August 3).]

6. Xerox Corporation v. Monument Peak Ventures, LLC (inter partes review — PTAB)

• Petitioner: Xerox Corporation
• Patent Owner: Monument Peak Ventures, LLC
• Forum: U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (not a court, but directly targets the '090 patent)
• Proceeding No.: IPR2022-00318
• Filed: December 15, 2021
• '090 patent role: Petition challenged claims 1–3, 5, 7, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 7,684,090 B2. The petition noted the '090 patent was also the subject of the E.D. Tex. civil action MPV v. Xerox, No. 2:21-cv-00345.
• Outcome/Status: Institution granted June 9, 2022; terminated July 11, 2022 due to settlement (35 U.S.C. § 317; 37 C.F.R. § 42.74). Status: "Terminated‑Settled."

Notes / caveats

• Not included (different patent): PTAB IPR2021-00330 (Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. v. Monument Peak Ventures, LLC) involved U.S. Patent No. 7,583,294, not the '090 patent. It is related context (same parties/campaign) but is not '090 litigation. It was filed Dec. 21, 2020 and terminated June 25, 2021 (institution denied).
• The '090 patent was not the sole patent in any of these suits; it was asserted/challenged as part of MPV's broader Kodak‑portfolio campaigns against Toshiba and Xerox.
• The patent is currently listed as Active on the Unified Patents/Google Patents record, with an adjusted expiration noted as 2029‑01‑20, and is now held by Monument Peak Ventures, LLC (successor to Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC).
• Confidence: High confidence on case numbers, parties, jurisdictions, and filing dates (these are consistent across multiple sources). Moderate confidence on exact disposition dates for the Toshiba C.D. Cal. dismissal and the final MPV‑v‑Xerox E.D. Tex. dismissal/settlement — I recommend confirming those two against PACER if precision is required.

I'll reconcile the structured "no proceedings" block against the litigation metadata embedded in the patent record, and try to pull claim-level detail for IPR2022-00318.

Good — the structured block conflicts with the patent record. Let me nail down the termination decision, check for any additional IPRs, and check the CAFC docket.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding is on file for US 7,684,090 — IPR2022-00318 (Xerox Corp. v. Monument Peak Ventures, LLC) — and it ended in settlement after institution, with no Final Written Decision. No claims were canceled, none were sustained on the merits, and no appeal was taken; the practical posture is "the patent is un-adjudicated, not hardened": all ten claims remain live and untested at the Board, and because the case settled post-institution without an FWD, no § 315(e) estoppel attached to Xerox. A defendant today faces a patent where the only PTAB challenge was bought out of the way, not beaten.

⚠️ Discrepancy flagged. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block states the ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings. That is contradicted by the Google Patents litigation metadata embedded in this patent's own record ("PTAB case IPR2022-00318 filed (Settlement)," Petitioner Xerox) and by Docket Alarm and IP Verse, both of which show the case. I treat IPR2022-00318 as real and verified by its institution and termination decisions (linked below). The ODP "no proceedings" result is most likely an indexing gap for a case terminated by settlement pre-FWD — but the ODP block should be corrected.

IPR2022-00318 — Xerox Corporation v. Monument Peak Ventures, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319)
• Filed: 2021-12-15 (filing date accorded 2021-12-30)
• Status: Terminated–Settled — PTAB order "TERMINATION Due to Settlement After Institution of Trial, 35 U.S.C. § 317; 37 C.F.R. § 42.74" (2022-07-11). Plain English: the Board never reached the merits; no Final Written Decision issued.
• Judge panel: Joni Y. Chang, Michael R. Zecher, and Juliet Mitchell Dirba, Administrative Patent Judges (opinion by APJ Dirba). (Same panel for both the institution and termination decisions.)
• Petition grounds (claims challenged: 1–3, 5, 7, 10):
  • Claims 1, 5, 7, 10 — § 103(a) over Schinner in view of Romano
  • Claims 2, 3 — § 103(a) over Schinner in view of Romano and Takahashi
  • Petitioner's expert: Kenneth A. Parulski (Ex. 1038). No § 112 or § 102 grounds were asserted; the challenge was purely obviousness.
  • Xerox's theory: the '090 specification itself admits a docked digital camera whose display serves as the printer UI was known; "the alleged primary improvement was simply providing a rotatable camera interface."
• Institution decision: Instituted in full on 2022-06-09 (Paper 7, § 314). The Board found "Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim." Notably, Patent Owner elected not to file a Preliminary Response (Paper 6), and the parties "do not identify any related Board proceedings," so the Board had no § 325(d) or Fintiv record to work with. A Scheduling Order issued the same day (Paper 8). Institution decision (PDF)
• Final Written Decision: None. The Board did not decide the merits. Its own order states: "We have not yet decided the merits of the proceeding, and a final written decision has not been entered," and "This Order does not constitute a final written decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)." Consequently:
  • Claims canceled: none.
  • Claims held patentable: none (no claim was adjudicated either way).
  • Claims 1–3, 5, 7, 10 were challenged but left standing; claims 4, 6, 8 and 9 were never challenged at all.
• Settlement / termination: Joint Motion to Terminate filed 2022-06-30 (Paper 9) after the Board's authorization; parties represented they "have resolved their disputes with respect to the '090 patent" and that Patent Owner filed a notice of dismissal of its infringement claim under the '090 patent. A Settlement Agreement (Ex. 2001) and a Covenant Not to Sue (Ex. 2002) were filed and, on joint request (Paper 10), granted business-confidential treatment under § 317(b) / 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) — kept separate from the '090 patent file and available only to Federal Government agencies on written request or to any person on a showing of good cause. The terms are confidential. Termination order entered 2022-07-11. Termination decision (PDF)
• Appeal: None, and none was available — a § 317 termination order is not an appealable Final Written Decision under § 319. (The Federal Circuit case 21-1052 appearing in the Google Patents family-litigation feed belongs to the district-court dispute over the MPV portfolio, not to this IPR; I cannot confirm its subject matter with high confidence and do not attribute it to the '090 IPR.)
• Defensive value: Low value as an invalidity shield, high value as a roadmap. Xerox's Schinner/Romano/Takahashi § 103 theory survived institution, so the Board has already signaled that at least one combination raises a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability — but because there was no FWD, nothing is canceled and no estoppel binds Xerox or anyone else. Separately, the settlement + covenant means Xerox itself is out of the MPV dispute on the '090 patent; if your client is a Xerox privy, that's protection, but it does not stop MPV from asserting the same claims against you.

Strategic summary

Claim status. Every claim of the '090 patent is sustained-by-default and untested: claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10 were challenged but never decided; claims 4, 6, 8, 9 have never been challenged or construed at the Board. There is no claim cancellation to point to. The patent is active, with an adjusted expiration of 2029-01-20 and the 12th-year maintenance fee paid (2021-09-23). The closest thing to a merits signal is the institution decision's finding of a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over Schinner + Romano (+ Takahashi) — persuasive but not preclusive.

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e)(2) estoppel is triggered by a Final Written Decision; here the case terminated by settlement before any FWD, so no estoppel arose for Xerox or its real parties-in-interest, and the § 315(b) one-year bar running from service of MPV's complaint is the only timing constraint worth mapping on a new defendant. Practically, that leaves all prior-art grounds open to a fresh petitioner — including the Schinner/Romano/Takahashi combination Xerox already validated, and, more promisingly, the paper trail Xerox flagged: the parallels between the allowed US claims and the rejected PCT/EPO counterparts, where MPV allegedly conceded that claim 1's features were "known in combination from the prior art." That prosecution-history admission is a strong § 103 anchor for a new IPR or an invalidity defense, and because it appears in the record (Pet. 1–2), it is independently verifiable. Watch the § 315(e)(1)/§ 325(a) abusive-filing bars if your client previously filed and lost elsewhere on the same patent.

Pattern signals. Xerox filed exactly one IPR against the '090 patent and settled it out shortly after institution — consistent with a portfolio-wide peace rather than a merits fight (MPV's E.D. Tex. 2:21-cv-00345 asserted a six-patent family against Xerox; Xerox's W.D.N.Y. DJ action 6:20-cv-06263 was converted/transferred). No defensive aggregator is in the chain — Unified Patents appears in the Google Patents metadata only as the source of the litigation/PTAB data feeds, not as a party; the IPR petitioner of record is Xerox. MPV's other PTAB exposure has all been settled or denied institution (e.g., Toshiba's IPR2021-00330 institution denied; Bosch and GE IPRs settled), and MPV has not visibly pursued PTAB appeals. That pattern — early settlements, no FWDs, no appeals — means there is no adjudicated validity finding anywhere in the chain and no hardened claim set.

Recommended next steps

• Treat the patent as fully intact. Do not represent to a court or a client that any '090 claim is canceled — it is not. The only reasoned PTAB paper is the institution decision of 2022-06-09 (claims 1–3, 5, 7, 10 unpatentable-as-obvious over Schinner + Romano + Takahashi was found reasonably likely); quote it as persuasive authority at most.
• Rebuild Xerox's invalidity theory independently. Obtain the IPR2022-00318 record — petition (Paper 2), the Parulski declaration (Ex. 1038), and the Schinner/Romano/Takahashi references — and pair it with the PCT/EPO prosecution history showing MPV's concession that claim 1's features were known in combination. That concession, if confirmed in the underlying EP file, is the highest-value § 103 evidence available.
• Check the settlement's reach before assuming freedom. The Xerox Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue (Exs. 2001–2002) are business-confidential and available only to federal agencies or on a showing of good cause. If you are a successor-in-interest to, or privy of, Xerox, you have a strong argument for coverage; if not, assume no downstream protection and plan for an IPR of your own. The § 315(b) clock from any service of an MPV complaint is the gating deadline — verify service date first.
• No live PTAB deadlines exist. The case terminated 2022-07-11; there is no institution-deadline, oral-hearing, or § 316(a)(11) one-year FWD date to track. The remaining calendar is the patent's term (2029-01-20) and any district-court/§ 315(b) schedule.
• Correct the record. The ODP-derived "no AIA proceedings" block is wrong; IPR2022-00318 exists, was instituted, and settled. Rely on the E2E/docket record above rather than the ODP snapshot.

Confidence and gaps. High confidence on the existence, filing date, claims challenged, grounds, panel, institution (2022-06-09), settlement, and termination (2022-07-11) of IPR2022-00318 — all grounded in the Board's own decisions. I could not confirm: the settlement/covenant terms (confidential by order); whether any second petition on the '090 patent was filed and never reached institution (none surfaced in Google Patents, Docket Alarm, or IP Verse searches); and the subject matter of CAFC 21-1052. I found no PGR or CBM on this patent.

I'll research the assignment record and cross-reference with litigation and corporate sources before writing.

Good — strong corroboration on the MPV/Dominion Harbor chain. Now let me try to retrieve the correspondent-of-record data and the loan-related filings.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 7,684,090 B2

Data-source disclosure (read first): I do not have credentialed API access to USPTO Assignment Center. The reel/frame numbers, conveyance types, dates and party names below are reconstructed from Google Patents' legal-events table, which mirrors the Assignment Center record, plus primary documents (the recorded Kodak→IV sale agreement, the IV→MPV assignment instrument, and SEC Form 8-K). The "correspondent of record" field is populated only where a recording document itself was retrievable. Google Patents' legal-events feed does not carry the correspondent field, so for four of the six recordings below the correspondent could not be verified from the sources I could reach. I am flagging each instance rather than guessing. A direct Assignment Center / PAIR lookup by patent number will fill these in.

Inventors

Both inventors' employer-at-filing is established by the original assignment, recorded 2005-12-20 at Reel 017359/Frame 0148 ("ASSIGNORS: GOTHAM, DAVID R.; SWAYZE, SAMUEL F."), with signing dates falling 2005-12-16 through 2005-12-19 — i.e., executed on the eve of filing, the normal employee-assignment practice. Both assignors share the Rochester/Fairport, NY cluster that appears on hundreds of Kodak imaging patents.

Pattern note — no anomaly found. I found no public record of either inventor departing Kodak within 12 months of filing (which would be a fire-sale precursor signal). I also found no continuation, reissue, or later application by either inventor in the family, so there is no post-2005 inventor-side chain to trace. Absence of evidence here is not proof of retention — I did not query LinkedIn, WARN notices, or Rochester-area employment records.

Original assignee

Eastman Kodak Company (New Jersey corporation; Rochester, NY) — the assignee named on the issued front page and current "original assignee" of record.

• Line of business: At filing (Dec 2005), Kodak was a consumer and commercial imaging company. By the 2010 issue date it was transitioning; by 2012 it had largely exited digital cameras and was pivoting to commercial printing. The patent itself claims a "docking printer" — Kodak's own EasyShare Printer Dock line (a printer that receives and drives a docked EasyShare digital camera) is the closest product concept, and Kodak's "EasyShare Photo Frame Dock 2" is cited as a non-patent reference on the face of the patent. Caveat: the claimed point of novelty — a dock that stays electrically connected while moving through a range of positions — is not something I can confirm Kodak ever shipped. I could not verify a commercial product reading on claim 1's movable-dock limitation.
• Current status: Operating, but restructured through bankruptcy. Kodak filed Chapter 11 in January 2012 (S.D.N.Y.) and emerged in September 2013. Kodak remains a going concern focused on commercial printing and advanced materials — not dissolved, not in liquidation. Its U.S. patents remain a licensed/reduced portfolio.

Assignment timeline

Six recordings exist in the chain. All are listed; none fabricated.

1. 2005-12-19 (executed; sign dates 2005-12-16 to 2005-12-19) / recorded 2005-12-20 — Reel 017359/0148

• Conveyance: Assignment — Assignment of Assignors' Interest
• Assignor: David R. Gotham; Samuel F. Swayze (individuals)
• Assignee: Eastman Kodak Company, New York
• Correspondent: Not retrievable from Google Patents legal-events feed. (Expect Kodak in-house / Rochester-based outside counsel; unverified.)
• Context: Initial inventor-to-employer assignment, executed just before the 2005-12-20 filing.

2. 2012-02-15 (effective) / recorded 2012-02-21 — Reel 028201/0420

• Conveyance: Security Agreement — Security Interest
• Assignor: Eastman Kodak Company and Pakon, Inc. (as debtors/grantors)
• Assignee: Citicorp North America, Inc., as Agent
• Correspondent: Not retrievable. Unverified.
• Context: Securitization / collateral. A blanket security interest granted to Kodak's lender over a large patent group — part of the 2012 debtor-in-possession / secured financing, not a transfer of title.

3. 2013-02-01 (effective) / recorded 2013-02-01 — Reel 029913/0001

• Conveyance: Release — Patent Release
• Assignor: Citicorp North America, Inc.; Wilmington Trust, National Association (secured parties)
• Assignee (release in favor of): Eastman Kodak Company and ~16 Kodak affiliates (Far East Development Ltd., Kodak Americas Ltd., Pakon Inc., Qualex Inc., NPEC Inc., Creo Manufacturing America LLC, Laser-Pacific Media Corp., Kodak Realty Inc., etc.)
• Correspondent: Not retrievable. Unverified.
• Context: Release of lien at the 2013-02-01 emergence/sale closing — the encumbrance from entry 2 was cleared so title could pass free and clear.

4. 2013-02-01 (effective) / recorded 2013-04-15 — Reel 030215/0289

• Conveyance: Assignment of Interest
• Assignor: Eastman Kodak Company
• Assignee: Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC (Delaware LLC; 7251 W Lake Mead Blvd, Ste 300, Las Vegas, NV 89128, per the IV→MPV instrument)
• Correspondent: Not retrievable from the events feed. Unverified.
• Context: Bankruptcy fire-sale. This is the Kodak digital-imaging patent disposition: the Patent Sale Agreement dated 2012-12-18 between Kodak and IV Fund 83, approved by the S.D.N.Y. Bankruptcy Court, ~$525–527M for ~1,100 patents, funded by an IV/RPX-organized consortium of 12 licensees (Adobe, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Fujifilm, Google, HTC, Huawei, Microsoft, RIM, Samsung, Shutterfly). See Kodak Form 8-K (event 2012-12-18): https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/31235/000119312512513381/d458185d8k.htm. Kodak took back a grant-back license.

5. 2017-02-15 (executed) / recorded 2017-03-09 — Reel 041941/0079

• Conveyance: Assignment of Interest
• Assignor: Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC (Las Vegas, NV)
• Assignee: Monument Peak Ventures, LLC (Texas LLC; 1400 Preston Road, Suite 400, Plano, TX 75093 in the 2017 instrument; later 200 Crescent Court, Suite 1550, Dallas, TX)
• Correspondent: Not retrievable from the events feed. The executed instrument for this IV Fund 83 → MPV transfer was located (as ASSIGNMENT OF PATENT RIGHTS, executed February 15, 2017, conveying an appendix of patents plus "all causes of action and enforcement rights … for past, current and future infringement"), but this copy does not expose the USPTO-recorded correspondent name. Unverified. Note MPV is an affiliate of Dominion Harbor Enterprises, LLC — a fact stated in Xerox's W.D.N.Y. complaint (Ex. 1030 in IPR2022-00318) and in RPX reporting.
• Context: Transfer-to-asserter. IV divests the former Kodak portfolio to a licensing/assertion entity.

6. 2023-07-28 (effective) / recorded 2023-08-15 — Reel 064599/0304

• Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
• Assignor: Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC (as secured party)
• Assignee: Monument Peak Ventures, LLC
• Correspondent: Not retrievable. Unverified.
• Context: Internal financing release — a lien/security interest that IV had held over the transferred assets is discharged, leaving MPV's title clean. No change in beneficial ownership.

Post-issuance ownership summary: Kodak (2005–2013) → IV Fund 83 (2013–2017) → Monument Peak Ventures / Dominion Harbor (2017–present). Current assignee of record: Monument Peak Ventures, LLC.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7684090
    2005 : Filed by Gotham and Swayze
         : Assigned to Eastman Kodak
    2012 : Kodak enters Chapter 11
         : Citicorp security interest recorded
    2013 : Security interest released
         : Kodak sells portfolio to IV Fund 83
    2017 : IV Fund 83 assigns to Monument Peak Ventures
    2018 : MPV Kodak patent assertion campaign
    2020 : Xerox files declaratory judgment suit
    2021 : Xerox files IPR2022-00318
    2023 : Secured party release recorded

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT.
Two consecutive hops out of an operating company into non-practicing holders: Kodak → Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC (Reel 030215/0289, eff. 2013-02-01) → Monument Peak Ventures, LLC (Reel 041941/0079, exec. 2017-02-15). MPV is a Texas LLC with no products; Xerox's DJ complaint states on the record that "MPV does not exist to invent new ideas, make products or provide services to consumers. It exists to acquire and then assert patents." IV Fund 83's Las Vegas address (7251 W Lake Mead Blvd, Ste 300) is a holding-fund address, not an operating site.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT.
Intellectual Ventures is a named entity on the reference NPE list, and it is the assignee at Reel 030215/0289. The next assignee, Monument Peak Ventures, appears in the Stanford NPE Litigation Database as a "Non Practicing Entity / 1 Acquired patents" asserter with a filing history spanning C.D. Cal., D. Del., W.D. Tex. and W.D.N.Y. (e.g., 2:18-cv-02210; 1:18-cv-00732; 1:20-cv-00611; 6:22-cv-01250; 6:23-cv-00750). RPX identifies MPV as "a subsidiary of the patent monetization firm Dominion Harbor Enterprises, LLC."

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (not verifiable from my sources).
This is the single most probative signal in an NPE chain, and I could not vet it: Google Patents' legal-events table omits the correspondent field, and I was unable to retrieve the recordation cover sheets (PTOL-1029 / recordation notices) for Reels 017359/0148, 028201/0420, 029913/0001, 030215/0289, 041941/0079 and 064599/0304. I will not assert a recurring attorney name without seeing the cover sheets. The recorded IV→MPV instrument itself is not a recordation notice and carries no correspondent. Action item: query Assignment Center by reel/frame to extract the corresponding attorney for 030215/0289 and 041941/0079 — if the same firm/attorney appears on both, that upgrades this to a strong signal.

4. Cascading transfers — WEAK / NOT ESTABLISHED.
The chain does not show the classic sub-24-month LLC relay. Kodak → IV sat 4 years (2013→2017), and IV → MPV is the only asserter-side hop in the chain. Within 2012–2013 there were three recordings (security interest, release, assignment) inside ~14 months, but two are lien/release bookkeeping on the same asset, not successive title transfers. One positive tell does exist: the IV→MPV instrument conveys "all causes of action and enforcement rights … for past, current and future infringement" — language that exists only to enable assertion — but standing alone this is a single weak signal.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT ESTABLISHED for this patent.
The IV→MPV transfer was effective 2017-02-15 (recorded 2017-03-09). MPV's first Kodak-portfolio assertions (GoPro, SZ DJI, Hasselblad) began 2018-03-16, and its first contact with Xerox concerning this '090 patent was 2019-04-02, with suit in 2020. The gap is ~12–24 months, outside the 6-month pre-litigation window. MPV likely acquired a very large batch (RPX describes ~1,000 patents from IV) and asserted selectively over years; '090 was not a first-wave patent.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — PRESENT (strongly documented).
Kodak's Chapter 11 (filed Jan 2012, S.D.N.Y.), the Bankruptcy Court-approved Patent Sale Agreement dated 2012-12-18, the ~$525–527M price against a ~$2.5B initial valuation, and the 12-licensee IV/RPX consortium are all on the public record (Kodak Form 8-K, 2012-12-18; BBC 2012-12-19). The '090 transferred in that sale — Reel 030215/0289, eff. 2013-02-01.

7. Privateering — UNCLEAR.
Classically, privateering = operating company parks patents with an NPE to assert against the operating company's competitors. Here the funding came from operating companies (Apple, Google, Microsoft, Samsung et al.), but their documented purpose was defensive — to secure licenses and end Kodak's suits against them, not to sue third parties. IV later divested to MPV, and RPX has noted it "is not yet known whether IV holds a financial stake in the success of those NPEs' campaigns." So the beneficiary-of-assertion link is unproven; I mark this unclear rather than present.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents or OIN. Note the trap here: RPX co-organized the original 2012 consortium, but RPX is not an assignee — title went to IV Fund 83 and then out to the litigating entity MPV. The patent has not been neutralized; it is actively asserted.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Three strong signals converge on the record: (i) a bankruptcy fire-sale (Kodak Chapter 11; Patent Sale Agreement 2012-12-18; assignment recorded 2013-04-15, Reel 030215/0289); (ii) shell-entity transfers out of the operating company into two non-practicing holders — IV Fund 83 (Reel 030215/0289) and then Monument Peak Ventures, LLC (exec. 2017-02-15, Reel 041941/0079); and (iii) a known asserter in the chain — Intellectual Ventures itself, followed by MPV, a Dominion Harbor affiliate that the Stanford NPE database classifies as a non-practicing asserter and whose sole purpose Xerox described on the record as acquiring patents "on the cheap and asserting them against a wide array of targets." The chain's terminus (MPV, 2017→present) is an active litigant, not a defensive aggregator.

Residual uncertainty: the repeat-correspondent signal — normally the strongest linkage evidence — could not be evaluated because the correspondent field was not retrievable for any of the six recordings. If the same attorney/firm appears on Reels 030215/0289 and 041941/0079, this verdict is reinforced; if different firms appear, the verdict is unchanged (it rests on signals 1, 2 and 6) but the "single lawyer running a family of shells" narrative would not be supported.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) — search by patent number 7684090, or by reel/frame 017359/0148, 028201/0420, 029913/0001, 030215/0289, 041941/0079, 064599/0304. Mirror index: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. Cross-references: Kodak Form 8-K 2012-12-18 (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/31235/000119312512513381/d458185d8k.htm); Xerox v. MPV complaint (W.D.N.Y. 6:20-cv-06263, Ex. 1030 in IPR2022-00318); RPX Insight (https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/news/61494).

Consistency check against the previously generated summary

No contradictions. The prior section's "no 2026 CAFC docket found" and the 2022 IPR settlement are consistent with the assignment record, which shows no 2026 recordings — the last USPTO filing is the 2023-08-15 secured-party release (Reel 064599/0304). Note one data correction to carry forward: the prior summary cited a stray aggregator priority date of 2005-12-19; the assignment signing dates (2005-12-16 to 2005-12-19) and the 2005-12-20 filing/recording dates confirm 2005-12-20 as the operative date, with the 12-19 figure traceable to the inventors' signature date on the assignment instrument rather than a priority claim.

I'll verify the patent record and key prior-art references before building the citation-by-citation analysis.

Now let me identify the specific references the IPR petition relied on (Takahashi, Gotham '163) and confirm the Romano and Narushima references.

US 7,684,090 B2 — Prior-Art Analysis (Citation-by-Citation)

0. Record check (builds on the earlier summary)

The number 7684090 resolves to US 7,684,090 B2, "Digital printer for use with docked display device," App. No. 11/312,909, filed 2005-12-20, granted 2010-03-23, inventor Gotham & Swayze, originally Eastman Kodak, now listed to Monument Peak Ventures, LLC. Verified across Google Patents (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7684090/en), FreePatentsOnline (https://www.freepatentsonline.com/7684090.html), and Justia (https://patents.justia.com/patent/7684090). No similar-number substitution was made.

New detail I can add to the previously generated section: the pre-grant publication US 2007/0139719 A1 carried 17 claims, including a second independent claim 11 (printer + digital camera system, rotatable docking interface) and independent claim 17 (docking surface + rotation means + driver means) — the very language mirrored in the "Summary." The granted patent has only the 10 claims of independent claim 1 plus dependents. So claims 11–17 were not granted. This is consistent with (not contradictory to) the earlier 10-claim count; it just explains why the spec's summary language (rotation means/driver means) never appears in the granted claim set.

1. Method, scope, and one important legal caveat

• I could not query USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR directly (no API access); the citation inventory below comes from the granted face of the patent as reproduced on Google Patents and cross-checked against the IPR2022-00318 petition record in PTAB's PTACTS system (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1548872](/patent/1548872)/download-documents).
• §102 caveat that governs this whole answer: a reference anticipates a claim under §102 only if it discloses every element of that claim. Dependent claims 2–10 incorporate all of claim 1. Therefore, no reference that fails to disclose claim 1's final "adjustably mounted / movable while maintaining the electrical connection" clause can anticipate any claim of this patent — such references are §103 (obviousness) material only. I apply that rule strictly below rather than listing loose "anticipation" matches.

Claim 1 element key (used throughout):

• (a) external structure housing print engine + receiver-medium transport (imagewise donor transfer)
• (b) display-device interface that receives/positions the device so its connector mates the printer's electrical interface
• (c) printer processor that transmits signals to the device controller influencing the device's display
• (d) interface adjustably mounted, movable across a range of positions while the electrical connection is maintained

2. The face citations of US 7,684,090 — full inventory with §102 assessment

2a. References that can support a §102 or lead §103 challenge against the claims

2b. Face citations that are plainly non-analogous (no §102/§103 mapping to any claim)

• US 4,484,349 A (Environmental Research Institute of Michigan) — parallel pipeline image processor (1982-03-11 / 1984-11-20).
• US 5,164,831 A (Kodak) — multi-format still-image storage (1990-03-15 / 1992-11-17).
• US 5,330,415 A (Air-Shields) — incubator with remote control and display module (1989-02-27 / 1994-07-19). (General "movable display module" idea only.)
• US 5,477,264 A (Kodak) — removable software-enhanced storage device (1994-03-29 / 1995-12-19).
• JP H08-11845 A (Toyo Engineering) — seal-portion detection for continuous pouch film (1994-06-24 / 1996-01-16). Arguably mis-cited; no nexus to the claims.
• US 6,146,523 A (Aksys) — user interface/method for dialysis machine control (1995-02-13 / 2000-11-14).
• US 6,466,278 B1 (Icebox LLC) — appliances (2000-01-06 / 2002-10-15).
• US 6,785,126 B2 (Ttools) — protective case/keyboard for handheld computer (2001-05-07 / 2004-08-31).
• US 6,747,689 B1 (Kodak) — operating a multiple-component electronic imaging system (1997-10-23 / 2004-06-08); US 6,738,090 B2 (Kodak) — single intelligence circuit for a plurality of imaging rendering components (1997-10-23 / 2004-05-18); US 6,587,140 B2 (Kodak) — single intelligence circuit in both a digital camera and printer (1997-10-23 / 2003-07-01); EP 0 912 035 A2 (Kodak, same family) (pub. 1999-04-28). — these are shared-architecture Kodak family references; background to 1(a)/(c) only.
• US 2002/0113996 A1 (Minolta) — data supplier, printer, print system (2001-02-16 / 2002-08-22).
• US 2004/0169327 A1 (Kodak) — imaging system and media supply (2003-02-28 / 2004-09-02).

2c. Non-patent citations (all three are on the face)

• CompactFlash Association, "CF+ and CompactFlash Specification Rev. 1.4," 1998–99, pp. 1–105 — removable-media interface standard; background to the "memory card slot 46 / removable memory 48" description.
• JEIDA-49-1998, "Digital Still Camera Image File Format Standard" (Japan Electronic Industry Development Association), pp. 1–168 — DSC file-format standard; background.
• Eastman Kodak Co., "Kodak EasyShare Photo Frame Dock 2," www.kodak.com — commercial dock that a camera seats into; relevant as prior-art evidence for element 1(b) (commercial docking hardware), not for 1(d) as cited.

2d. Forward citations — not prior art (listed to avoid confusion)

"Citing" art that post-dates the 2005-12-20 priority cannot be §102 art against '090: US 2012/0320226 A1 (Chen, "Stationary printing apparatus with camera," 2011-06-14 / 2012-12-20); US 9,146,585 B2 and US 9,351,237 B2 (Z124); US 2007/0240174 A1 (RadioShack, receiving a portable media player, 2006-03-18 / 2007-10-11 — after the '090 priority date); U.S. 2010/0118327 / 2009/0219797 / 2009/0219580; US 9,077,826 B2, US 10,097,703 B2, US 9,936,096 B2, etc. Likewise, the "Similar Documents" and "Families Citing this family" lists on the Google Patents page are not cited prior art.

3. Most relevant prior art — ranked §102/§103 assessment

Rank 1 — Schinner, US 2004/0212822 A1 (granted US 7,312,817 B2). The most relevant reference, and the only one that plausibly anticipates claim 1 under §102:

• 1(a) printer 100 with printing engine (inkjet/laser) ✔
• 1(b) docking port 110 = indentation 114 (mechanical) + multi-pin connector 112 (electrical) ✔
• 1(c) printer user interface 120 sends "command and control information from the printer 100… to the camera 102" driving display unit 106 ✔
• 1(d) ¶[0035]: docking port mounted "on a table or pedestal mechanism that swivels… about a pivot… tiltable, twistable, slideable, or moveable… while maintaining the electrical interface between the digital camera 102 and the printer 100" ✔
  A §102 case against claim 1 (and hence 2, 3, 5, 7, 10 as sub-combinations) therefore hinges on that single "although not illustrated" sentence — which is precisely why the real-world challenge was pleaded as §103 (Schinner in view of Romano/Parulski, further in view of Takahashi, and further in view of Ricoh US 5,694,289) rather than as anticipation.

Rank 2 — Parulski US 7,038,714 B1 / US 2005/0146616 A1 (Kodak). Not anticipatory, but the closest art on the docking-printer-drives-camera-display concept. The '090 spec itself cites '616 as describing "a wide variety of applications of this combination." Essential §103 partner for Schinner's missing processor/display-control detail (printer processor 420 → camera processor 320 → LCD 332).

Rank 3 — Fuji US 2004/0004671 A1 ("Takahashi"). Best art for claim 1(d) in rotation/tilt form plus claims 2, 3 and 8: camera mounting unit 604 rotatable/tiltable/slidable on leg 602 about axis 703, position signal transmitted to the camera to change its mode, and power button 614 / LED 616 carried on the rotating unit.

Rank 4 — Ricoh US 5,694,289. Best art for the mechanical trick that makes claim 1(d) work — a panel that rotates while a cable passes through the shaft's central hole — plus controls and a display on the rotating panel (claims 2, 3, 4, 6).

Rank 5 — Kayanuma US 2002/0149695 A1 and US 7,253,840 B2 / US 2002/0186317 A1. Cradles with movable walls giving free setting of camera angle/direction while the camera remains seated; supports claims 5 and 7.

Lower-ranked corroborating art: US 2002/0071035 A1 (Sobol), US 2002/0093583 A1 (Ito), US 2002/0186319 A1 (Kodak), US 2005/0088572 A1 (Pandit) all show elements 1(a)–(c) in a camera-dock-to-printer context but nothing on 1(d).

Not pertinent despite being cited as "closest prior art": US 6,774,951 B2 (Narushima, Sony) and US 2006/0112375 A1 (Schneider). The IPR petition record expressly observes that "the Examiner did not reject the claims based on the prior art before allowing them," asserting Narushima and Schneider were the "closest prior art," and argues that neither "discloses a docking printer and camera system, or even a camera docking station." I did not find any disclosure in either reference that maps to claim 1, and I flag this as a probable examiner-classification artifact, not a genuine novelty basis. (I could not retrieve full text of Narushima/Schneider before the tool budget closed — treat that statement as "no pertinent disclosure located," not as a definitive negative.)

Bottom line for §102 purposes: Schinner alone is the only face-of-patent reference with a supportable §102 argument — against claim 1 and derivatively claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 10. Every other reference either (i) omits 1(d) entirely and is therefore §103-only, or (ii) is non-analogous. Grants US 5,694,289, US 7,253,840, US 7,038,714 and publication US 2004/0004671 A1 are all §103 combination references, not §102 anticipants of claim 1.

4. Contradictions / corrections versus the previously generated section

1. No contradiction on claim count or on IPR scope. The earlier summary's "10 claims, one independent" and "IPR2022-00318 challenges claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10" are both confirmed by the petition text ("Petitioner challenges independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10"). I add only that the pre-grant publication had 17 claims (11–17 cancelled), which explains the "rotation means / driver means" language in the spec but not in the granted set.
2. Refinement, not conflict, on "closest prior art." The earlier summary did not name the Examiner's cited art; the record shows it was Narushima (US 6,774,951 B2) and Schneider (US 2006/0112375 A1) — neither of which is a docking-printer reference.
3. Attribution caveat on the IPR's primary art. The IPR petition (Petitioner Xerox) treats Schinner (US 2004/0212822 A1 / US 7,312,817 B2) as primary art and Parulski '616 / Romano as secondary, with Takahashi and Ricoh '289 for the dependent claims. Those secondary/tertiary references are specification-referenced or analogous-art items, several of which do not appear among the 39 face citations — i.e., the litigation art set is broader than the prosecution citation set.

5. Uncertainty flags

• "Gotham '163" (IPR Exhibit 1029): the petition references an earlier Gotham patent on an adjustable camera docking station as "Gotham '163." I could not verify the underlying patent number or content; I did not want to guess at a number ending in "163." Flagged as unverified.
• "Takahashi (EX1004)" = US 2004/0004671 A1 (Fuji Photo Film). The paragraph-number correspondence ([0114], camera mounting unit 604, leg 602, axis 703, button 614, LED 616) matches US 2004/0004671 A1, which is a face citation of '090. I am treating them as the same reference; a direct exhibit check would confirm the inventor surname.
• I could not retrieve full text for US 6,774,951 B2, US 2006/0112375 A1, and several low-relevance foreign items (EP 949804, JPH11179998, WO 97/50243) before the search budget closed; their assessments above rest on titles/abstracts.
• Dates are taken from the granted front matter as reproduced on Google Patents; note the previously flagged aggregator artifact listing priority as 2005-12-19 versus 2005-12-20 on the patent itself — I use 2005-12-20.

I'll research the prior art references and the PTAB petition grounds before building the § 103 analysis.

Let me pin down the Takahashi reference and the remaining cited art relevant to the unchallenged dependent claims.

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent No. 7,684,090 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Builds on — and does not repeat — the prior "Patent summary" and "Litigation summary" sections. Those established: one independent claim (claim 1); claims 2–10 dependent; filed 2005‑12‑20 (no earlier priority); the novelty pivot is the adjustably mounted display‑device interface that stays electrically connected while it moves; and IPR2022‑00318 was instituted and then settled.

1. Scope, governing law, and caveats

Governing statute. The application was filed 2005‑12‑20, so pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) applies. The standard is Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), as clarified by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Because the petition in IPR2022‑00318 challenged the claims under "§ 103(a) (Pre‑AIA)," my analysis tracks the same statutory hook used by the actual challenger.

Prior‑art source. Per the task instruction, I use the "Prior Art" material on the patent page — the Citations (36)/(39) tables, the Family Cites Families (2) table, and the Non‑Patent Citations — cross‑checked against the IPR2022‑00318 Petition/Institution Decision, which I retrieved and which confirms how a real challenger mapped the art.

Flagged contradictions / uncertainties (read before relying on the combinations):

1. Date mismatch. The system authority date is 2026‑09‑29; this task states "April 26, 2026"; the earlier generated summary said "current date (April 2026)." I treat these as inconsistent and flag it. Nothing in the analysis below turns on the date.
2. Takahashi is NOT in the page's prior‑art section. It appears only in the IPR2022‑00318 petition/institution decision (Ground 2, claims 2 & 3). I could not confirm its full identity (patent/application number, date). I therefore present it as pleaded, not as verified (see §4).
3. Romano appears under "Family Cites Families (2)," not the main "Citations" table. It is still part of the page's prior‑art section. Note it is a different document from the similarly numbered US 2004/0169327 A1 (Kodak, "Imaging system and media supply") that is in the main Citations table. I do not auto‑correct either number.
4. Minor reference‑data discrepancy: one aggregator lists Schinner's priority as 2003‑04‑21; the publication shows a 2003‑04‑22 filing. This does not affect its § 102 status. Schinner (US 2004/0212822 A1, published 2004‑10‑28) and Romano (US 2004/0169727 A1, published 2004‑09‑02) both predate 2004‑12‑20 and are therefore available as § 102(b) art against the 2005‑12‑20 filing.

2. Person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) and analogous art

POSITA would be a skilled engineer with ~2–4 years' experience (or a bachelor's degree) in consumer imaging/printing systems, including digital-camera docks and printer user interfaces — comfortably able to integrate camera docking ports, printer print engines/paper transports, and display/control electronics.

Analogous art. All the references below are either (a) in the same field of endeavor (digital still cameras, direct camera‑to‑printer printing, docking cradles) or (b) reasonably pertinent to the problem the '090 patent itself identifies — the "front‑end‑only" accessibility problem for printer controls/indicators (see the '090 Background). The Ricoh operation‑panel reference (US 5,694,289), while in facsimile/copier apparatus, is reasonably pertinent because it addresses the identical problem — reorienting a user‑facing panel/display relative to a stationary machine body.

3. Ground 1 — Claim 1 (and claims 5, 7, 10) obvious over Schinner in view of Romano

This is the exact combination the PTAB instituted in IPR2022‑00318 (Pet. Ground 1; Institution Decision, June 9, 2022, granting review of claims 1‑3, 5, 7, 10). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable (§ 314(a)). The case later terminated by settlement (July 11, 2022), so there is no final written decision — the institution is probative but not a merits adjudication.

3.1 What each reference teaches

Schinner — US 2004/0212822 A1 ("Printer and docking station having a digital camera docking port with an image magnifier"):

Critical observation: Schinner's ¶[0035] is a direct disclosure of the '090 patent's stated point of novelty — a dock that swivels/tilts/twists/slides for "better viewing of the display unit," which inherently means the display can be repositioned without undocking the camera (the connector 112 remains mated). On the face of the reference, Schinner discloses claim 1's movable, still‑connected dock.

Romano — US 2004/0169727 A1 ("System and method for viewing and selecting images for printing"; Kodak; Romano et al.):

• Discloses a printer's receiver‑medium transport / media transport mechanism 410/410A — which the Petition (¶143) identified as the equivalent of the '090's "motor 28 driving pinch rollers" — i.e., the structure that cooperates with the print engine to transfer marking material to media in an imagewise fashion (claim 1[b]).
• Discloses a system that uses a docked camera's display to view/select images for printing, avoiding an expensive dedicated printer display — the same problem and same solution as Schinner.

3.2 Element‑by‑element conclusion (claim 1)

Every limitation of claim 1 is disclosed: preamble, print engine/transport (Schinner engine + Romano transport), docking interface with mating connector (Schinner), processor driving the docked device's display (Schinner), and the adjustably mounted, connection‑maintaining dock (Schinner ¶[0035]). Claim 1 would have been obvious over Schinner in view of Romano.

3.3 Motivation to combine (KSR rationales)

1. Same field, same problem, same solution. Both Schinner and Romano address the identical problem — avoiding the cost of a dedicated printer display by using the docked camera's display for selecting/printing images. A POSITA reviewing one would naturally look to the other. (This is exactly the reasoning in Petition ¶¶106‑107.)
2. Complementary teachings / need. Schinner teaches the docking/display architecture; Romano supplies the conventional print engine + pinch‑roller media transport; combining them yields a complete, operative docking printer. Simple substitution of known elements, each performing its known function.
3. Predictable result / design incentive (KSR). Making a dock "swivel/tilt/twist/slide" so a user can better see a display is the kind of predictable variation and market‑driven design choice KSR treats as obvious. Preserving the electrical connection during such motion is a routine engineering constraint (the '090 spec itself concedes flexible ribbons/slip rings are "conventional structures").
4. The problem was already known in the art (the '090 Background admits the "front‑end‑only" accessibility problem), which strengthens the motivation prong.

Claims 5, 7, 10 fall with claim 1:

• Claim 5 (rotatably mounted): Schinner's "swivel about a pivot."
• Claim 7 (viewable from at least two of horizontal/vertical/depth): Schinner's "tiltable, twistable, slideable" mount enables viewing from, e.g., front (horizontal) and side (depth), and tilt adds vertical.
• Claim 10 (display device is a digital camera…): Schinner's display device is a digital camera.

4. Ground 2 — Claims 2 & 3 obvious over Schinner + Romano + Takahashi

Per the IPR2022‑00318 petition (Ground 2), claims 2 and 3 were challenged with a third reference, Takahashi, added to the Schinner+Romano combination.

• Claim 2 requires at least one user interface control positioned on the display device interface so that its position moves when the dock moves. Schinner already discloses keys 122 integral to the printer near the docking port 110; Takahashi (as pleaded) supplies the teaching of locating such a control on the moving dock surface so it travels with the reorientable unit.
• Claim 3 is the status‑indicator analog.

Motivation to combine: placing user controls/indicators on the very surface the user is trying to see directly serves the acknowledged purpose of Schinner's adjustable mount ("better viewing") — the control/indicator follows the display to the user's position. That is a predictable, functionally motivated arrangement.

⚠️ Verification caveat: I could not confirm Takahashi's identity (number, date, or content) from the page's prior‑art section or my searches. Claim 2/3 obviousness should be treated as pleaded, not independently verified. If Takahashi is not qualifying prior art, the claims 2/3 ground weakens considerably, because none of the page's own citations plainly discloses controls mounted on a movable dock — the closest is Ricoh (below), which mounts controls on a movable panel of a machine, not a camera dock.

5. Dependent claims NOT challenged in the IPR (4, 6, 8, 9) — independent combos from the page's citations

The petitioner did not challenge claims 4, 6, 8, or 9, so no PTAB institution supports these. I map them to the best available art from the page itself, and I flag where the art does not cleanly reach.

Claim 4 — separately movable "adjustment surface" carrying user controls, movable relative to both the housing and the dock

• Ricoh — US 5,694,289 ("Information processing apparatus with operation panel which is changeable in direction of operation") discloses a movable panel unit (10) on a base plate (13) of the main apparatus, with a rotating part / shaft (21) permitting the panel (with keys 11a/12a and a display 11b) to change direction, and — importantly — a connecting cable (22) routed through the shaft so signals are maintained during rotation.
• Motivation: Ricoh expressly addresses the same problem as the '090 — the machine's controls/display are fixed and cannot be comfortably reoriented ("the operator needs to turn the entire apparatus… difficult to find a comfortable position"). Applying Ricoh's independently movable, cable‑preserving control surface to Schinner/Romano's docking printer is a combination of known elements with a predictable result.
• Conclusion: Claim 4 is likely obvious over Schinner + Romano + Ricoh (or + Kayanuma, US 2002/0149695 A1, which similarly provides a cradle with its own display and controls).

Claim 6 — adjustment surface with a status indicator, rotatably mounted about the dock's own axis of rotation

• Ricoh's rotating part and stopper/angle‑limit structure provide the rotational mounting about a defined axis; US 5,330,415 (Air‑Shields, "Incubator with remote control and display module") supports the concept of a display/indicator module separated from and repositionable relative to the machine body.
• Conclusion: Likely obvious over Schinner + Romano + Ricoh, though the "same axis as the dock" limitation is more specific and would benefit from a reference explicitly coaxial with the dock — which Schinner's swivel pivot (also a rotation axis) arguably supplies.

Claims 8 & 9 — position sensor triggers the processor to render virtual user‑input/status images on the docked device's screen; touch‑screen interpretation

• These are the strongest claims in the set relative to the listed art. The page's citations do not plainly disclose sensing the dock's orientation and responsively rendering virtual controls/indicators on the docked device's display, nor interpreting touch‑screen contact as printer input in that context.
• Partial support: US 2006/0112375 A1 (Schneider — workstation resource‑usage monitoring, cited‑by‑examiner) and Ricoh's rotation/angle‑sensing mechanics are only loosely relevant; touch‑sensitive displays were well‑known generally, but a general "touch screens are known" assertion is not enough to meet the specific claim 8 combination.
• Conclusion: I do not have a clean, verifiable obviousness combination for claims 8‑9 from the page's cited art. I flag this explicitly rather than fabricate a mapping. (This likely explains why the petitioner left claims 8‑9 unchallenged.)

6. Alternative/additional art available on the page (backup combinations)

• US 2005/0088572 A1 (Pandit, HP) — "System and method for a camera docking station": a platform rotatable about an axis of rotation 114 while the camera remains connected, letting the user "rotate the docked camera… to better view the display, access the controls." This is substantively on point for claim 1's movable‑while‑connected limitation and for claims 5/7, and could be used either as an alternative to Schinner's ¶[0035] or as corroborating secondary evidence. (Published 2005‑04‑28; available under § 102(a)/(e).)
• US 2002/0186319 A1 (Kodak) "Docking station assembly for transmitting digital files"; US 2002/0149695 A1 / US 2002/0186317 A1 (Kayanuma, Fuji) "Cradle… / Cradle for digital camera" — cradles with camera connectors, displays, and (in the divisional line) movable walls / tripod‑adjustable angle enabling the camera display to be viewed from flexible angles.
• US 6,116,137 (Canon); WO 1997/050243 A1 (Casio); EP 0 920 184 A2 (Casio) — image‑processing/digital‑camera‑printing systems that drive an external/attached display.
• Non‑patent citations (CompactFlash spec, Kodak EasyShare Photo Frame Dock 2, JEIDA‑49‑1998) bear on memory/formats, not on the novel movable‑dock limitation, so they add little to the § 103 case.

7. Secondary considerations (objective indicia)

The record I can see reflects no established secondary indicia of non‑obviousness:

• The accessibility problem was admitted in the '090 Background, undercutting any "long‑felt, unrecognized need" narrative.
• The claimed solution (movable surface + cable/slip‑ring to preserve connection) uses admittedly conventional structures, undercutting "unexpected results."
• No evidence of industry praise, copying, or nexus of licensing success to this specific claim was located. MPV's broad Kodak‑portfolio licensing campaign is not, by itself, probative of non‑obviousness without a nexus.

8. Bottom line

Net assessment: Independent claim 1 is very likely obvious, chiefly because Schinner's own ¶[0035] discloses the very feature the '090 patent treats as its point of novelty — a docking port that swivels/tilts/twists/slides "for better viewing of the display unit," with the camera connector still mated — and Romano supplies the conventional print engine/media transport. The PTAB's decision to institute on exactly that Schinner+Romano ground reinforces this, though the subsequent settlement (July 11, 2022) means there is no merits ruling. Claims 2‑7 appear vulnerable with the cited art. Claims 8‑9 are the hardest to invalidate on the art shown.

Outstanding verification items

1. Confirm Takahashi's identity/dates — critical to the claims 2/3 ground; not verifiable from the page's prior‑art section.
2. Direct PTAB/PACER check for any 2026 activity (the earlier section found none for '090; the 2026 MPV v. Carl Zeiss complaint asserts different patents).
3. Reconcile the current‑date discrepancy (system 2026‑09‑29 vs. task April 26, 2026 vs. prior section April 2026).