US 7822428

I'll search for the specific patent number across USPTO and CAFC sources.

Let me check for any CAFC litigation/docket activity involving this patent.

Summary of U.S. Patent No. 7822428

Important scope note on what I could and could not confirm: I searched for patent number 7822428 as an exact string (not a similar number) and found no CAFC docket entry, litigation, IPR, or PTAB proceeding in 2026 (or any year) that names U.S. Patent No. 7,822,428. The Apple/Adobe/UniCourt CAFC hits that surfaced (e.g., Adobe Inc. v. Jaffe, 26-1771; ViaTech v. Adobe, 24-2235; Esignature Software v. Adobe, 23-1711) involve different patents and are not appeals concerning 7822428. I do not have authoritative evidence of any 2026 CAFC activity for this patent, so I am flagging that as an unverified/absent finding rather than asserting a negative I cannot fully prove.

Bibliographic data (confirmed by multiple sources)

Abstract (verbatim)

"A system and method is described for providing an interactive rich media information service to users of mobile devices. The rich media information is presented to users in a plurality of interactive rich media channels. A subscriber-specific data stream is received at the mobile device containing channel data for each of the rich media channel that the user has subscribed to. The channel data is separated and stored corresponding to each such subscribed-to channel. An interactive multimedia runtime container (iMRC). is executed on the mobile device for each subscribed-to channel. The rich media channels are played on the iMRC and displayed on the display of the mobile device. Using the user interface elements of the mobile device, the user may navigate through the information on the channels, navigate between different channels, subscribe or un-subscribe to channels, and enter user preferences for further tailoring the information presented in the subscribed-to channels."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The patent has three independent claims: 1 (method), 13 (mobile device), and 18 (mobile device including a phone and touch screen). Claims 2–12 depend from 1; claims 14–17 from 13; claims 19–20 from 18.

Claim 1 — Method of experiencing interactive multimedia on a mobile unit. The mobile unit (phone/device) receives a user interaction through its interface to subscribe to one or more interactive multimedia channels. The device has two key storage structures: (a) channel application memory holding channel applications that visually present the subscribed-to channels, and (b) a feed store holding the channel data that populates those applications. Channel data is stored at channel-specific memory addresses; when updated data arrives it replaces the prior data in the feed store; and access to at least some channel data is restricted to the channel(s) it belongs to (per-channel gating). The device displays a subscribed channel by retrieving channel data from the on-device feed store, and the user can navigate within a channel's content and between different subscribed channels. The claim additionally requires that the mobile unit also display one or more system channels and other channels, with the system channels including a channel listing channel that lists available channels, and that the device restricts access to at least some system channel data to the system channels.

Claim 13 — Mobile device (apparatus version of claim 1). Covers essentially the same combination in device-claim form: channel application memory; a feed store with channel-specific addressing, replacement-on-update, and per-channel access restriction; a display that shows a subscribed channel by pulling from the feed store; and a user interface that receives both the subscription instruction and the navigation input. It closes with the same system-channel limitation — system channels including a channel listing channel, with system channel data access restricted to the system channels.

Claim 18 — Mobile device with a phone, an operating system, and a touch screen. A device comprising a phone, an operating system, memory containing (i) channel applications presenting subscribed-to channels and (ii) channel data at channel-specific addresses, and a user interface including a touch screen on which a channel application's interactive multimedia content is displayed. The touch screen UI receives navigation input within a channel and between channels. As in claims 1 and 13, the channels include system channels (with a channel listing channel of available channels) and other channels, and the device restricts access to at least some system channel data to the system channels.

Notable technical features (from the description, useful for claim context)

• Uses an interactive multimedia application environment (iMAE) and a separate interactive multimedia runtime container (iMRC) per channel; the specification points to Macromedia Flash/Flash Player as examples.
• Push-based updates: an "enhanced subscription server" compiles a subscriber-specific stream (the patent mentions HTTP, SMS, UDP) and pushes channel updates; only deltas/changes are normally transmitted.
• Offline capability: because channel data is cached in the feed store, users can browse subscribed channels without a live wireless connection.
• Versioning: monotonic stamps, client-reported version numbers, or synchronized clocks/"fresh until" timestamps.
• Navigation paradigms: 5-way rocker, joystick, soft keys, and touch screen; channels on a left/right axis and pages on an up/down axis (or vice versa), plus a carousel default view.

Discrepancy worth flagging (interpreted literally, not corrected)

The patent text cross-references a "BANDWIDTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM" patent as U.S. Pat. No. 7,478,148 in one passage and as U.S. Pat. No. 7,478,158 in another. Per your instruction not to auto-correct identifiers, I am reporting both numbers exactly as they appear rather than choosing one.

Uncertainty statement

The bibliographic data and abstract above are corroborated by Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, and PatentGuru, and the full claim text is from the authoritative patent document. The only material uncertainty is the CAFC/litigation question: I found no CAFC 2026 (or other-year) docket specifically for 7822428. If you need a definitive check of USPTO PatentCenter and PACER/CAFC dockets, that would require querying those systems directly, which I cannot do with the tools available here.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 7822428.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases.

Let me try additional targeted searches.

Litigation Search: U.S. Patent No. 7,822,428

Bottom line: I found no litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 7,822,428 in any of the sources I was able to search. Based on the available evidence, this patent does not appear to have ever been asserted in a district court infringement action, nor has it been the subject of an IPR/PGR at the PTAB.

What I searched and what came back

Caveats on the negative finding (important)

1. The negative result is a genuine "not found," not a verified "none exists." I was able to reach public aggregators and general web sources, but I could not complete exhaustive PIN-cited queries directly against PACER or the full Docket Alarm / Unified case lists before hitting search limits. A negative from these sources is strong but not dispositive.
2. This is consistent with expectations. U.S. Patent 7,822,428 is titled "Mobile rich media information system," filed March 1, 2004, granted October 26, 2010, and assigned to Adobe Inc. (originally Macromedia, Inc., then Adobe Systems Inc.). Adobe is a large operating company that has historically been a target rather than an asserting party; its mobile rich-media patents are generally not the kind of asset that gets litigated to judgment, which lowers the likelihood of an asserted case existing.
3. A related continuation exists but carries no litigation signal either. The family includes US 2013/0237185 A1 (application 12/882,438, filed Sept. 15, 2010, now abandoned). No litigation is reported against it.
4. Its citations are prior-art cites, not litigation. The 62 "Citations" and 12 "Cited By" entries on Google Patents are examiner/third-party prior-art references (e.g., US 7,376,414; US 9,325,805), not indications of litigation.

Recommended next steps to confirm

• Search PACER (Case Locator / Docket Alarm) directly for "7,822,428" and "7822428" across all district courts.
• Check Unified Patents' PTAB and litigation portals and Lex Machina / Docket Navigator by patent number.
• Confirm via USPTO Patent Public Search → "Litigation" / assignment records whether the patent was ever transferred to a PAE (no such assignment appears in the record — the chain of title runs only Adobe Systems Inc. → Macromedia → Adobe Incorporated).
• If a direct PACER/DPMA query also returns nothing, the conclusion can be stated affirmatively: no known litigation.

In short: I have no high-confidence evidence of litigation involving U.S. 7,822,428 and, accordingly, I cannot list any plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome. If no PACER/Lex Machina hit exists, the correct answer is that no litigation is known for this patent.

I'll verify the structured data against public sources before drafting.

No AIA proceeding surfaced in those searches. Let me run a few more targeted queries to be thorough.

One more round of verification against docket aggregators and the Unified Patents portal.

PTAB / AIA Trial Landscape — U.S. Patent No. 7,822,428

Patent: U.S. 7,822,428 B1 ("Mobile rich media information system")
Patent Owner / current assignee: Adobe Inc. (originally Adobe Systems Inc.; assigned to Macromedia, Inc. 2004-06-28, back to Adobe Systems Incorporated 2006-01-19)
Application: 10/791,298 · Filed: 2004-03-01 · Priority: 2004-03-01 · Granted: 2010-10-26
Status: Active; adjusted expiration 2028-05-17
Family: continuation 12/882,438 (US 2013/0237185 A1) — abandoned, no second claim set in force
Claims: 1–20 (independent: 1, 13, 18)

---

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings have been filed against U.S. 7,822,428 — the USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent, and my independent searching of Google Patents' litigation/post-grant data, PTAB petition documents surfaced via ptacts.uspto.gov, Docket Alarm PTAB records, and the Unified Patents patent portal surfaced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or appeal naming 7,822,428. Breakdown: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied.

Bottom-line defensive posture: This patent has never been PTAB-tested. There is no claim-level kill to lean on, no FWD to quote, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel to exploit. Everything a defendant argues is a first-impression challenge — which cuts both ways: no estoppel binds you, but you also cannot point the court to a Board that has already canceled anything. The offsetting fact that dominates the calculus is timing: with expiration on 2028-05-17, roughly 20 months of enforceable term remain as of 2026-09-27.

---

Proceedings on file

None. There is nothing to enumerate. I am explicitly declining to fabricate proceeding numbers, panels, or dispositions to fill this section. Two near-miss hits from the searches were checked and are not this patent:

• IPR2024-01352, Adobe Inc. v. Jonathan E. Jaffe — U.S. Patent 6,757,828 (not 7,822,428). Different patent, and Adobe is the petitioner there, not the owner.
• A Google Patents search hit for "FR7822428" — a 1978 French container-closure filing, unrelated.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: all 20 claims UNTESTED. No claim of 7,822,428 has ever been canceled, narrowed by certificate, or confirmed by the Board. Claims 1 (method), 13 (mobile device), and 18 (mobile device with phone/OS/touch screen) stand exactly as issued, with dependent claims 2–12, 14–17, and 19–20 intact. The only erosion of scope is the abandoned continuation 12/882,438, which means the patent owner cannot fall back on a later-filed claim set — what you see in the 2010 grant is the whole arsenal. Practically, that also means the § 112 and § 101 vulnerabilities that a reissue or continuation could have cured are frozen in place, and the 2004 filing date means this is pre-AIA law: § 102(b) printed-publication and on-sale art, no § 102(a)(2) "effectively filed" treatment for later-published applications, and no IPR-style obviousness escape hatch for the patentee.

Estoppel landscape: a clean slate. Because no IPR or PGR has EVER been instituted against this patent, no petitioner and no privy is subject to § 315(e)(2) estoppel on any ground. Every art ground — § 102, § 103, and any § 112 or § 101 theory teed up in a parallel district court case — remains fully available to a defendant. The corollary is that there is no Board record to import: no claim constructions adopted by a panel, no expert testimony on the record, no "the Board already rejected that argument" ammunition. Your § 315(b) one-year clock runs from service of the complaint, so if a demand letter has arrived but no suit has been served, an IPR petition filed now is timely — though see the timing caveat below.

AIA mechanism availability in 2026 — a narrowing funnel.

• IPR (§ 311): Available. No statutory bar other than the § 315(b) one-year window from service, and no § 325(d) "same art already considered" risk beyond the 62 references cited on the face of the patent.
• PGR (§ 321): Unavailable — PGR applies only to patents with an effective filing date on or after 2018-03-16 (post-AIA), and this patent's effective filing date is 2004-03-01.
• CBM (§ 18): Unavailable — the AIA transitional CBM program sunset for new petitions on 2020-09-16. Independently, this is a wireless information-delivery patent that would likely defeat the "technological invention" prong of the CBM threshold anyway.

Pattern signals: none. No serial petitioner, no repeat IPR filer, no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) in the chain. Adobe — a sophisticated, well-resourced patent owner that has publicly and aggressively litigated its own patent portfolio (e.g., Adobe Systems Inc. v. Wowza Media Systems on the RTMP patents) — is on the owner side here. There is no record of this patent being asserted in litigation, which is itself notable: no assertion campaign means no natural IPR petitioner was ever created. The absence of AIA activity is consistent with non-assertion, not with a hardened patent that has survived attack.

---

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant — the honest answer is that there is nothing to link to.

1. Do not expect a kill-shot. No FWD exists for 7,822,428, so there is no claim you can call dead. Any demand letter citing claims 1, 13, or 18 cites fully enforceable, never-challenged claims.
2. Feasibility-check an IPR against the clock. The patent expires 2028-05-17. Under the § 316(a)(11) statutory one-year trial deadline, a petition filed today would produce a Final Written Decision in late 2027 or 2028 — potentially after expiry. The Board can and does cancel expired claims, and a cancellation still clears you for pre-expiry damages, but the economics are unattractive unless the damages exposure justifies it. Time your § 315(b) one-year bar carefully; if you have not yet been served, you retain the option.
3. Front-load the art search at § 102(b) / § 103. With 7,822,428 filed 2004-03-01, all public disclosures before the critical date — including the Flash/Flash Player platform documentation the specification leans on, WAP/WML push-browser systems, and PointCast-class systems the patent itself distinguishes over — are § 102(b) art. Note the specification's own admissions about PointCast and push browsers; these can underpin a § 103 motivation-to-combine argument. The 62 references cited on the face of the patent (which include Brown, Mitchelmore, Tashiro, and Gidron) mean § 325(d) Advanced Bionics risk exists if you re-run art the Examiner already applied without materially different arguments.
4. Consider § 101 and § 112 in district court rather than the PTAB. The claims are directed to a mobile information system with an "interactive multimedia runtime container" and channel-specific memory access — a software/communications hybrid that has never faced an eligibility challenge in any forum. Only district court (or, if you are in the ITC, that forum) can test § 101 and § 112; the PTAB cannot.
5. Preserve the estoppel asymmetry. Because no petition has been filed by anyone, you are not bound by any prior petitioner's art choices — but if you file first and institute is granted, you will be the one carrying § 315(e)(2) estoppel into the litigation. Weigh whether a Sotera-type stipulation or joining an existing proceeding is preferable. On the current record there is no existing proceeding to join.

If you are the patent owner (Adobe or a successor): the intact 20-claim set, pre-AIA priority, and total absence of PTAB precedent make this a comparatively un-risky patent to assert — with the significant, hard-stop caveat that only about 20 months of term remain.

---

Verification notes and residual uncertainty

• The canonical source for this task — the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block sourced from the USPTO ODP API — states affirmatively that no AIA trial proceedings are on file for 7,822,428. My web-based corroboration is consistent with that.
• I could not query PTAB E2E / the PTAB public docket API or CourtListener's docket API directly in this session, and I did not locate a Docket Alarm or Unified Patents docket page specific to 7,822,428 (the Unified Patents portal page that surfaced was for unrelated patents). Accordingly, my confidence that no proceeding exists is high but not absolute — an unindexed, recently filed petition or a proceeding terminated very early would be the plausible failure mode. Before filing anything that turns on the absence of prior PTAB art, confirm by running the patent number directly through PTAB E2E (Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End) and the USPTO Patent Center.
• Dates are given in YYYY-MM-DD. Statutory cites and AIA sunset dates (PGR availability from 2018-03-16; CBM sunset 2020-09-16) are stated from general knowledge of the AIA framework rather than a cited document in this session.
• I found one internal inconsistency in the patent document itself, which does not affect this analysis but is worth flagging: the cross-reference section cites "U.S. Pat. No. 7,478,148" for the BANDWIDTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, while the Detailed Description cites "U.S. Pat. No. 7,478,158" for the same application. Google Patents' family data shows 7,478,158 as "Bandwidth Management System" (Adobe, priority 2004-02-29).

I'll research the assignment record for US 7,822,428 across USPTO Assignment Center, Google Patents legal events, and related sources.

Let me dig into the specific assignment records and legal events.

Let me try to pin down the specific reel/frame records and the merger assignment.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,822,428

Source caveat up front: I was able to retrieve the USPTO/Google Patents legal-events record for this patent (three recorded events) and corroborating corporate-transaction evidence, but I could not retrieve this patent's own USPTO Assignment Center abstract-of-title page showing its reel/frame numbers within the tool budget available. I therefore report the events and dates I can verify, and I explicitly flag the one reel/frame I can cite (from a sibling Macromedia patent, not this one) as analogous, not confirmed for 7822428. I do not fabricate reel/frames.

---

Inventors

Twelve named inventors (all 12 appear as assignors on the first recorded assignment):

Pattern notes:

• The inventorship is a 12-person team heavily clustered in the Bay Area (San Francisco / San Mateo / Foster City / Berkeley / Burlingame / Montara), consistent with Macromedia's San Francisco HQ and its Flash/mobile platform group. One outlier (Hosmer, Winchester, MA).
• This is not the classic "fire-sale precursor" pattern where all inventors quit the assignee within 12 months of filing. The only inventor with a verified departure date is Meyrowitz, who left Macromedia in 2005 — i.e., at the Adobe merger (18+ months after filing), not as a coordinated walk-out. Per-inventor departure dates for the other 11 are not determinable from the sources I reached; I will not infer them.
• Do not read "small entity / individual inventors" into this. Every inventor assigned to Macromedia pre-issuance, so the inventors never held independent title.

---

Original assignee

• Assignee named on the issued patent (issued 2010-10-26): Adobe Systems Incorporated (San Jose, CA) — as successor-in-interest to Macromedia, Inc.
• Original assignee of the application (2004): Macromedia, Inc. (San Francisco, CA; Delaware corporation — the entity on the 2004-06-28 assignment).
• Primary line of business: Rich-media / interactive-authoring software. Macromedia shipped Macromedia Flash and Flash Player — the exact technologies the specification names as its iMAE and iMRC examples (see the patent's own text: "MACROMEDIA, INC.'S MACROMEDIA FLASH™" and "MACROMEDIA FLASH PLAYER™"). The specification also describes a real commercial deployment (an "enhanced subscription server," channel lineup, 5-way navigation, try-before-you-buy channels), so this is not a paper/prosecution-only asset — the assignee was an operating company actively commercializing the claimed subject matter.
• Current status: Operating. Macromedia was acquired by Adobe in an all-stock merger (Agreement and Plan of Merger dated 2005-04-17; announced 2005-04-18; closed effective 2005-12-07). Macromedia no longer exists as a separate entity; Adobe renamed from "Adobe Systems Incorporated" to "Adobe Inc." effective 2019 (recorded 2019-03-06). Adobe is a large, publicly traded operating company (NASDAQ: ADBE) — not dissolved, not in bankruptcy.

---

Assignment timeline

Three recorded events appear on the patent's legal-events record. The reel/frame numbers for this specific patent could not be confirmed in this session; I supply the event data I can verify and mark the reel/frame status explicitly.

• 2004-06-01 (est.; individual execution dates 2004-06-07 through 2004-06-11) / recorded 2004-06-28 — Reel NNNNNN/NNNN (not confirmed this session)

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: All 12 named inventors (Morris, MacDonnell, Abramov, Sellier, Bliss, Moss, Meyrowitz, Connolly, Hosmer, Chatterjee, Peterson, Sutiono)
  • Assignee: Macromedia, Inc. (San Francisco, CA)
  • Correspondent: Not confirmed for this patent. Pattern note: Macromedia's prosecution/recording counsel of this era included Fish & Richardson P.C. (Minneapolis) and Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. (Customer No. 000029053) — but I cannot tie either to this reel/frame without the abstract of title.
  • Context: Founder/employee assignment on filing — standard original assignment to the operating company; not a transfer.

• Executed 2005-12-07 / recorded 2006-01-19 — Reel 017034/0263 (CITED FOR A SIBLING MACROMEDIA PATENT — NOT CONFIRMED FOR 7822428)

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (merger / entire interest)
  • Assignor: Macromedia, Inc.
  • Assignee: Adobe Systems Incorporated (345 Park Avenue, San Jose, CA 95110)
  • Correspondent: Not confirmed for this patent. Adobe's own legal department recorded these mergers; the recurring Adobe correspondent of this period is Daniel C. Poliak, Adobe Systems Incorporated Legal Department, 801 North 34th Street, Seattle, WA 98103 (appears on Adobe/Macromedia trademark recordation Reel 3205/0270, exec. 2005-12-03, rec'd 2005-12-06). The later re-recordation of a Macromedia→Adobe assignment was handled by John-Paul Fryckman, Fish & Richardson P.C. — but that record (legacy reel 024396/0815, EPAS ID PAT1186604, dated 2010-04-30) covers application 12/757,839, NOT 10/791,298. I flag it as a look-alike and expressly exclude it from this chain.
  • Reel/frame provenance for 017034/0263: this figure is taken from INPADOC's legal-status for the sibling Macromedia patent US 5,911,145, which records the same merger conveyance with the same effective date (2005-12-07) and the same recordation date (2006-01-19) that appear on 7822428. It is strong corroboration that 7822428 rode the same bulk merger assignment, but the frame number on this patent's own record may differ.
  • Context: Acquisition — Adobe's all-stock purchase of Macromedia; a book-clearing transfer of the entire Macromedia patent estate, not a targeted transfer of this patent.

• 2019-03-06 — recorded 2019-03-06 — Reel NNNNNN/NNNN (not confirmed)

  • Conveyance: Change of Name (no transfer of ownership)
  • Assignor: Adobe Systems Incorporated
  • Assignee: Adobe Inc.
  • Correspondent: Not confirmed.
  • Context: Change of name only — internal housekeeping; no new party enters the chain.

Note on the "adjusted expiration 2028-05-17": that is a patent-term-adjustment / maintenance artifact, not an assignment event.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7822428
    2004 : Filed by 12 named inventors
         : Assigned to Macromedia Inc
    2005 : Adobe acquires Macromedia
    2006 : Recorded to Adobe Systems
    2010 : Patent issues
    2019 : Name change to Adobe Inc

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion — with an express caveat, because the taxonomy does not fit this fact pattern cleanly.

The entire chain is a clean corporate-succession chain: inventors → Macromedia, Inc. (assigned 2004-06-28) → Adobe Systems Incorporated (merger assignment effective 2005-12-07, recorded 2006-01-19) → Adobe Inc. (2019-03-06 change of name only). The current assignee is a large operating company that ships products embodying the claims (Macromedia Flash / Flash Player, the exact iMAE/iMRC examples recited in the specification), and not one of the eight NPE signals is present.

Taxonomy mismatch to flag (per the "flag contradictions" rule): the closest available label, "Operating-company assertion," requires the owner to be "suing actual competitors" — and the earlier litigation review found no suit naming 7,822,428. So the "assertion" prong is not met. In substance this is a clean operating-company holding / non-NPE outcome; the patent is neither a shell transferred to a licensing LLC nor a defensive-aggregator-neutralized asset. I am choosing "Operating-company assertion" over "Defensive / non-asserting" (the chain does not end at a defensive aggregator) and over "Insufficient data" (there are recorded transfers beyond the original assignment) as the least-inaccurate option.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center (search by patent number 7822428 / application 10/791,298): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• Legacy USPTO Assignment Search interface: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• To confirm this patent's own reel/frame entries, search PatentCenter for application 10/791,298 → "Assignments" tab, and pull the abstract of title.

What to check to close the remaining gap: run the Assignment Center query for 10/791,298 and capture (a) the 2004-06-28 reel/frame and its correspondent, (b) the 2006-01-19 reel/frame and its correspondent, and (c) the 2019-03-06 change-of-name reel/frame. Those three reel/frame triples are the only unresolved data points in this report; every other characterization above is grounded in the record.

I'll research the prior art references for US 7,822,428, starting with the authoritative citation list and then verifying key references.

I have the truncated citation list. Let me retrieve the complete list of cited references and verify key ones.

Let me try to retrieve the remainder of the cited-reference list (the provided text truncates after US 6,819,669).

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,822,428 B1

Important scope note first (so nothing below is over-read): The patent's citation record lists 62 cited references. The authoritative full text provided to me truncates that list at entry 32 (US 6,819,669 B2). I retrieved and verified the first 32 entries directly from the patent text, and separately retrieved a secondary set of U.S. patent references (from FreePatentsOnline's record for 7822428). I was unable to retrieve the remaining ~30 entries of the 62 within my search budget. I will therefore (a) analyze the references I can document, and (b) state explicitly where the record was truncated rather than inventing entries. I did not fabricate any citation.

---

1. Legal framework applied (pre-AIA, because the application was filed 2004-03-01)

Because US 10/791,298 was filed March 1, 2004, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 governs. For the claim-by-claim mapping below:

Two consequences that matter for the table below:

• References with issue dates in 2006–2008 can still be § 102(e) art if their U.S. filing dates predate March 1, 2004 — so I do not disqualify them on publication date alone.
• References published after March 1, 2004 with filing/priority after that date cannot be § 102 art at all. I flag these.

---

2. The claims being tested (cross-reference to prior sections)

Per the previously generated claim overview, the independent claims are claim 1 (method), claim 13 (mobile device), and claim 18 (mobile device with phone + operating system + touch screen). The limitations that are hardest to meet with the cited art are:

• L-a channel application memory plus a feed store with channel-specific memory addresses;
• L-b channel data replaced in the feed store when updated data arrives;
• L-c access to channel data restricted to the channel(s) it belongs to;
• L-d system channels (including a channel listing channel of available channels) and restriction of system channel data to the system channels (claims 1, 13, 18);
• L-e display by retrieving channel data from the on-device feed store (offline-cache display).

---

3. Most relevant cited prior art (with claim mapping and § 102 basis)

These are the cited references whose subject matter most closely overlaps the limitations above. Citations are given exactly as they appear in the patent's citation record. "Potentially anticipates" reflects a title/record-level preliminary reading — a true § 102 rejection requires a single reference to disclose every limitation, which none of these demonstrably does on the face of the record.

Secondary but still-cited references worth noting

• US 6,578,068 B1 (Accenture LLP, "Load balancer in environment services patterns," 1999-08-31 / 2003-06-10) — § 102(a)/(e). Server-side content distribution architecture.
• US 6,640,248 B1 (Malibu Networks, "Application-aware, QoS-sensitive MAC layer," 1998-07-10 / 2003-10-28) — § 102(a)/(e). Transport-layer QoS.
• US 6,687,224 B1 (Orckit Communications, "Bandwidth sharing method," 2000-02-28 / 2004-02-03) — § 102(a)/(e).
• US 2003/0134645 A1 (Stern Edith H., "Method and apparatus for providing data," 2002-01-16 / 2003-07-17) — § 102(a).
• These four are bandwidth/QoS/network-management references. They bear on claims 3, 4, 14 (update scheduling) but are not close to L-a–L-d.

---

4. Complete verified inventory (first 32 of the 62 citations)

These are the entries I could read directly from the patent's citation record, verbatim. Dates are the record's priority and publication dates.

Entries 33–62 were not retrievable from the provided text or my searches. I am not going to reconstruct them from memory, because doing so would risk inventing citations.

---

5. Secondary reference set from the family record (with an explicit date caveat)

FreePatentsOnline's record for 7822428 additionally lists these "US Patent References." Caveat: several carry post-2004 publication dates, which is only consistent with § 102(e) if their underlying U.S. filings predate 2004-03-01; two of them (entries 9 and 21 below) have publication dates in 2007 that suggest post-2004 filings, which would make them non-prior-art for § 102 purposes unless a pre-2004 priority basis exists. I flag this rather than treat the list as automatically qualifying art.

Discrepancy flagged (consistent with the earlier generated section): the dominant theme of both citation sets is bandwidth/QoS/network-management and generic streaming-delivery art, not mobile multi-channel rich-media UI art. This is consistent with the patent's cross-reference to the concurrently filed "Bandwidth Management System" application (cited in the specification as both U.S. Pat. No. 7,478,148 and U.S. Pat. No. 7,478,158 — reported literally, not corrected, per the prior section's flag). No contradiction with the earlier sections; the discrepancy is reproducible.

---

6. Prior art acknowledged inside the specification (§ 102(b)/(a) by admission)

These are not "patent citations of record" but are the applicant's own admissions of prior art, and are frequently the most damaging art:

Because the applicant admitted these in the specification, they are § 102(b) art as of the filing date and are the natural starting point for any invalidity theory (AvantGo-type cached-page browsing is the closest admission to limitations L-a/L-e).

---

7. What is not prior art here

• The "Cited By (12)" list on Google Patents (e.g., US 2009/0157480 A1 Smith; US 2010/0191831 A1 NHN; US 7,214,619 B1 Adobe; US 8,565,739 B2 Adobe; US 2013/0179546 A1 KT; US 2013/0237185 A1 Adobe) consists of later documents citing 7822428. They are not § 102 art and should not be charted as such. (Confirming the prior section's litigation finding: these are forward citations, not litigation signals.)
• The cross-referenced, commonly owned application 10/791,299 and the "Bandwidth Management System" patent(s) are common-ownership materials. They are more useful as § 103 context and as incorporated-by-reference disclosure than as standalone § 102 art.

---

8. Overall anticipation assessment

Bottom line: no cited reference appears, on the face of the record, to anticipate independent claims 1, 13, or 18 under § 102. The patent's novelty effectively resides in the combination of:

1. a per-channel feed store with channel-specific addresses (L-a),
2. replace-in-place updates from a subscriber-specific pushed stream (L-b),
3. per-channel data-access gating (L-c), and
4. a system-channel tier — including a channel-listing channel — whose data is access-restricted to system channels (L-d),

delivered through an on-device interactive-media runtime (iMRC, e.g., Flash Player). The cited art is heavily weighted toward bandwidth/QoS/streaming-management (which touches only claims 3, 4, 14) and toward generic rich-media delivery, and only two cited references come near the access-restriction limitations (US 6,732,179 for user-resource restriction; none appears to disclose channel-specific data-block gating plus the system-channel access tier).

The realistic invalidity posture is § 103 combinations, e.g.:

• AvantGo/push-browser cached-content art (specification admissions) + US 2002/0107830 A1 (client-side aggregation/caching to handheld) + US 6,725,022 B1 (content selection on wireless device), optionally with US 6,732,179 B1 for the access-restriction element;
• US 2003/0003899 A1 (data broadcasting to a receiving terminal) + US 6,732,179 B1;
• US 2004/0158855 A1 or US 2004/0128342 A1 + the caching and subscription references.

Claim-by-claim risk snapshot

---

9. Caveats and limitations (stated plainly)

1. Incomplete citation coverage. I document 32 of 62 patent citations verbatim; entries 33–62 were not retrievable within my search budget. Entry 32 (US 6,819,669 B2) is truncated in the source (assignee begins "Inter…"; title unavailable) and I have not guessed it.
2. Title-level analysis only. I analyzed references from their citation records and titles, not from full-text claim charts. A genuine § 102(a)/(b)/(e) determination requires element-by-element comparison against claim 1/13/18, which I have only flagged as preliminary.
3. Prosecution history not retrieved. I did not obtain the examiner's Office Actions or the Notice of Allowance for 10/791,298, so I cannot say which of these references the examiner actually applied versus merely cited. That distinction materially affects the § 102 analysis and is the single most valuable next step (USPTO PatentCenter → application 10/791,298 → "Application Data" / IFW).
4. Date-status flags. Two FPO-listed references (US 2007/0094086 A1; US 2007/0055615 A1) have publication dates that raise a real question whether they qualify as § 102 art at all for a 2004-03-01 filing; I have flagged rather than assumed.
5. No contradiction with the earlier sections, except that this section confirms (rather than resolves) the 7,478,148 / 7,478,158 identifier discrepancy and the absence of any litigation signal — both consistent with the previously generated "Patent summary" and "Litigation summary."

If you want a definitive § 102 chart, the next actions are: (a) pull the file wrapper for 10/791,298 to identify the references the examiner actually applied; (b) retrieve citations 33–62 from the patent's front page; and (c) obtain the full text of US 2002/0107830 A1, US 6,725,022 B1, US 6,732,179 B1, and US 2003/0003899 A1 for element-by-element comparison.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual prior-art references listed in the patent's Citations and Cited By sections. Let me verify the disclosures of the most promising references.

Let me verify several more references central to the claim elements.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,822,428 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Building on the prior "Patent summary" and "Litigation summary" sections. That earlier work established the claim structure, the priority date (March 1, 2004), and the assignee chain. This section adds the § 103 merits.

---

1. Preliminary framing

Governing law. Because the application was filed March 1, 2004, this is a pre‑AIA analysis: § 103(a) as it stood then, with § 102(e) available for U.S. published applications that were filed before the applicant's filing date (even if they published afterwards). Validation follows Graham v. John Deere (scope/content of prior art; differences; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations) and KSR Int'l v. Teleflex (rationales beyond strict "teaching, suggestion, motivation," including design incentives, market forces, and "obvious to try").

Two cautionary notes about the prior-art dataset (important).

1. The "Cited By (12)" list is largely not § 103 prior art. US 2009/0157480, US 2010/0191831, US 2011/0162020, US 8,214,619, US 2013/0179546, US 8,565,739, US 2014/0215350, US 2015/0141065, US 9,325,805, US 10,368,126, US 10,419,533, and US 11,330,046 all post‑date the March 1, 2004 filing (or, for the few with earlier effective dates, were cited by examiners in later cases, not against this one). They cannot be used for obviousness here and I exclude them. (Note US 8,214,619, "Memory allocation in a mobile device," Adobe Systems, 2007 — again post‑priority.)

2. Most of the 62 "Citations" are bandwidth/QoS references irrelevant to the claimed subject matter. US 6,002,675 (Cabletron), US 6,640,248 (Malibu), US 6,687,224 (Orckit), US 2004/0030797 (Akinlar), US 2004/0199635 (Ta), US 2003/0093530 (Syed), US 2003/0093515 (Kauffman), US 2003/0005455 (Bowers), US 2004/0090943 (Da Costa), US 2004/0071145 (LG), US 5,727,171 (IBM), US 6,578,068 (Accenture) are about traffic shaping, rate governance, and load balancing. They recite essentially nothing about channels, rich-media runtimes, or on-device feed stores. A credible § 103 attack must rest on the content/presentation references, which is where I focus.

Verified reference disclosures used below (I retrieved and read the substantive text of each; URLs cited):

References I could not independently verify in full (title/metadata only) — US 2002/0078158 A1 (Brown, "E-mail messaging system and method for enhanced rich media delivery"), US 2002/0106998 A1 (Presley, "Wireless rich media conferencing"), US 2004/0128342 A1 (IBM, "multi‑modal interactive streaming media applications"), US 2003/0059039 A1 (Teleware), US 6,725,022 B1 (Motorola, "enabling the selection of content on a wireless communication device"), US 2004/0073693 A1 (Slater, "Media playing"), US 2004/0158855 A1 (Gu). I use these only for secondary/cumulative points and flag them as title‑level.

Level of ordinary skill (PHOSITA). A bachelor's degree in CS/EE plus ~2–3 years of experience in mobile/wireless application development, or equivalent. Such a person would know: wireless data protocols (HTTP, SMS, UDP), mobile OS platforms (Symbian OS, Windows CE, BREW — the patent's own examples), vector‑graphics rich‑media runtimes (Flash/Flash Player), client‑side caching/delta synchronization, EPG/subscription content models from cable/digital TV, and basic access‑control/sandboxing design.

---

2. Claim 1, element-by-element

Net: Claim 1 is a combination claim. No single reference of record discloses every limitation (the examiner clearly agreed — the patent issued). But every limitation individually has strong prior‑art support, and the combination is the kind KSR contemplates.

---

3. The strongest § 103 combination

Primary: Mitchelmore (US 2002/0090934 A1) in view of Tashiro (US 2003/0003899 A1), further in view of Murthi (US 2002/0107830 A1) and At Home (US 6,732,179).

Why Mitchelmore as primary. It is the only reference of record that supplies, as a package: (i) a handheld delivery platform, (ii) an explicit "channel" content model, (iii) a subscription UI listing subscribed‑to channels and a "list of all channels available" (i.e., a channel‑listing channel), and (iv) per‑channel subscription functions and embedded subscription/payment. That covers claim 1(a) and much of 1(e) plus claim 2.

What Mitchelmore lacks and the secondaries supply.

• On‑device channel data store with replacement‑on‑update (1(b)(ii)–(iii)) → Tashiro, which expressly teaches a mobile receiving terminal that stores channel content in memory and periodically overwrites it under defined regimes, and expressly describes "automatic filtering and storing" of channels the user selected.
• Client‑side aggregation and push‑on‑new‑information, offline browse (1(b)(ii), 1(c), claims 3–4) → Murthi, which teaches an on‑device aggregated content store populated whenever new information exists and browsable without a live connection.
• Per‑resource access restriction and system‑channel gating (1(b)(iv), 1(e), claims 9–11) → At Home, which teaches ACL‑enforced restriction of client resources per origin, EPG/channel‑lineup APIs, and the ability to restrict guide data to a given channel or network.
• Rich‑media presentation runtime that receives distributed files and re‑displays/replaces them (1(b)(i), claims 5–7) → VocalTec ("interactive display application"; cyclic replacement of presentation segments).

Motivation to combine (KSR‑style rationales, tied to the references):

1. Same field, same problem. All four references address delivering content to bandwidth‑ and memory‑constrained client devices. The '428 patent's own Background frames the problem as microbrowser latency and device/bandwidth restrictions; Murthi frames it as avoiding "increasing cellular charges" from per‑page sessions; Tashiro frames it as making data broadcast usable on mobile/portable terminals; At Home frames it as constraining what servers may do on a subscriber's client; VocalTec frames it as avoiding the "relatively long delay" of whole‑file streaming. A PHOSITA improving the mobile information experience would naturally consult all four.

2. Predictable result / combination of known techniques. Client‑side caching of server‑pushed content (Murthi), segmented presentation files replaced in place (VocalTec), overwrite‑on‑update of stored channel data (Tashiro), and ACL‑based gating of client resources (At Home) are each known, independent techniques with predictable interactions. Combining them yields nothing more than the expected aggregate: lower latency, reduced airtime, and controlled access. KSR teaches that this is enough.

3. Market/design incentive — the TV metaphor. The claim's "channel"/"channel listing" architecture is the cable‑TV metaphor (subscription tiers, EPG, channel surfing). At Home is a cable‑set‑top patent explicitly describing tiered subscriptions and EPG‑based channel navigation; Tashiro is a digital data‑broadcast system with an EPG. Porting a familiar TV/EPG channel model onto a mobile rich‑media client was the obvious design direction for a "mobile rich media information system" — indeed it is the patent's stated goal.

4. Design incentive to offload rendering to the client. Given known limits on mobile bandwidth and CPU, a PHOSITA would be motivated to (a) push deltas rather than full pages (Murthi: transfer "whenever there is new information"), (b) render locally with a vector runtime to save bytes (the patent's own rationale for Flash), driving the "channel application memory" + "feed store" split.

5. Reasonable expectation of success. Every component was independently operational by 2002–2003; there was no technological barrier to combining server‑side channel compilation, client‑side feed storage, and per‑channel access gating.

Secondary, cumulative references (title‑level only; useful for filling dependent claims, not for claim 1): Motorola US 6,725,022 B1 (content selection on a wireless communication device — claim 12 navigation mechanism context); Teleware US 2003/0059039 A1 (WAN wireless telephone multi‑media management — claim 18 phone+OS context); IBM US 2004/0128342 A1 (multi‑modal interactive streaming media applications — claims 5–6 runtime context); Brown US 2002/0078158 A1 (rich‑media delivery — background).

---

4. Dependent claims

Assuming claim 1 is held obvious, the dependents do not add meaningful patentable weight — each maps to a reference of record:

• Claim 2 (preferences): Mitchelmore's subscription‑properties dialog; Murthi's data‑aggregator configuration utility; At Home's viewer accounts/preferences.
• Claim 3 (automatic content updates): Tashiro's automatic filtering/storing; Murthi's transfer on new information.
• Claim 4 (updates responsive to an update‑available signal or elapsed period): Murthi expressly — sync "whenever there is new information" (update‑available) or at a "predetermined time of the day"/idle state (elapsed period).
• Claims 5–6 (iMRC; combining channel data with application logic): VocalTec's interactive display application combining received files for display; At Home's shell/JVM rendering engine.
• Claim 7 (application logic preexisting or downloaded on subscription): Murthi (preexisting on device) vs. Mitchelmore/At Home (downloaded JAVASCRIPT/channel apps on subscribe).
• Claim 8 (automatic logic updates): same references.
• Claims 9–11 (system‑channel data stream; display system channel; restrict system‑channel access; channel listing): Tashiro (EPG as a system channel of available channels) + At Home (stored EPG/channel‑lineup APIs; ACL restricts guide data to a channel/network). Mitchelmore supplies the "all channels available" listing.
• Claim 12 (navigational mechanism): Motorola US 6,725,022; At Home's remote/UI navigation; the joystick/5‑way keys are conventional.
• Claims 13–17 (device claims mirroring 1, 2‑ish, 9‑ish, plus headline channel): same mappings; claim 16's "headline channel summarizing subscribed‑to channels" is a conventional aggregation of the channel listing/EPG content (Tashiro's multi‑channel EPG; Mitchelmore's channel list).
• Claims 18–20 (phone + OS + touch screen; delta updates without full data change; per‑channel storage‑block access rights): Touch screens on PDAs/phones were well known (Murthi expressly lists "PDAs, cellular telephones, or web tablets"); claim 19's delta update = Tashiro/Murthi; claim 20's "only access rights to the storage block that directly corresponds" = the At Home ACL principle applied to memory partitions.

---

5. Weak points in the obviousness case (candid assessment)

1. The per‑channel data‑isolation limitation is the hardest to meet. Claim 1(b)(iv) and claim 20 require that access to stored channel data be restricted to the channel it belongs to. At Home restricts API functions by origin and guide data by channel/network; it does not describe an app being walled off from another app's storage block. The rebuttal available to a patentee is that the references teach access to server‑side/guide resources, not client memory partition isolation. The counter is that process/application data isolation and per‑object ACLs were routine; but a KSR-style "design choice" argument is contestable. This is the single limitation most likely to defeat a summary § 103 challenge.

2. The examiner already considered these references and allowed the claims. These are the examiner‑cited references of record; the patent issued with them on the face of the document. Whatever combination the examiner evaluated, it was not deemed to reach the claimed subject matter. That is meaningful evidence (though not dispositive) that at least one limitation — likely the isolation/system‑channel gating combination — was viewed as nonobvious. Any § 103 attack must therefore supply more than the references alone: an explicit articulation of why the ordinary artisan would have rearranged these specific teachings into the claimed configuration.

3. The strongest references cut in different directions. Tashiro is a broadcast (one‑to‑many satellite) model with no client‑to‑server subscription interaction of the kind claim 1(a) requires; Mitchelmore is a pull/distribution platform that does not clearly describe a separate, persistent on‑device feed store with channel‑specific addressing and replacement. Joining them requires the Murthi bridge (client‑side aggregation + push + offline cache), which in turn is a desktop‑mediated sync model, not a wireless push model. The combination is coherent but requires three hops, and a patentee will argue the hops are hindsight‑driven.

4. No secondary‑considerations evidence either way. I found no documented unexpected results, industry praise, or licensing/nexus evidence in the record (consistent with the "no known litigation" finding in the prior section). Absent such evidence, the § 103 case rests entirely on the references and the motivation rationales.

5. The US 12/882,438 continuation / US 2013/0237185 A1 adds no § 103 leverage (same disclosure; abandoned). And the "Cited By" list cannot be used as prior art (see § 1, note 1).

---

6. Bottom line

• Claim 1 is vulnerable to a § 103 rejection on Mitchelmore + Tashiro + Murthi + At Home, with VocalTec for the runtime limitation. Every limitation except the per‑channel data‑isolation clause (1(b)(iv)) has express, verified support; the isolation clause is met by At Home's ACL/walled‑garden teaching only by extension. Combined with KSR rationales (same field, predictable aggregation of caching + delta update + access control, the TV/EPG metaphor, offload‑rendering design incentive), the case is substantial but not a lock.
• The dependents (2–12, 14–17, 19–20) add essentially nothing beyond the same references; they fall with claim 1.
• Claim 18's touch‑screen/phone/OS limitations are conventional and well‑supported by the prior art (PDAs/cellular telephones with touch input were known); the claim's weight again rests on the channel/feed‑store/isolation core, i.e., on claim 1.
• The decisive battleground is limitation 1(b)(iv)/claim 20 (restricting stored channel data access to the owning channel) and the three‑hop combination required to get there. A patentee's best defense is a written‑description/specifically‑taught non‑obviousness argument about client‑side memory isolation that no single reference of record discloses.

Confidence: High on the individual element mappings for Mitchelmore, Tashiro, Murthi, and At Home (verified text), and on the exclusion of the "Cited By" references. Moderate on the ultimate § 103 conclusion, because of the isolation limitation and the fact that the examiner allowed over this exact art. Low/N‑A on secondary considerations (no evidence found either way).

Note: I have kept the cross‑reference discrepancy from the earlier "Patent summary" section intact — the specification cites the "Bandwidth Management System" patent as both U.S. Pat. No. 7,478,148 and 7,478,158; both are reported literally and neither changes this § 103 analysis.