Invalidity dossier
US 7817163
Dynamic window anatomy
Current assignee: Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC
Added 9/24/2026, 1:11:09 AM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview — US 7,817,163 B2
Title: "Dynamic window anatomy"
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7817163/en
Identification and dates (per source): Application US 10/691,442, filed 2003-10-23; priority date listed as 2003-10-23; granted and published as US 7,817,163 B2 on 2010-10-19. Status shown as Active, with an adjusted expiration listed as 2029-04-23. Inventors: Scott Hanggie, Victor Tan, Gerardo Bermudez, and Gregory D. Swedberg. Original assignee: [Microsoft Corp.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Microsoft%20Corp.); current assignee listed as Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC (the source notes assignee listings may be inaccurate and that no legal analysis was performed). Classifications include G09G5/14 (display of multiple viewports) and G06F3/0481 (GUI interaction based on displayed-object properties), among others.
Purpose and plain-language scope (as stated in the excerpt): The invention "relates generally to a graphical user interface of a computer operating system" and "provides a mechanism that allows for the possibility of having, on a window-by-window basis, multiple and/or irregularly-shaped client and non-client content areas in each window." The excerpt frames this against prior desktop window managers that conserve memory and CPU/GPU bandwidth using an "invalidation" rendering model, which limited visually rich desktop presentation; rich 2D/3D content was confined to an application's own window or full-screen mode, thus contributing nothing to the desktop environment. The excerpt also defines background terminology: shell, GUI, desktop, window, Z-order, focus, DWM, APIs, GDI, and the invalidation-messaging model.
What the excerpt does not establish: It contains no claims, no detailed description of embodiments, and no figures or reference numerals. It does not identify specific prior-art references, litigation, ownership transfers, or validity determinations. It gives no details on how the stated "window-by-window" multiple/irregularly-shaped content areas are implemented, nor any actual claim scope. The excerpt ends mid-sentence regarding GDI limitations, so its discussion of rendering tradeoffs is incomplete. Accordingly, the scope summarized above is limited to the problem statement and definitions in the supplied text, not the patented claims.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:31:33 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 7817163. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.